Modeling Input Impedance of MESFET Using Series RLC Circuit

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on modeling the input impedance of a MESFET using a series RLC circuit across a frequency range of 6-10 GHz. The user, roeb, is attempting to achieve a close approximation of reflection coefficients, specifically .575 angle(-138), .617 angle(170), and .610 angle(128), by plotting these on a Smith Chart and adjusting component values. Current values being used are L = .442 nH, C = .917 pF, and R = 12.85 ohms. Suggestions include using a single tuned section with over-damping to widen the bandwidth and improve matching accuracy.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of MESFET technology and its characteristics
  • Familiarity with Smith Charts for impedance matching
  • Knowledge of series RLC circuit components and their roles
  • Basic principles of reflection coefficients and input impedance
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore methods for iterative tuning of RLC values for better impedance matching
  • Research over-damping techniques to adjust Q factor in RLC circuits
  • Learn about advanced Smith Chart techniques for multi-frequency matching
  • Investigate simulation tools for modeling MESFET input impedance
USEFUL FOR

Electrical engineers, RF circuit designers, and anyone involved in the design and optimization of MESFET devices and their input impedance characteristics.

roeb
Messages
98
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I'm trying to model the input impedance of a MESFET by using a series RLC circuit.

For example I have the following reflection coefficients:
.575 angle(-138) at 6 GHz
.617 angle(170) at 8 GHz
.610 angle(128) at 10 GHz

As you can see, as the frequency changes so too does the angle. Does anyone have any suggestions for how I can analytically or graphically determine a fairly close approximation using a series RLC?

Right now I'm trying to plot the 3 frequencies and the reflection coefficients on a Smith Chart and come up some values but the best I've been able to do so far is
.61 angle(-150)
.59 angle(178)
.61 angle(164)

using L = .442 nH, C = .917 pF and R = 12.85 ohms.

I'd like to get some more accuracy but it seems my method is not working too well.

Thanks,
roeb
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Graphically, your reflection coefficients on the smith chart should give S11 which should be your normalized input impedance. Just multiply by 50 (or whatever your characteristic impedance is) to get actual input impedance.
 
Hi, thanks for your reply.

I understand how to match a single frequency, but I'm having trouble getting a 'good' match for the range of frequencies. What I want is a single RLC network that can approximate the reflection coefficients over 6-10 GHz.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7175/temppic.png

I'm manually tuning the LC values (pretty much keeping R constant) but it's rather tedious and I can't get all that close. I realize that I'll never get a perfect match, but it seems that I should be able to iteratively solve this so that I can get a bit better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
roeb said:
Hi, thanks for your reply.

I understand how to match a single frequency, but I'm having trouble getting a 'good' match for the range of frequencies. What I want is a single RLC network that can approximate the reflection coefficients over 6-10 GHz.

I'm manually tuning the LC values (pretty much keeping R constant) but it's rather tedious and I can't get all that close. I realize that I'll never get a perfect match, but it seems that I should be able to iteratively solve this so that I can get a bit better.

Actually, if you want to use just one tuned section and widen your BW, the only thing I can think of is over-damping it to lower the Q factor. You'll choose resonance to be maybe around 8GHz, then vary your resistor to increase or decrease BW. Higher resistance is higher damping, lower Q, and higher BW.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K