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.

LMK04832: LMK04832 phase noise reduction. spur elimination for jitter sensitive clock distribution

Part Number: LMK04832
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: , CDCLVC1112, CDCLVP111

Hello,

we are using the PLL chip LMK04832 for generation of seven clocks (schematic attached). The function in general is ok. All required clocks and timing relationships between them are fine. The only problem we still have and can’t solve by our own at the moment, is a spur in the phase noise of 100MHz clock at 10MHz offset frequency (on PLL CLKout0 and CLKout2). Please see attached measurement diagram.

 

Some information about the circuit functions:

The PLL generates three 100MHz differential clocks (2x LVPECL and 1x LVDS), one 50MHz LVDS clock and three CMOS 10MHz clocks. In U100 the 50MHz clock is used to generate 10ns pulses with a frequency of 10MHz (LVPECL).

 

Out problem/tests:

As mentioned above we have to eliminate/reduce the spur at 10MHz offset to at least -140dBc, now it is at about 114dBc. We tried different PLL-settings, but we were not able to eliminate/reduce the spur at 10MHz offset.

What we did:

  1. We replaced all ferrit beads to Murata BLM18AG601SN1 (about 170 Ohm @10MHz). that improved the phase noise in the range 1kHz-1MHz by about 20dBc, but the spur at 10MHz stayed at 114dBc.
  2. When we switch of the 10MHz CMOS outputs (PLL out8 out9 and out10), the spur disappears (noise level @10MHz falls to -160dBc).
  3. When we change the output settings of 10MHz CMOS outputs (PLL out8 out9 and out 10) from “norm/inv” to “norm/norm”, then the spur rises to 104dBc
  4. When we remove R192 on out8 and switch off out9 and out10 (out8 is ‘free’ running as “norm/inv”), then the spur disappears (-160dBc At 10MHz offset). Whit this configuration, when we attach an oscilloscope probe (10:1, AC, 50ohm termination) to out8_p or out8_n PLL pins, then the spur is again there but with a level of about -142dBc.
  5. We have also a FPGA in our application. For these test we have deactivated the FPGA and program the PLL via TICS Pro software

 

Could you please support us with some solution proposals? We could do some additional measurements if needed.

 

A general question: Is it possible to generate ‘clean’ 100MHz LVPECL and at the same time 10MHz CMOS clocks with the LMK0483? At the moment my assumption is that the 10MHz cause internal or external power bouncing which influences the other outputs or the PLL loops.

 

Would it help to increase any decoupling caps? We used the capacitor values from LMK04832EVM schematic. Is that enough? Unfortunately we have not found any detailed application notes for the LMK0483. By the way, we see the same behavior as described in #4 also on the LMK04832EVM board.

 

Thank you in advance.

schem.pdf

  • Hello Sergej,

    The spur you are dealing with seems related to crosstalk. Isolationl -140 dBc can be quite challenging to reach within the IC environment.  To mitigate noise in dealing with crosstalk is to physically seperate the clocks as far as possible and ensure they are on seperate Clock groups. 

    Have you tried changing the noisy single ended signals to different outputs?

     If it possible to drive differential instead, this may help.

    Regards,

    Liam

  • Hello Liam,

     

    thank you for the answer.

     

    The clock traces are routed on inner layer and >20mm away from each other. X-talk between traces may be excluded.

     

    We made a lot of tests and also tried to change the noisy single ended signals to different LMK04832 outputs. The result was always the same. As soon the single ended 10Mhz output is on, the spur is there.

    Also when we set the 10MHz output to differential mode (LVDS), the spur gets lower (~130dBc), but is still there.

     

    After some other tests we can say that the spur depends on two things:

    -          termination of the single ended outputs. With AC termination (100nF) on single ended outputs the spur can be reduced to ~120dBc. Which is a good progress (we started at 114dBc) but is still too high for our application (~140dBc are needed). The same behavior we also see on the LMK04832 EVAL board. So we think that the chip LMK04832 itself cause the spur internally.

    -          The power bouncing influences the spur. I switched off the noisy 10MHz LMK04832 outputs, removed R192 from our board (disconnected our 10MHz buffer from PLL) and connected an external clock source to this 10MHz buffer. When the external source is off the spur disappears, when the ext source is on, the spur is there (~119dBc). So we have additionally some issues in the power distribution.

     

    Which termination for LVCMOS and LVPECL would you recommend for LMK04832 in such ‘sensitive’ applications?

     

     

     Sergej

  • After some additional measurements, we think that the spur at 10MHz depends strongly on correct LMK04832 LVCMOS output termination and also on disturbances via power lines from other 10MHz LVCMOS buffers (the 3.3V of PLL are filtered in the same way as on the LMK04832EVAL, but that seems to be not enough).

    I would like to ask you to give us as soon as possible answers to following questions:

    question #1:

    The single ended traces for LVCMOS clocks in our current PCB design have 65ohm (requirement from PXIe specification for 10MHZ clocks) and are connected via 10 ohm resistors to LMK04832 LVCMOS output pins, which is actually not optimal. Now we will change the PCB trace impedance to 50ohm. In our design we are using TI LVCMOS clock buffers CDCLVC1112 for noise sensitive 10MHz clocks. Which termination would you recommend for traces between LMK04832 LVCMOS output and CDCLVC1112 input? Is it recommended to implement AC-coupling (100nF in clock trace) between LMK04832 LVCMOS outputs and CDCLVC1112? Or should we connect the LVCMOS traces directly, without caps?

     

     

    Question #2.

    Would you recommend to use LDOs with high PSRR (>20dB@10MHz)? if yes, could you recommend us any parts? I think NCV8187AMT330TAG looks good for that purpose.

     

     

    Question #3:

    Would you recommend to use NPO capacitors for any PLL voltage? Or are X7R absolutely sufficient and NPO would lead to other troubles?

     

     

    Question #4:

    Is the capacity on LMK04832 power pins used in the LMK04832EVAL schematic sufficient for noise sensitive application or should we increase the capacity on any PLL power pins?

     

     

    Question 5:

    In our design, we are using TI clock buffers CDCLVP111 for differential noise sensitive 100MHz LVPECL clocks. Which termination would you recommend for traces between LMK04832 LVPECL output and CDCLVP111 input? The datasheet of CDCLVP111 recommends in Figure 13 termination with 130/82 ohm. The Application Report  http://www.ti.com/lit/an/scaa059c/scaa059c.pdf proposes two different AC terminations for LVPECL in Figure 3 and Figure 4 (with additional 150ohm to GND at transmitter side). Which one would you recommend?

     

    I hope we could receive very soon the information and can finalize our desing.

     

  • Hello,

    Please see below

     #1:  If you are not concerned about startup transient on waveform easier would be for AC coupling capacitors and 100 ohm differential across the CDCLVP input.

    At low freqeucy < 100 MHz a termination resistors of 240 ohms at the LMK04832 output P and N to GND would be recommended.

    Alternatively DC coupling is OK as well, just terminate each P and N seperately with pull up /pull down resistor to Vdd and GND to set the proper common mode input voltage.

    #2  What PSRR required largely depends on the system level noise and power supply tree. There are many TI LDO that can provide excellent PSRR for noise sensitive applications.

     3. X7R should be sufficient.

    4. Yes, the recommended decoupling in the EVM is sufficient for noise sensitive applications in most all PCB environments.

    5 See answer to #1