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 58. Double Notch <strong>Filtering</strong><br />

II.1.e Comparison of the Topologies<br />

The previously studied topologies are compared in Table 4. The table summarizes the<br />

different advantages and drawbacks of each solution.<br />

Table 4. Comparison of the Topologies<br />

Topology Advantages Drawbacks<br />

Low-pass Harmonics rejection for or<strong>de</strong>r>3 Adjacent channels rejection above fc<br />

Bandpass<br />

Double notch<br />

Selectivity <strong>de</strong>pends on Q<br />

Harmonics rejection for or<strong>de</strong>r>2<br />

Adjacent channel rejection for or<strong>de</strong>r>2<br />

Adjacent channel rejection<br />

Frequency tuning<br />

- 48 -<br />

Harmonics rejection<br />

From this, the bandpass filtering can be consi<strong>de</strong>red as the most appropriate solution<br />

since it is able to attenuate both harmonics and adjacent channels. The Q-factor also appears<br />

as a strong advantage in or<strong>de</strong>r to reject interferers in a controlled way. Moreover, a second<br />

or<strong>de</strong>r bandpass filter is sufficient to reach the specifications given in introduction, while<br />

higher or<strong>de</strong>r filters are required for the low-pass. This enables the minimization of reactive<br />

components.<br />

That is why the second or<strong>de</strong>r bandpass topology has been chosen to handle the RF<br />

selectivity.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!