Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T02:44:09.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ka-band single-pole double-throw switch in GaN MMIC technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2025

Seyed Urman Ghozati*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Cardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Queen’s Buildings, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
Roberto Quaglia
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Cardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Queen’s Buildings, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
*
Corresponding author: Seyed Urman Ghozati; Email: GhozatiSU@cardiff.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This work describes the design process of a single-pole double-throw (SPDT) microwave switch operating at Ka-band. It is tailored to a tunable reflective termination design that can be used in tunable power amplifier configurations. A high electron mobility transistor and a resonating network are employed in shunt configuration to enhance the performance in the output port’s active and inactive conditions. The small and large signal measurements showcase a 2 GHz bandwidth with an insertion loss and isolation better than −1.8 dB and −25 dB, respectively, and handling power levels of up to 3 W at 30.5 GHz. The load-pull measurements across the entire Smith chart offer comprehensive insights into the behavior of the SPDT when operating with complex and reactive loads, fulfilling the purpose of tunable reactive termination.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with The European Microwave Association.
Figure 0

Figure 1. The orthogonal load modulated balanced amplifier with a tunable reflective termination employing an SPDT to be introduced to two different reactive loads of $\mathrm{jX}_{1}^{\prime}$ and $\mathrm{jX}_{2}^{\prime}$.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Microphotograph of a five-finger gate device with a $100\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ gate width using NP12 technology (a), circuit diagram and biasing configuration of the same device (b), device performance through small signal characterization (c).

Figure 2

Table 1. Comparison of simplified switch characteristics between the NP12 and NP15 technologies

Figure 3

Figure 3. Simplified small signal model components for both ON and OFF conditions (a), return losses for both ON and OFF conditions (b), model and measured response comparison; magnitude of forward transmission (c), phase of forward transmission (d).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Reflective topology of the stand-alone shunt (a), measured device impedance transformation from low frequency to 30.5 GHz under both ON and OFF conditions ($Z0$ = 50Ω) (b).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Resonating network preceding the passive HEMT device (a), passive HEMT impedance transformation at 30.5 GHz: port active (b), port inactive (c).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Detailed schematic of the SPDT (a), insertion loss and isolation versus frequency (b), loss parameters (c).

Figure 7

Figure 7. Microphotograph of the SPDT switch. The size, without additional lines for testing $\approx 3.1 \times 1.0\ \mathrm{mm}^2$, with access lines $\approx 3.1 \times 1.8\ \mathrm{mm}^2$.

Figure 8

Figure 8. SPDT test fixture (a), small signal measurement system (b).

Figure 9

Figure 9. Insertion loss and isolation versus frequency (a), power gain and input reflection coefficient versus input power in port’s active and inactive conditions (b).

Figure 10

Table 2. Comparison of the designed MMIC with published GaN MMIC SPDTs

Figure 11

Figure 10. The passive load-pull measurement system at CSA Catapult (a), the block diagram of the same system (b).

Figure 12

Figure 11. $\Gamma_{\mathrm{IN}}$ (blue circles) versus $\Gamma_{\mathrm{L}}$ (black circles) included with power sweeps for port’s inactive condition (a), port’s active condition (b).

Figure 13

Figure 12. $\Gamma_{IN}$ variations at different power levels with various loads.