This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

OPA838: RF – Small Signal Low Noise Amplification and Demodulation

Part Number: OPA838
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: OPA820, , OPA684, OPA683, TLV3501, LM2596, LM2674, TLE2426, LM27762, TINA-TI, LMV7219

Due to the requirements of the application, most notably temperature and vibration, I have been unable to find suitable RF LNA or OOK demodulation packages as off-the-shelf products.  Therefore I am designing a receiver specifically for this application.  I encountering several problems in the design of this receiver. 

Key Questions:

  • Why the distorted output from the high Q band-pass filter?
  • Why does the third amplifier stage not amplify in “realistic” simulations using Boyle model?
  • Why do the amplifiers not manage large signals very well?

The rest of this document is an effort to give a detailed description the shortcomings of this receiver design as it relates to questions 1-3.

  

APPLICATION

I am building an RF receiver to receive a transmitted serial data stream.  The receiver can be very close to the transmitter, which results in a very strong signal being received.  The receiver must be able to demodulate a very large signal (as large as +24 dBm).  The receiver can also be very far from the transmitter, which results in a very weak signal being received.  The receiver must be able to demodulate a very small signal (as small as -56 dBm). 

The RF transmitter is transmitting a 1.5 MHz carrier wave.  The transmitter modulates the carrier wave using On-Off Keying at a frequency of 133 KHz to encode the serial data stream message.  A dominant bit is transmitted as a 7.5us burst of 1.5 MHz carrier wave.  A recessive bit is transmitted when the carrier wave is switched off.

  

  RECEIVER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

  • Environment
    • 125°C Maximum Operating Temperature
  • Receive RF Signal From Antenna
    • On-Off Keying (OOK) modulation
    • Carrier Frequency = 1.5 MHz
    • Message Frequency = 133 KHz
  • Small Signal Amplification
    • V_IN_MIN = 0.001 Vpp (-56.02 dBm)
    • V_OUT_MIN = 2 Vrms (19.03 dBm)
    • Total Gain Required >= 75 dBm
    • Amplification Factor = ~5,500 V/V
  • Large Signal Attenuation
    • Max Attenuation Required >= -1.43 dBm
    • AMPLIFICATION FACTOR = ~5,500 V/V
    • V_IN_MAX = 10 Vpp (23.98 dBm)
    • V_OUT_MAX = 3 Vrms (22.55 dBm)
  • FILTER
    • Isolate carrier frequency in very noisy environment
    • Implement high Q factor band pass filter (Q>=10)
  • DEMODULATION
    • Implement envelope detector
    • INPUT MODULATION = ON OFF KEYING (OOK)
    • CARRIER FREQUENCY = 1.5 MHz
    • MESSAGE FREQUENCY = 133 KHz
    • DOMINANT BIT = SIN WAVE
    • RECESSIVE BIT = NO SIN WAVE
    • OUTPUT MODULATION = SERIAL DIGITAL
    • DOMINANT BIT = 0 VOLT
    • RECESSIVE BIT = 5 VOLT
    • OUTPUT RAMP TIME <= 0.5uS
    • OUTPUT FALL TIME <= 1.5 uS

 RECEIVER DESIGN

 

Question 1 – Why does the filter output look distorted?

This topology is configured according to Figure 60 of the datasheet for the OPA820.  The filter has been designed for a cutoff frequency of 1.5 MHz with a Q of 10 according to the design procedure described in section 10.2.1.2.1 of the OPA820’s datasheet. 

The AC response of the filter performs as expected.  However, the transient response is not acceptable for the following demodulation stage.  In ideal simulations, the high Q band-pass filter output “rings” when the carrier signal is removed, and “charges” when the carrier signal is applied.  What do I need to do to make the output look just like the input? 

   

 

 Question 2 – Why don’t these opamps amplify as expected using Boyle Model?

This topology is configured according to Figure 75 of the datasheet for the OPA838.  The amplifier has been designed for 50Ω Impedance, and is configured in 3 stages.  To reduce noise amplification, he first stage produces 50% of the total gain (45 dBm), the second produces 30% of the total gain (30 dBm), and the third produces 20% of the total gain (23 dBm).  The datasheet contains recommended resistor values for gains ranging from 15 dBm to 26 dBm.  As stage 1 and 2 require more than 26 dBm gain, resistor values have been derived.  Care has been taken to maintain the relationship between Ri and Rf displayed in table 2 of the data sheet. 

In more realistic simulations, using Boyle model for the opamps, the first amplifier stage amplifies the signal as expected.  However, in the 2nd and 3rd stage, the signal isn’t amplified at all, it is actually attenuated to the point that it is weaker than the input signal.  This does not occur with the more ideal models like the 3-stage model.  What do I need to do to fix this issue?  Is this some sort of impedance matching issue? 

    

QUESTION 3 – Why don’t these amplifiers like larger signals?

Using the ideal model for the opamps, a small signal can be amplified as expected from 1uVpp to 10uVpp.  However, above 100uVpp, the amplifier does not behave as expected. It behaves as if it has been overloaded, or “jammed”.  How can I fix this problem? 

 

  • Hi Kai, I've had to swap the TLV3501 comparator to a the LMV7220 due to availability shortages of the SOT-23 package.   On TI's site for eh LMV7220, there is no spice model available, however, examples are provided with the LMV7219.  I moved forward under the assumption that the spice model for the LMV7220 is the same as the LMV7219.  If that is a correct assumption, the results are nearly identical to the simulation of the TLV3501 we modeled earlier.  

    RECEIVER_COMP_SWAP.TSC

  • Update on progress - PCB has been built and is working as intended, except for one part.  The comparator reference voltage "Vb4" is being measured as ~850mV, not the ~400mV that was designed/simulated.  I have probed just about everything in the vicinity of the comparator, and all solder joints seem to be connected properly.  I'm at a loss as to why reality is not matching the simulation here.  attached is the TINA simulation i have made for this stage of the receiver. 

    Any ideas as to why the "Vb4" seems to be off in reality?

     comparator.TSC

  • Hi Ryan,

    this has to do with the fact that R4 and R5 are equal and that R4 is much bigger than R6. This makes that the voltage divider is different when the LMV7219 is emitting low level and high level. In the first case, R4 is in parallel with R6 and in the second case, R4 is in parallel with R5. You would not see this when the LMV7219 gets an AC signal of sufficient high frequency at its input, because the decoupling caps would average out the difference. But in static case, without AC signal, you will see the difference:

    ryan_opa838_9.TSC

    Kai

  • Thank you Kai, this makes sense.  While i was tracking down this issue, several others came up.  Apologies for the slow response, I have spent a lot of time debugging this receiver.  When I posted this question, I was using a signal generator to create the receiver's input.  All stages seem to work well when using the unmodulated signal (sine wave) from the signal generator.  I have moved on to testing the receiver with the actual antennas and while transmitting a modulated signal.  I'm seeing a few issues here, any I really don't know where to begin to resolve them.  I'm thinking to start with a fresh PCB, and solder one stage at a time, and make sure that stage works correctly before moving to the next one.  what do you think?

    Signal from antenna, seems to be good.  no reflections or ringing from the antennas.

    amp/filter Stage 1 is pretty noise, but it is possible to see the modulated signal, even though it isn't as clean as the antenna's input.

    amp/filter Stage 2 is actually cleaner than stage 1, and it is possible to pick out the bursts from the lack of bursts.  Also, the signal is slightly amplified as expected.

    amp/filter Stage 3 is pretty messy.  I can see the bursts, but there is a lot of noise where there shouldn't be.

    envelope detector Stage 4 is suffering from the noisy output from stage 3.  We're going to have a lot of trouble demodulating this signal.  

    Also, for your reference, here is a background noise SA.  This was performed while the DUT and transmitter were powered down.  

  • Hi Ryan,

    is the gain too high? Is the signal overloading the input?

    How does it look like when you omit the bandpass filter?

    Kai

  • Thanks for the insight and orientation Kai.  I have gone through and removed all of the filters, which required some pretty fancy soldering of jumpers for the 0603 capacitors... I have to pat myself on the back for that :)..  

    I would say my overall assessment is that this seems to have cleaned up the signal quite a bit.  However, I'm stage 2 is not behaving as i would expect, and it looks like i need to reduce the resistance to ground of the envelop detector to decrease fall off time.  

    Below are illustrations of the components that were deleted for each amp:

    It looks like this has cleaned up the outputs quite well, so we are moving in the right direction.  The scope captures are as follows:

    Antenna Input:

    Amp Stage 1:

    Amp Stage 2:

    Amp Stage 3

    Envelope Detector Output: