Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T08:06:35.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Considerations on the de-embedding of differential devices using two-port techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2010

Vadim Issakov ,
Maciej Wojnowski ,
Andreas Thiede  and
Robert Weigel
Vadim Issakov*
Affiliation:
Department of High-Frequency Electronics, University of Paderborn, Warburgerstr. 100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany.
Maciej Wojnowski
Affiliation:
Infineon Technologies AG, Am Campeon 1-12, D-85579 Neubiberg, Germany. Institute for Electronics Engineering, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Cauerstr. 9, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany.
Andreas Thiede
Affiliation:
Department of High-Frequency Electronics, University of Paderborn, Warburgerstr. 100, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany.
Robert Weigel
Affiliation:
Institute for Electronics Engineering, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Cauerstr. 9, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany.
*
Corresponding author: Vadim Issakov E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Differential signaling is very common for high frequency integrated circuit design. Accurate multimode de-embedding at multigigahertz frequencies, however, is a major challenge. The differential and common-mode parameters can be obtained by converting the measured four-port nodal S-parameters into the mixed-mode form. Under certain conditions, it is possible to separate the modes and consider only the entries corresponding to the differential S-parameters. This allows to reduce the measured 4 × 4 matrix to a 2 × 2 matrix and consider the differential device as a two-port network. Thus, the standard de-embedding techniques, derived for two-port networks, can be applied to differential S-parameters. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the applicability of this approach for on-wafer measurements. We describe analytically the conditions under which this method is valid. As an example, a 2:1 transformer, manufactured in Infineon's 0.13 μm CMOS (complementary metal-oxide semiconductor) process, has been characterized. On-chip de-embedding structures have been fabricated using the same process. The results obtained using Short-Open, Thru-Line, and Thru-Line-Reflect de-embedding techniques are compared. Additionally, the results are verified by simulation of a device under test having high-mode conversion.

Keywords

De-embeddingDifferential devicesTRL
Type
Original Article
Information
International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies , Volume 2 , Special Issue 3-4: European Microwave Week 2009 , August 2010 , pp. 349 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and the European Microwave Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Bockelman, D.E.; Eisenstadt, W.R.: Combined differential and common mode scattering parameters: theory and simulation. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., 43 (1995), 1530–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Zwick, T.; Pfeiffer, U.: Pure-mode network analyzer concept for on-wafer measurements of differential circuits at millimeter-wave frequencies. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., 53 (2005), 934–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Seguinot, C. et al. : Multimode TRL – a new concept in microwave measurements: theory and experimental verification. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., 46 (1998), 536–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Steer, M.B. et al. : Introducing the through-line deembedding procedure, in IEEE MTT-S Symp. Dig., Albuquerque, USA, June 1992, 1455–1458.Google Scholar
[5]Engen, G.F.; Hoer, C.A.: Thru-reflect-line: an improved technique for calibrating the dual six-port automatic network analyzer. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., 27 (1979), 987–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Marks, R.B.: A multiline method of network analyzer calibration. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., 39 (1991), 1205–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Issakov, V.; Wojnowski, M.; Thiede, A.; Maurer, L.: Extension of thru de-embedding technique for asymmetrical and differential devices. IET Circuits Devices Syst. 3 (2009), 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Chiariello, A.G. et al. : A transmission-line model for full-wave analysis of mixed-mode propagation. IEEE Trans. Adv. Packag., 31 (2008), 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Ferrero, A.; Pirola, M.: Generalized mixed-mode S-parameters. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., 54 (1) (2006), 458–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Arz, U.; Williams, D.F.; Walker, D.K.; Grabinski, H.: Asymmetric coupled CMOS lines: an experimental study. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., 48 (12) (2000), 2409–2414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Schiml, T. et al. : A 0.13 µm cmos platform with cu/low-k interconnect for system on chip applications, in Proc. IEEE Symp. VLSI Technology Dig. Tech. Papers, Kyoto, Japan, June 2001, 101–102.Google Scholar
[12]Pozar, D.: Microwave Engineering, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, 1998, 217–221.Google Scholar
[13]Koolen, M.C.A.M.; Geelen, J.A.M.; Versleijen, M.P.J.G.: An improved de-embedding technique for on-wafer high-frequency characterization, in Proc. of BCTM, Minneapolis, USA, September 1991, 188–191.Google Scholar
[14]Wojnowski, M.; Engl, M.; Weigel, R.: Highly accurate frequency/time domain characterization of transmission lines and passives for SiP applications up to 65 GHz, in 69th ARFTG Conf. Dig., Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, June 2007, 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Issakov, V. et al. : Considerations on the measurement of active differential devices using baluns, in IEEE COMCAS, Tel-Aviv, Israel, November 2009, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar