ISSCC 2015 / SESSION 25 / RF FREQUENCY GENERATION FROM GHz TO THz / 25.

25.3 A VCO with Implicit Common-Mode Resonance noise factor reaches the theoretically minimum value of 1.67, efficiency reaches
75%, and, therefore, FOM is also maximized. Indeed, for the given Q, the
David Murphy, Hooman Darabi, Hao Wu achievable FOM of the proposed VCO is only 1.5 dB less than any theoretically
conceivable LC CMOS oscillator. Interestingly, at this optimum point, the flicker
Broadcom, Irvine, CA noise contribution of the differential pair transistors is also nulled (as noted by
the fact that the FOM at 50kHz is equal to the FOM at 10MHz).
CMOS VCO performance metrics have not improved significantly over the last
decade. Indeed, the best VCO Figure of Merit (FOM) currently reported was A wideband, practical realization of this topology that was fabricated in 28nm
published by Hegazi back in 2001 [1]. That topology, shown in Fig. 25.3.1(a), CMOS is shown in Fig. 25.3.3. The ratio of common-mode to differential
employs a second resonant tank at the source terminals of the differential pair capacitance is set by the coupling coefficient of the inductor through the
that is tuned to twice the LO frequency (FLO). The additional tank provides a high expression:
common-mode impedance at 2×FLO, which prevents the differential pair
transistors from conducting in triode and thus prevents the degradation of the
oscillator’s quality factor (Q). As a consequence, the topology can achieve an
oscillator noise factor (F) – defined as the ratio of the total oscillator noise to the A higher k requires less differential capacitance, but results in a reduced
noise contributed by the tank – of just below 2, which is equal to the fundamental common-mode Q. By contrast, choosing a low or negative k maintains a large
limit of a cross-coupled LC CMOS oscillator [2]. There are, however, a few common-mode Q but requires a very small amount of common-mode
drawbacks of Hegazi’s VCO: (1) the additional area required for the tail inductor, capacitance, which is difficult to achieve in a practical design. As a compromise,
(2) the routing complexity demanded of the tail inductor, which can degrade its the fabricated design used an inductor with k ≈ 0.33, which therefore requires
Q and limit its effectiveness, and (3) for oscillators with wide tuning ranges, the CDM/CCM ≈ 1. To keep k small, a two-turn inductor was employed and the radius
need to independently tune the second inductor, which again can degrade its Q. of the inner turn was purposely reduced. Additionally, in order to allow the
Moreover, it can be shown that the common-mode impedance of the main tank supply rail to be solidly AC-shorted to ground with minimal common-mode Q
at 2×FLO also has a significant effect on the oscillator’s performance, which if not degradation due to routing, the inductor was flipped inside out and the
properly modeled can lead to disagreement between simulation and common-mode terminals were routed on the outside (highlighted on the top of
measurement, particularly in terms of the flicker noise corner. To mitigate these Fig. 25.3.3). The differential inductance was simulated as 1.5nH. The tunable
issues, this work introduces a new oscillator topology that resonates the differential switched-capacitor bank and the tunable common-mode bank are
common-mode of the circuit at 2×FLO, but does not require an additional highlighted in Fig. 25.3.3. Both capacitors banks were composed of 32 identical
inductor. unit cells that were controlled using an interleaved thermometer code. When the
switches are off, a common-mode path is presented to ground through the
The proposed VCO is shown in Fig. 25.3.1(b). Whereas Hegazi’s VCO makes use digital inverter controlling the switch. Therefore, it is important to make these
of an additional tank to realize a large common-mode impedance at 2×FLO, the inverters large enough that they don’t degrade the common-mode Q. The
proposed VCO tunes the common-mode resonant point of the primary tank to measured tuning range of the fabricated VCO was 2.85 GHz to 3.75 GHz. Figure
2×FLO, which can be tuned independently of the differential resonant frequency. 25.3.4 shows the measured phase noise profile and FOM profile versus carrier
Typically the tank is composed of a differential spiral inductor with series offset for three frequency settings. Note that the FOM (in the thermal noise
inductance (LS) and some positive coupling coefficient (k) and a combination of region) is always better than 192, and the flicker noise corner is around 200kHz.
common-mode (CCM) and differential (CDM) capacitance. Therefore, the Figure 25.3.5 shows the phase noise, FOM, current consumption and flicker
differential resonance (or oscillation frequency) is given by noise corner (measured as the frequency at which FOM degrades by 3dB from
the FOM at 5MHz) versus oscillation frequency. Note that the good FOM and low
flicker noise corner is maintained across the band. As the VCO is voltage-biased,
by monitoring the current and assuming an efficiency of around 65%, we can
and the common-mode resonant frequency is given by: calculate the Q of the tank as approximately 11.5. Figure 25.3.6 compares our
work to the current state-of-the-art VCOs. The FOM is within 2.5dB of Hegazi’s
VCO [1], but requires no additional inductor, has a wider tuning range (18%
versus 27%) and operates from a much lower supply voltage (0.9V versus 2.5V).
By selecting k, CCM and CDM such that FCM = 2×FLO, the common-mode of the Compared to other recent low-voltage, low-noise designs [6,7], the proposed
circuit resonates at 2×FLO without the need for an additional tank. design has a comparable or better FOM, and has a significantly lower flicker
noise corner (200kHz versus 750kHz to 2000kHz).
To gain insight into the performance of the proposed VCO, it is helpful to rewrite
the expression for FOM in terms of oscillator efficiency (η) and oscillator noise References:
factor (F): [1] E. Hegazi, H. Sjoland, and A. A. Abidi, “A filtering technique to lower LC
oscillator phase noise,” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 36, no. 12, pp.
1921-1930, Dec. 2001.
[2] J.J Rael and A.A. Abidi, “Physical processes of phase noise in differential LC
where η = PTANK/PDC, the total power consumption is PDC, the power dissipated in oscillators,” IEEE Custom Integrated Circuits Conf., pp. 569-572, 2000.
the tank is PTANK = A2/(2RP), the oscillation amplitude is A, and the equivalent tank [3] J. Bank, “A harmonic-oscillator design methodology based on describing
loss is given by RP. This means that an oscillator’s FOM depends on only three functions,” Ph.D. dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden,
variables: quality factor, efficiency, and noise factor. Since Q is largely set for a 2006.
given process and desired tuning range, a circuit designer can only optimize η [4] A. Mazzanti and P. Andreani, “Class-C harmonic CMOS VCOs, with a general
and F. Bank’s general result [3-5] explains that when the energy-restoring circuit result on phase noise,” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 43, no. 12, pp.
is connected across the entire tank, the minimum possible noise contribution of 2716–2729, Dec. 2008.
the energy-restoring circuit is directly related to RP through some proportional [5] D. Murphy, J. Rael, and A. Abidi, “Phase noise in LC oscillators: A
constant, which in the case of a CMOS design cannot be lower than γ = 2/3, phasor-based analysis of a general result and of loaded Q,” IEEE Trans. Circuits
giving a minimum achievable noise factor of FMIN = 1+γ. The other variable is effi- and Systems-I, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1187–1203, 2010.
ciency, which by definition cannot exceed 1 (or 100%). Figure 25.3.2 shows the [6] L. Fanori and P. Andreani, “A 2.5-to-3.3GHz CMOS Class-D VCO,” ISSCC Dig.
proposed topology complete with an idealized inductance with Q = 12 and an Tech. Papers, pp. 346-347, Feb. 2013.
arbitrary arrangement of ideal differential and common-mode capacitors, whose [7] M. Babaie and R. B. Staszewski, “Third-Harmonic Injection Technique
ratio is defined by the variable X. The variable X was then swept, which moved Applied to a 5.87-to-7.56GHz 65nm CMOS Class-F Oscillator with 192 dBc/Hz
the capacitors from fully common-mode to fully differential. At the optimum FOM,” ISSCC Dig. Tech. Papers, pp. 348-349, Feb. 2013.
point of X = 0.65, the common-mode impedance at 2×FLO is maximized and the

442 • 2015 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference 978-1-4799-6224-2/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
 ISSCC 2015 / February 25, 2015 / 2:30 PM

Figure 25.3.2: Proposed VCO with idealized LC Tank. For a given inductor
coupling coefficient, there is an optimum ratio of common-mode to differential
Figure 25.3.1: Hegazi’s VCO, and the proposed VCO topology that does not capacitance that simultaneously maximizes FOM and efficiency, minimizes F
require an additional LC tank. and nulls flicker noise.

Figure 25.3.3: Schematic of fabricated 28nm design. Figure 25.3.4: Measured phase noise and FOM versus carrier offset.

25

Figure 25.3.5: Performance metrics versus oscillation frequency. Figure 25.3.6: Table of comparison.

DIGEST OF TECHNICAL PAPERS • 443

Figure 25.3.7: Die micrograph.

• 2015 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference 978-1-4799-6224-2/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE