Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T22:30:29.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Multi-functional D-band I/Q modulator/demodulator MMICs in SiGe BiCMOS technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2018

Sona Carpenter*
Affiliation:
Microwave Electronics Laboratory, Department of Microtechnology and Nanoscience, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
Zhongxia Simon He
Affiliation:
Microwave Electronics Laboratory, Department of Microtechnology and Nanoscience, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
Herbert Zirath
Affiliation:
Microwave Electronics Laboratory, Department of Microtechnology and Nanoscience, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
*
Author for correspondence: Sona Carpenter, E-mail: sona@chalmers.se
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the design and characterization of a D-band (110–170 GHz) monolithic microwave integrated direct carrier quadrature modulator and demodulator circuits with on-chip quadrature local oscillator (LO) phase shifter and radio frequency (RF) balun fabricated in a 130 nm SiGe BiCMOS process with ft/fmax of 250 GHz/400 GHz. These circuits are suitable for low-power ultra-high-speed wireless communication and can be used in both homodyne and heterodyne architectures. In single-sideband operation, the modulator demonstrates a maximum conversion gain of 9.8 dB with 3-dB RF bandwidth of 33 GHz (from 119 GHz to 152 GHz). The measured image rejection ratio (IRR) and LO suppression are 19 dB and 31 dB, respectively. The output P1dB is −4 dBm at 140 GHz RF and 1 GHz intermediate frequency (IF) and the chip consumes 53 mW dc power. The demodulator, characterized as an image reject mixer, exhibits 10 dB conversion gain with 23-dB IRR. The measured 3-dB RF bandwidth is 36 GHz and the IF bandwidth is 18 GHz. The active area of both the chips is 620 µm × 480 µm including the RF and LO baluns. A 12-Gbit/s QPSK data transmission using 131-GHz carrier signal is demonstrated on modulator with measured modulator-to-receiver error vector magnitude of 21%.

Information

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and the European Microwave Association 2018 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Three-dimensional (3D) layout of a multilayer on-chip inductor. (b) The 3D layout of the RF/LO balun. (c) Chip photograph of back-to-back connected Marchand baluns as a testing structure.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. (a) Measured insertion loss of back-to-back connected Marchand baluns. (b) Simulated amplitude imbalance and phase difference between output ports of Marchand balun.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. (a) Block diagram. (b) Schematic diagram of the quadrature modulator.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Chip photograph of the quadrature modulator. The active chip size including the RF/LO baluns and the LO hybrid is 620 µm×480 µm.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. (a) The CW measurement setup of the I/Q modulator. (b) Measured output P1dB versus RF frequency at 1 GHz IF.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. (a) Conversion gain versus IF frequency at 126 GHz LO. (b) Conversion gain versus LO frequency at 1 GHz IF. (c) Conversion gain versus input power at 1 GHz IF and 131 GHz RF.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of the quadrature demodulator circuit.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Chip photograph of the demodulator chip. The active chip size is 620 μm × 480 µm, including the RF/LO baluns and the LO hybrid.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. (a) CW measurement setup of the quadrature demodulator. (b) Conversion gain versus RF frequency at different LO frequencies.

Figure 9

Fig. 10. (a) Measured conversion gain and image rejection ratio versus LO frequency at 1 GHz IF. (b) Measured conversion gain and output power at 1 GHz versus RF power at 138 GHz. (c) Simulated SSB noise figure versus RF frequency at 1 GHz IF.

Figure 10

Fig. 11. Experimental setup for data transmission test.

Figure 11

Fig. 12. Received signal constellation diagram of (a) 4 Gbit/s 16QAM, (b) 3 Gbit/s 8PSK, and (c) 12 Gbit/s QPSK.

Figure 12

Table 1. Performance comparison of up-converting mixers

Figure 13

Table 2. Performance comparison of down-converting mixers