10.08.2013 Views

III. Gm-C Filtering - Epublications - Université de Limoges

III. Gm-C Filtering - Epublications - Université de Limoges

III. Gm-C Filtering - Epublications - Université de Limoges

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Figure 143. Q-factor versus filter gain for Rauch and Sallen-Key filters<br />

Furthermore, a particular drawback of the Sallen-Key bandpass filter has to be pointed<br />

out. In<strong>de</strong>ed, a very high sensitivity of the Q-factor to component variations may be observed,<br />

making this structure unusable un<strong>de</strong>r industrial conditions. Table 18 illustrates that a 10%<br />

variation on a resistor involves more than 100% variation of the Q-factor. This is also<br />

reported in [IV.4]. The Rauch filter is less sensitive to passive component variation as it may<br />

be observed in Table 19.<br />

Table 18. Sensitivity to passive components of the Sallen-Key filter<br />

R1 (Ω) R2 (Ω) R3 (ΩΩΩΩ) C (pF) K f0 (MHz) Q-factor<br />

40 80 40 50 2,9 79,6 12,3<br />

40 80 45 50 2,9 77,3 3,7<br />

40 80 50 50 2,9 75,5 2,3<br />

Table 19. Sensitivity to passive components of the Rauch filter<br />

R1 (Ω) R2 (Ω) R3 (ΩΩΩΩ) C (pF) K f0 (MHz) Q-factor<br />

50 25 135 50 10 67,1 2,6<br />

50 25 150 50 10 63,7 3,0<br />

50 25 165 50 10 60,7 3,5<br />

- 126 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!