Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNIQUE
E-band spectrum has seen much development in recent years, particularly the 60 GHz unlicensed
band, driven by 5G backhaul and 802.11ad. Noise figure measurements at this frequency present
challenges to even the most experienced test engineers. As a measurement applications
engineer, I’m often asked, “what method should I use to make 60 GHz noise figure
measurements?” The answer: “it depends.” It sparks the familiar tradeoff between ease of use
and accuracy. Minimizing system errors and uncertainties often requires more up-front
preparation and work. This tradeoff is especially applicable when comparing the two noise figure
measurement methods: Y-factor and cold source. Both methods have advantages, tradeoffs,
and limitations. This article covers best practices for making 60 GHz noise figure measurements
using the Y-factor method with a spectrum analyzer and the cold-source method with a vector
network analyzer.
Y-Factor Method Using a Spectrum Analyzer: Introduction
The Y-factor method is the go-to method for most test engineers because of the simple
calibration and measurement procedure. Much of the Y-factor procedure has been automated in
recent years, including automatic download of ENR data. The calibration is performed with the
noise source connected to the test system. After calibration, the measurement is simply a matter
of inserting the device. Spectrum analyzer noise figure measurement applications offer “one-
button noise figure and gain measurements.” This simplicity can be attractive. However, it can
give the user a false sense of comfort, often leading to disregard of measurement uncertainty.
At current 4G cellular frequencies below 6 GHz, the measurement uncertainties can be relatively
small and allow a device to meet specification. At 60 GHz, the uncertainties and errors are
magnified and can no longer be ignored or disregarded.
The largest contributors to Y-factor measurement uncertainty are mismatch and noise parameter
errors. Imperfections in the noise source, DUT, and test system result in signal reflections
causing ripple over frequency. Generally, the higher the frequency, the higher the mismatch.
Since the spectrum analyzer is unable to measure and correct for mismatch, the cascaded error
can be quite large.
Noise parameters are a function of an amplifier’s source impedance. Noise generated at the
device input is reflected off the test system and reenters the DUT, changing the noise figure. The
device noise figure is minimized when it sees an ideal impedance, called gamma-opt. As the
source impedance moves away from gamma-opt, the device noise figure increases.
Noise figure measurements are assumed to be performed in a perfect 50 ohm environment; i.e.
the test system is assumed to provide perfect 50 ohm terminations to the device input and
output. In practice this is rarely the case. Neither the noise source nor the measurement receiver
are perfect 50 ohm terminations and the noise source impedance often changes between hot
and cold states. The larger the impedance change, the more error is introduced into the
measurement. As with mismatch, the spectrum analyzer is unable to measure and correct for the
noise parameter effects.
Figure 1: VNA test port 2 diagram
The gain measurement results are presented in Figure 2. As previously mentioned, the
characteristic ripple over frequency in the gain measurement can serve as an illustration of
mismatch effects. The Y-factor measurement was repeated with additional attenuation which
reduced the gain ripple pattern but affected the system sensitivity, resulting in an unacceptably
large error in the average noise figure. The final attenuation used provided a good compromise
between system sensitivity and mismatch effects.
Figure 3: Y-factor and cold source noise figure measurement comparison
The noise figure results are shown in Figure 3. The cold source method resulted in a noisier trace
since the VNA receiver does not have the same sensitivity as that of the spectrum analyzer.
Adding a higher gain preamp could improve the sensitivity. However, this would require lowering
the VNA output power, increasing noise during S11 measurements, and imparting noise on the
gain measurement. Again, a balance must be found.
Figure 4: Y-factor and cold source noise figure measurements with smoothing
Both test methods require compromise to achieve an acceptable balance. The Y-factor method
requires compromising system sensitivity for improvement in the mismatch effects. The cold
source method requires compromising accuracy in mismatch effect corrections for
improvement in system sensitivity. Since there is no perfect compromise, a good practice would
be to measure more sweep points and apply smoothing to the data. The noise figure data with
8% smoothing is shown in Figure 4.
Conclusion
Returning to the original question: “What method should be used to make 60 GHz noise figure
measurements?” The answer remains “it depends.” The cold source method will give the most
accurate measurements, but the noise figure trace may contain noise. The Y-factor method may
result in a noise figure trace with less noise, but the gain measurement will have mismatch
uncertainty. The increased accuracy of the cold source method requires significantly more
consideration and preparation. The end-user is then left to decide the preferred measurement
technique based on the tradeoff between ease of use and accuracy.