Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Band1
BPF
Band2
BPF
LO1
ADC
To DSP
LO2
Fig. 1.
Dual-band radio frequency transceivers have played a critical role in wireless communications in the 900 MHz-10.3 GHz
range. With cellular and cordless phone standards operating at
900 MHz and 1.8 GHz, the Global Positioning system (GPS)
at 1.2 and 1.5 GHz, Bluetooth at 2.4 GHz, wireless local area
network (WLAN) at 2.4, 5.2 and 5.8 GHz bands, and ultra
wideband (UWB) at 3.1-10.3 GHz, it is desirable to combine
one or more bands in one mobile unit.
Several dual band architectures, which are based on either direct conversion or heterodyne architectures, have been
proposed in the literature [1][3]. The main focus during
the design of these systems is to achieve the highest level
of integration by the reuse of the building blocks for the
two bands. Receiver budget distribution along the various
building blocks, such as low noise amplifier (LNA) and RF
mixer, is a challenging problem for the system designer.
Recently, a system-level design methodology for a singleband receiver to minimize the power consumption has been
proposed [4]. In the case of dual-band receivers, the budget
distribution for minimum power consumption still depends on
the experience of the designer. The main challenge in the
dual-band receiver system-level design is the change of the
performance specifications of the RF bandpass filter, LNA and
RF mixer (in terms of noise figure (N F ) and input referred
intercept point (IIP 3) and gain) at the two different frequency
bands. After the RF mixer, the two bands share the same
spectrum, and therefore both of them are treated equally. This
is demonstrated in Fig. 1 for the direct conversion receiver.
In this paper, a system-level design methodology for a dual
band receiver is presented. This methodology minimizes the
power consumptions by providing the optimum values of the
BPF
LNA
I. I NTRODUCTION
LNA
1014
Vdd
Vdd
RL
Cd1
Ld2
Ld1
Cd2
Ld
Vout
Lg1
Rs
Vb1
Rs
Lg2
Vin
Cg1
Cg2
Vout
Vb1
M2
M1
Lg1
Cg1
M2
Lg3
Vin
M1
Cg3
Lg2
Cg2
Ls
Ls
Vb2
(a)
Fig. 2.
(b)
(7)
,
(8)
V 2ni 2 2 KT
gm1
vsat L
16 I
16
V 2IIP 3 =
Vod
,
(9)
3 (o + 2vsat L)
3 gm1
2
gm1 RL .
(10)
A =
n
X
ai () ,
i=1
ai () =
8
<V 2ni,i
2
V
ni,i
: Qi1
2
j=1 Aj
1
V
2
IIP 3,ov ()
if i = 1
if i > 1
, bi () =
n
X
bi (),
i=1
8 1
<V2
if i = 1
if i > 1.
3,i
QIIP
i1
2
j=1 Aj
V2
IIP 3,i
(11)
1015
n
X
(12)
i=1
As indicated by equation (12), the power consumption independent on the operating frequency and therefore the overall
power consumption for the two bands is the same.
Similar analysis to [4] has been conducted to find the
optimum conditions for minimum power consumption. A
constraint optimization problem is solved using Lagrange
Multipliers, where the power consumption, defined in (12),
is the dependent variable to be minimized, the overall N Fov
and V 2IIP 3,ov are the constraints, and the input referred noise
voltage and input referred third order intercept point of each
building block are the independent variables. As a result, the
input referred noise voltage and IIP 3 of each block are:
V 2ni,i
V 2IIP 3,i
8
(N Fov ()1)KT 50
>
<
Pn
3
Pc,j
j=1
Pc,i
Pn
3
j=1 Aj
Pc,j
j=1
8
Pn
3
Pc,j
>
Pn
3
Pc,j Qi1
>
2
:V 2IIP 3,ov () j=1
3
j=1 Aj
Pc,i
if i = 1
(13)
if i > 1
if i = 1
(14)
if i > 1
Equations (13) and (14) show the conditions for the input
referred noise voltage and IIP 3 of each building block for
minimum power consumption. However, these equations do
not provide sufficient information about the values of the gain
of the blocks for minimum power consumption. For a singleband receiver, gain is considered a degree of freedom [4]. This
is not the case for a dual-band system, as shown below. To
emphasize the importance of gain, two cases are considered.
The first one considers an LNA with decreasing gain versus
frequency, and with a constant gain frequency response.
2
V 2IIP 3,ov (2 ) = V 2IIP 3,ov (1 )( )2 ,
1
n
X
p
V 2IIP 3,ov (1 )
2
3
Pc,j )3 ( )2 .
Pov =
(
(N Fov (2 ) 1)KT 50 j=1
1
N Fov (1 ) = 1 + (N Fov (2 ) 1)(
(N Fov () 1)KT 50
= (V 2ni,LN A (1 ) +
V 2ni,F ilter
2
LN A (1 )Amixer
+ A2
1
V
2
IIP 3,ov ()
= (V 2
IIP 3,LN A (1 )
+ )( 1 )2 (, 15)
A2LN A (1 )
V 2IIP 3,M ixer
+ )( 1 )2 ,
(16)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(N Fov () 1)KT 50
+ A2
2
V
ni,F ilter
LN A
1
V 2IIP 3,ov ()
= (V2
IIP 3,LN A
V 2ni,M ixer
A2LN A (1 )
(18)
The above result points out that the dynamic range of the
blocks is required to increase as the two frequency bands
are further apart. As a result, the total power consumption
increases. In the following part, it is shown that power
consumption may be decreased if the gain versus frequency
behavior of the LNA is kept constant.
(17)
(1 )
(1 )A2
mixer
( 1 )2 +
2
A2
LN A (1 )AM ixer
V2
IIP 3,F ilter
2
V
ni,M ixer
A2
(1 )
LN A
+ ),
(22)
A2
LN A (1 )
V2
IIP 3,M ixer
+ ),
(23)
1016
TABLE I
TABLE II
Pc,M ixer
Pc,F ilter
LNA
NF
[dB]
IIP3
[dBm]
RECEIVER
Mixer
Filter
A
[dB]
NF
[dB]
IIP3
[dBm]
NF
[dB]
IIP3
[dBm]
Case 1 (1 )
0.2
-3.4
16
20
19.3
D. Design Methodology:
Case 1 (2 )
0.82
9.6
20
19.3
Case 2 (1 )
0.6
-3.4
16
12.3
24.7
19.3
Case 2 (2 )
2.12
16
12.3
24.7
19.3
1017