Transceivers Architectures for

Mobile & Wireless Applications

Hooman Darabi
[email protected]

1
 Wireless Transceiver Challenges

Desired TX
Wireless
Receiver

Out-of-band
Interferer TX

100dB
In-band

Select the desired

channel
N×200kHz in GSM
• Stringent linearity, phase noise, selectivity on RX
• Stringent mask, far-out noise on TX 2
 Receiver Requirements
• Receiver NF sets the sensitivity, range:
RS=50Ω
Ω
Sensitivity = -174 + NF + 10Log(BW) +SNR RX
10Log(KT), dBm/Hz Set by the standard

• Small signal linearity:

Blockers: In/Out-Band

̶ IIP2, IIP3
2fB1-fB2 fB1 fB2
• Large signal linearity: Y
G
GD
̶ Gain compression
Operates here
• Harmonic mixing A A D B
X

• Reciprocal mixing: BNF = 174 – PB -PN

3
 Transmitter Requirements
NF:
Range
• Output power
• Spectrum Mask
RX Equivalent

– Sets the modulator quality

10dB/
Blockers:
– Sets the TX linearity
Co-existence GSM Mask
– Determines TX phase noise
• Far-out noise 100kHz/
SNR:
Thru-put • Modulation quality: PE, EVM
SNR, EVM
Phase Noise

• Phase noise in Mask, Blockers

transceivers: Far-out noise
Frequency 4
 GSM/EDGE/WCDMA
• GSM/EDGE is TDMA, while 3G is CDMA. Both FDD.
Slot0 Slot1 … Slot7 Frame: 8×577µ
µS
• CDMA less sensitive to jammers:

TX Out RX IN
Code: 3.84MHz Code

Modulation Bands Thru-put Challenges

GSM GMSK: 270kbps 4 0.08 Blockers, TX
EDGE 8PSK: 810kbps 4 0.236 mask, phase noise
3G+1 QPSK … 64QAM 19 0.384-21 TX leakage
1 HSPA, HSPA+, up to 21Mbps thru-put 5
 3G Full-Duplex Problem
TX Leakage
Large Blocker

RX Desired

Duplexer

TX RX
RF IC

• Duplexer is a dual-band filter 6

 Concept of MIMO

Demodulator
S1

Diversity
S2 Combiner

• Signals received on multiple antennas combined to

create a more benign composite channel
– Combined signal energy increases SNR
– Variability across frequency reduces fading
• Trading robustness for rate
7
 LTE Features
• High data rate: DL 300Mbps, UL 75Mbps
• Flexible bandwidth and modes RX1
LO1
– Over 40 bands RX2
– 1.4 -20 MHz variable bandwidth
– Flexible FDD, TDD, & FDD half duplex RX3
• High mobility up to 120 km/h LO2
RX4
• Carrier aggregation in LTE-A: 1Gbps
Contiguous Non-Contiguous
Intra-Band

Inter-Band
Band A Band B 8
 WLAN Design Challenges
• Bandwidth variability and detection
– 20MHz up to 160MHz
– OFDM .3125M
To help multi-path
f
0
• TX PAR of 12dB for 64QAM Q

• High fidelity transmitters

– -28dB EVM for 64QAM I
– IQ and in-band phase noise
• Receiver SNR and IQ imbalance
– LO (fixed) & filters (variable over frequency)
– Sensitivity: -67dBm for .11g, SNR = 25dB: NF =9dB 9
 Ideal Transceiver

ADC

ADC
SDR
fLO
DAC BB

DAC
-26dBm 0dBm
RF IF
-99dBm
fIF = fIN - fLO
• Filter only rejects out-of- • Invented by Armstrong in
band blockers 1918
• In-band blockers require • Frequency-conversion
a high-resolution ADC relaxes IF signal processing
• Power hungry • Lower power

10 Mitola, 2005
7 Armstrong, 1924 10
 LO Harmonic Mixing Issue
• In a perfectly linear RX, blockers still problematic
PB
fIF fIF
PD IIPk

fLO nfLO
(nfLO±fIF)/k

…
Hard Switching Mixer
fLO 3fLO nfLO

• Sets LNA IIPk , filter attenuation, range of acceptable IF

fIF/2
• Image: n=k=1, Only removed by filtering

(2fLO±fIF)/2
• Half-IF: n=k=2, Differential helps fLO

15 Cijvat, TCAS 2002 11

 Super-Heterodyne Receiver
Image Reject Channel-Select
Pre-Select

fLO IF

On-Chip

• Down-conversion relaxes the ADC

• High IF avoids DC offset & low frequency noise
• Needs external filters for image and other blockers

7 Armstrong, 1924 12
 Zero-IF Receiver

IQ Channel-Select
Complex

0
OFDM

1/f noise
-ω
ωLO ωLO

f
Pros Cons
• Less severe image issue • Requires quadrature LO
• Channel selection on-chip • DC Offset, 1/f noise, IIP2
• Suitable for WB: LTE, WiFi • In band IRR

1 Abidi, JSSC 1995 13
 3G RX NF Requirement
• For 12.2kbps reference measurement, SF=128, -
117dBm sensitivity, required NF = 9dB
-99dBm
SNR = 7dB
NF I^or = -106.7dBm/3.84MHz
Noise Floor = -108dBm
SF+CG=25dB (-174,3.84MHz)
DPCH_Ec = -117dBm/3.84Mz

• For a given duplexer, NF depends on:

– RX thermal noise
– RX 2nd-order nonlinearity
– TX and PA noise at RX band
14
 3G IIP2 Requirements
A(t)Cos(ω
ωt+φ
φ(t))

A(t)2
fTX fRX

0
I ≈50dB
+24dBm +28dBm
…

• TX leakage amplitude demodulated at zero IF

• In order not to affect sensitivity IIP2 > 50dBm
IIP2 = 2×(28dBm-I) – 13dB – -99dBm -10dB = +52dBm
Desensitizes by 0.5dB 15
 3G Out-of-Band IIP3 Requirements
PTX PB

(fRX-fTX)/2 …
TX Duplexer Isolation: 50dB
Duplexer Filtering: 30dB
• Stringent IIP3 due to TX leakage:

Signal = PTX + 2×PB - 2×IIP3

-99+3-5 28-50 -15-30

• IIP3 = -5.5dBm at the LNA input

• Need room for TX noise, 2nd-order nonlinearity …
16
 Low-IF Receiver
Low-IF

Polyphase
Active
fLOI
fLOQ

Digital IR

IR
0 IF∝
∝BW

Pros Cons
• IIP2, 1/f less problematic • Requires quadrature LO
• Image in-band • Higher IF, higher power
• Suitable for NB: GSM, BT • Tighter IRR
17
 GSM Noise Figure
• The standard requires -102dBm
• Receiver NF sets the sensitivity:
Band X

…
≈3dB

Sensitivity = -174 + NF + 10Log(BW) + SNR

≈ 59dB for GMSK

• Most advanced receivers target for <-109dBm

• NF of < 3dB assuming 3dB loss at front-end
18
 Choice of IF: Adjacent Blockers
n×200k n×200k-2×IF

fLO
IF
IF
• Trade-off between 1/f noise, IIP2, … vs. image rejection
-33dBm
45 400k -41dBm
IMRR, dBc

40
-73dBm
35 Tail of 400k -82dBm
30 Desired

200k

400k

600k
Mostly 200k
120
140
160
180

IF, kHz 19
 GSM In-Band Blocking Requirements
PB
∆ fB SNR
PD Noisy LO
fLO
BW
BNF = 174 + PB + PN
-23/-26dBm
• LO PN of -140dBc/Hz at 3MHz -43dBm
• BNF = 174 – 26 – 140 = 8dB
• RX NF of 6dB: Total BNF ≈ 10dB -99dBm
• 3GPP NF requirement: 13dB

1.6M
600k
Desired

3M
• Compression degrades the BNF further
– -26/-23dBm blocker can heavily compress the front-end 20
 Dual-Conversion Receiver

fLO2I Zero or
fLO2Q Low-IF
fLO1
fLO2 = fLO1/N

Sliding 1st IF = fRF / N+1

• DC offset and 1/f noise issues less severe
• No high frequency quadrature LO
• Higher power due to 2 mixers in signal path
• First LO image

13 Zargari, JSSC 2002 21
 Gain Control & Receiver SNR
• SNR determines through-put at high input powers
40
In-band
Adjacent 30
P1dB, dBm

PN, IQ

Gain, dB

SNR, dB
20 & linearity

10 Ideal Slope
0
-97

-52
-37
-112

-82
-67

-22

-112
-97
-82
-67
-52
-37
-22
Input, dBm Input, dBm

• Front-end gain reduction improves P1dB

• But degrades SNR
22
 ADC and Filtering
ADC

U/D fading

• GC keeps desired signal

-30

Signal, dBm

ADC
close to ADC full scale Blocker
-60
• Trade-off between filter
-90 Signal
& ADC
Q-Noise
• ADC DR >> receiver SNR RF PGA1 PGA2
23
 Example: 2G ADC Requirements
ADC Full Scale
6dB Margin: GC
10dB Up Fading
Blocker

41dB Blocker
87dB
Signal
(57dB below FS) 10dB Down Fading

(SNR ≈ 6dB) 20dB Noise Margin

ADC Q Noise
• -400kHz blocker dominant in low-IF 24
 Out-of-Band Blocking Issue
GSM out-of-band blocker profile:
0dBm
-12dBm
-23/6dBm

-99dBm
1930
PCS Frequency, MHz

1990
2010

2070
1830

1910

Band

 External SAW filters attenuate out-of-band blockers

 The in-band blocker as high as -23dBm
25
 Narrow-Band Filtering Concerns

Multi-Band Receiver
15-20dB
Switch

0dBm

-99dBm

6.6V p-p
• Large blockers compress the receiver
• Impose stringent far-out phase noise
• External filtering is narrow-band and costly 26
 Passive Mixers as N-Path Filters4
LO1
LO1 ZBB 0
LO2

LO3
VRF LO2
LO4
IRF LO3

Blocker
IRF
0 fLO
LO4 VRF
2 0 fLO
Z in ( s) ≈ RSW + 2
{Z BB ( s − jω LO ) + Z BB ( s + jω LO )}
π
High-Q BPF from low-Q LPF

4 L. Franks, Bell Syst. Tech. J., 1960

14 Mirzaei, TCAS 2010 27
 Current-Mode Receivers

BUF
GM

BUF

0
fRF
fRF
0

• Passive mixers to achieve high-Q filtering

• Current mode LNA: LNTA
• Enhance the blocker tolerance

21,22 Mikhemar, VLSI 2012 28
 Mixer-First Receivers
LO1 5
4

TIA_I
LO2 I

NF, dB
RS 3
VS LO3 2

TIA_Q
LO4 Q 1
0

10

20

30

40

50
 r (ON ) vbb
2  SW Resistance, Ω
• For M phases: F = 1 +

DS
RS
+
M ( 4 KTR S 
)
 × N Alia sin g


• At high frequency noise aliasing degrades NF significantly

• NF > 4dB in practice at GHz frequencies

18,19 Andrews, JSSC 2010
29
 Noise Cancelling Receivers
Noise and linearity
bottleneck BW << ∆fB
RLA
GM -
α = -GM×RLA
+ +

Low resistance VOUT

RS RLM
- -
+ rm = RLM
π2
RS = RSW + 2RBB/π

• Low noise and linear

• No Balun required

26 Murphy, ISSCC 2012
30
 Over-Sampling Mixer Architecture
TIA K0

8-Phase
TIA K1

Σ √2
…

IRF VOUT

TIA K7
1
Harmonic
Combination 1/7
͌

• Square-wave LO harmonically rich 7

x
VOUT = iRF (t )∑ K x sw(t − )
• Synthesizes arbitrary 8-phase LO: x =0 8T

17 Weldon, JSSC 2001 31
 Case Study: NC SDR Receiver
LO0
LO1
4fLO ÷4
…

LO7 GM I

Recombination
Weighting &
NF ≈ 1 + γ/GMRS
10Ω
Ω

• 1.9dB NF, 4dB BNF

50Ω
Ω

26 Murphy, ISSCC 2012 32
 Direct-Conversion Transmitters

I Q
÷2/4
fLO

Pros Cons
• Low power • Suffers from pulling
• Versatile • LOFT, IQ matching
• Highly integrated • Far-out noise
33
 Dual-Conversion Transmitters

fLO2Q fLO2I
fLO1 ÷N

Pros Cons
• No pulling • Higher power
• LOFT/IR less problematic • More complex filtering
• Sliding IF needed

13 Zargari, JSSC 2002 34
 Third Harmonic Folding

23 Mirzaei, TCAS 2011 A
fLO A/3 3fLO
f
vd (t) fLO +f1 fLO +f2 3fLO –f2 3fLO -f1 vu (t)

PA driver nonlinearity: y=a1x+a3x3

9a3A 3/4
3a3A 3/4 … a3vd 3(t)
undesired components

f
fLO +2f1-f2 fLO +2f2-f1
fLO -3f1

a3A 3/2
a3A 3/4
… 3a3vd 2(t)vu(t)
f
fLO -2f2-f1 fLO -2f1-f2

a3A 3/6 a3A 3/2 … 3a3vd (t)vu2(t)

f
fLO +2f1-f2 fLO +2f2-f1 35
 WCDMA TX General Requirements
TX Leakage

• -160dBc/Hz RX-band noise

RX Desired
results in 0.5dB NF degradation

Noise Floor = 28-50-160 = -182dBm/Hz

• ACLR1 at 5MHz: -33dBc

• ACLR2 at 10MHz: -43dBc RF IC

• EVM: 19%

36
 WCDMA TX EVM
• In linear TX, IQ imbalance, LOFT & PN dominate

Noise Floor IQ LOFT PN

10 10 10
EVM (%) = 10 + 10 + 10
+1.9M
-1.9M
fLO

Error
1

• 40dBc equal contribuƟon results in √3 = 1.7% EVM

• Baseband filter ripple adds further
• Typical RF IC EVM around 3%
37
 WCDMA TX ACLR
• Nonlinearity results in ACLR
– Depends on PAR, modulation

IM3
+1.9M 5±1.92MHz
-1.9M
0

ACLR1, dBc
• ACLR1 requirement of -33dBc at the antenna

OIP3 = 15.5dBm
– PA WC -37dBc (optimized for efficiency) +3dBm

-31dBc
– 2dB production margin
0dBm
– Leaves RFIC WC of -40dBc
38
 Folding Impact on PAD Linearity
Output 3G Signal
DAC
-20
Power, dBc

PAD
-40
w/ 3rd
DAC
-60
w/o 3rd
PAD Ideal vRF,1(ω)
-80
1 vRF,3(ω) vRF,5(ω)
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 ≅ 1/3 ≅ 1/5
Frequency, MHz fLO 3fLO 5fLO f

• With third harmonic present: ACLR = -38 dBc

• With third harmonic removed: ACLR = -44 dBc
• Makes the PAD linearity requirements more stringent 39
 Case Study: Direct-Conversion 3G TX

+24 ~ -50dBm
> 70dB 10-20dB
I

…
Q PAD Units

1 GC

• Passive 25% mixer

• LOFT scales w/ RF gain
40
 GSM RX-Band Noise Requirements
+33dBm

EGSM RX

EGSM TX
-79dBm

≈
≈

915

960
880

935
20M Freq, MHz

 TX noise in RX-band -79dBm not to mask adjacent RX

 Corresponds to a 20MHz phase noise of:
PN = -79dBm – 10Log(100kHz) – 33dBm = -162dBc/Hz
 Typical PA noise ≈ -83dBm, leaving -165dBc for RF IC
 -112dBc spur, five exceptions allowed
41
 Linear TX vs. Translational Loop
fLO+fIF
Loop
Filter
fLO
PFD/CP
Modulator f
IF

• Sensitive to Pulling • No pulling issue

• 20M noise an issue • Relaxed filtering
• Simple • More complex
• Generic TX • Suitable for PM only

2 Erdogan, ISSCC 2005 42
 PLL-Based Transmitters
Reference

400kHz
PFD/CP

PLL
Modulator/
MMD ∆Σ
Pre-distortion
Lowpass
100kHz/

• Mixer/LO, analog modulator eliminated

• More sensitive to analog impairments
• Trade-off between BW and phase noise

3 Bonnaud, ISSCC 2006 43
GSM Mask & Phase Error Calculations
• -60dBc at 400kHz Power integrated in 30kHz BW
– 3dB production margin ≈ 10Log (200k/30k)
– 2dB PVT margin
PN = -65 – 10Log(30kHz) – 9 = -118.8dBc/Hz

• 5⁰ RMS phase error

– 2⁰ production margin 0.0178 Radian
– 2⁰ PVT, BW
PN -88 + 10Log(200kHz) = -35dBc = 1⁰

-88dBc
100kHz

Frequency
44
 Basics of Polar Transmitters
A(t)Sin(ω
ω0t+φ
φ(t)) Sin(ω
ω0t+φ
φ(t))
I + jQ = rejθθ
A(t)

Reference
PFD/CP
EDGE Constellation
PM
MMD ∆Σ

Modulator
AM
∆Σ

• Lower power consumption

• Compatible with GMSK TX
• Very sensitive to nonlinearities
45
 EDGE AM & PM Signals Spectrum

8PSK Ideal
PM 20nS
-20
Amplitude, dB

AM 40nS
80nS
-40 160nS

-60

-80
-800

-400

400

800

-800

-400

400

800
0

0
Frequency, kHz Frequency, kHz

• AM & PM stand-alone signals much wider

46
 PM Path Concerns
VCTRL Swing, mV

40 Only function of K Sin(ω

ω0t+φ
φ(t))
VCO
20 REF
PFD/CP
0
-20 φ/KVCO
PM
-40 MMD ∆Σ
200 300 400
Time, µS
• Phase noise
• VCO & CP nonlinearity due to large swing, wide BW
• PLL BW needs to be accurately controlled
̶ BW ∝ KVCO × R × ICP : Measure KVCO and adjust ICP

5,9 Darabi, JSSC 2011 47
 AM Path Concerns
-50
±400kHz Mod, dBc

AM-PM
PA or PAD
-55 Uncorrected

-60

AM

400kHz
-65

20dB/
Corrected
-70

PFT
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
AM-PM Relative Delay, nS 200kHz/

Mask Limiting Factors:

Static: AM-AM
• AM-AM/PM distortion in PAD Dynamic: AM-PM
• Phase feed-through
48
 2-Point PLL Based Polar Transmitters
3G AM & PM Signals HP

× 1/KVCO
0 + REF
Magnitude, dBc

PFD/CP
PM
-40
AM LP
-80 MMD ∆Σ

Modulator
3G PM
AM
10 20 30 40 50 ∆Σ
Frequency, MHz

• HP path to give a flat response

KVCO
• Accurate KVCO needed
• Accurate AM-PM matching needed
49
 Impact of VCO Nonlinearity on 3G Signal
• KVCO = dω ω03×L× (dCVAR/dV)
ω/dV = 0.5×ω
PVT Dependent
• LC and CVAR not modeled accurately
PLL BW: 250kHz
1.5 -40

ACLR, dBc
ACLR1
EVM, %

1.0 -50
0.5 -60 ACLR2
-0.8

-0.4

0.4

0.8

1 2 3 4 5
VCO Gain Error, % VCO Nonlinearity, %

• KVCO accuracy/linearity of better than 2% needed 50

 Case Study: 3G Polar TX
∆T
10b 20M Matched
AM Path
Modulator

AM
HP Path
REF LB
PFD/CP + ÷2 ÷2
PM
PLL (250kHz) F/V ÷4 OUT
HB
MMD ÷2

∆Σ
Linear VCO

• < -40dBc ACLR, < 3% EVM

6 Youssef, JSSC 2011 51
 Summary & Conclusions
• Standards set design parameters, radio architecture
• On receiver side:
Architecture 1/f, IIP2 IMR Linearity Limitations
Zero-IF Poor Self Modest WB
Low-IF Modest In-band Modest NB
• CM receivers improve linearity, relax filtering
• On transmitter side:
Architecture Power Noise Pulling Limitations
Direct Modest Poor Poor Generic
PLL Lowest Good None Only PM, NB
Polar Lowest Good Good Complex, NB
52
 References
1. A. A. Abidi, “Direct-Conversion Radio Transceivers for Digital Communications,” IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1399-1410, 1995
2. O. Erdogan, et. al., “A single-chip quad-band GSM/GPRS transceiver in 0.18mm CMOS,” ISSCC Digest of Technical Papers, pp. 318-319, Feb. 2005.
3. O. Bonnaud, et. al., “A fully integrated SoC for GSM/GPRS in 0.13mm CMOS,” ISSCC Digest of Technical Papers, pp. 482-3, Feb. 2006.
4. L. Franks and I. Sandberg, “An alternative approach to the realizations of network functions: N-path filter,” in Bell Syst. Tech. J., 1960, pp. 1321–1350.
5. H. Darabi, at. el., “A Quad-Band GSM/GPRS/EDGE SoC in 65nm CMOS,” IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuit, no. 4, April 2011.
6. M. Youssef, et. al., “A Low-Power Wideband Polar Transmitter for 3G Applications,” ISSCC Digest of Technical Papers, Feb. 2011.
7. E. H. Armstrong, “The Super-Heterodyne-Its Origin, Development, and Some Recent Improvements ” Proc. of the Institute of Radio Engineers
Volume: 12 , Issue: 5, 1924, pp. 539-552
8. Z. Boos, et. al., “A Fully Digital Multi-Mode Polar Transmitter Employing 17b RF DAC in 3G Mode,” ISSCC Digest of Technical Papers, Feb. 2011.
9. H. Darabi, et. al., “Analysis and Design of Small Signal Polar Transmitters for Cellular Applications,” IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuit, 2011.
10. J. Mitola, “The software radio architecture,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 26-38, May 1995.
11. A. Mirzaei, et. al., “Analysis and optimization of current-driven passive mixers in narrowband direct-conversion receivers,” IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuit,
no. 10, pp. 2678-2688, October 2009.
12. D. Kaczman, et. al., “A single-chip 10-band WCDMA/HSDPA 4-band GSM/EDGE SAW-less CMOS receiver with DigRF 3G interface and 90dBm IIP3”, IEEE
J. of Solid-State Circuit, no. 3, pp. 718-739, 2009.
13. M. Zargari, et. al., “A 5-GHz CMOS transceiver for IEEE 802.11a wireless LAN systems”, IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuit, no. 12, pp. 1688-1694, 2002.
14. A. Mirzaei, et. al, “Analysis and optimization of direct-conversion receivers With 25% duty-cycle current-driven passive mixers ,” IEEE Trans Circuits &
Systems I, No. 9, Vo. 47, 2010, pp. 23530-2366.
15. E. Cijvat, et. al, “Spurious mixing of off-channel signals in a wireless receiver,” IEEE Trans Circuits & Systems II, No. 8, Vo. 49, 2002, pp. 539-544.
16. A. Mirzaei, et. al., “A 65nm CMOS quad-band SAW-less receiver for GSM/GPRS/EDGE,” IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuit, no. 4, April 2011.
17. J. Weldon, et. al., “A 1.75-GHz highly integrated narrow-band CMOS transmitter with harmonic-rejection mixers ,” IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuit, no. 12,
pp. 2003-2015, Dec 2001
18. C. Andrews, et. al., “A passive-mixer-first receiver with Digitally Controlled and Widely Tunable RF Interface,” IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuit, Vol. 45, no.
12, pp. 2696-2708, Dec 2010
19. M. Soer, et. al., “A 0.2-to-2GHz 65nm CMOS receiver w/o LNA achieving >11dBm IIP3 and <6.5dB NF,” ISSCC Digest of Tech. Papers, pp. 222-3, Feb. 09
20. X. He, et. al, “A Low-Power, Low-EVM, SAW-Less WCDMA Transmitter Using Direct Quadrature Voltage Modulation,” IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuit, vol.
44, no. 12, pp. 3448–3458, 2009.
21. A. Mirzaei, et. al., “A Frequency Translation Technique for SAW-Less 3G Receivers,” Proc. of IEEE Symp. VLSI Circuits, pp. 280-281, 2009.
22. M. Mikhemar, et. al., “A 13.5mA Sub-2.5dB NF Multi-Band Receiver,” Proc. of IEEE Symp. VLSI Circuits, 2012.
23. A. Mirzaei, et. al, “Analysis of Direct-Conversion IQ Transmitters With 25% Duty-Cycle Passive Mixers,” IEEE Trans Circuits & Systems, No. 10, Vo. 58, pp.
2318-2331, 2011.
24. A. Abidi, “Linearization of Voltage-Controlled Oscillators using Switched Capacitor Feedback,” IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 494–496,
June 1987.
25. F. Broccoleri, et. al., “Wide-band CMOS low-noise amplifier exploiting thermal noise canceling,” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 275–282,
Feb. 2004.
26. D. Murphy, et. Al., “A blocker-tolerant wideband noise-cancelling receiver with a 2dB noise figure ” ISSCC Digest of Tech. Papers, pp. 74-6, Feb. 12.
53