|
|
Line 118: |
Line 118: |
| H\left(s\right) = \frac{a}{\left(1 + s\frac{a}{\omega_0}\right) \cdot \left(1+\frac{s}{p_2}\right)\cdot \left(1+\frac{s}{p_3}\right) \cdots} | | H\left(s\right) = \frac{a}{\left(1 + s\frac{a}{\omega_0}\right) \cdot \left(1+\frac{s}{p_2}\right)\cdot \left(1+\frac{s}{p_3}\right) \cdots} |
| </math>|{{EquationRef|16}}}} | | </math>|{{EquationRef|16}}}} |
| + | |
| + | If we assume that <math>\omega_0 \ll p_2, p_3, \ldots</math> and <math>a \gg 1</math>, we can then rewrite the transfer function as: |
| + | |
| + | {{NumBlk|::|<math> |
| + | \begin{align} |
| + | \left. H\left(j\omega\right) \right|_{\omega=\omega_0} & = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} + \frac{j\omega_0}{\omega_0}\right) \cdot \left(1 + \frac{j\omega_0}{p_2}\right) \cdot \left(1 + \frac{j\omega_0}{p_3}\right) + \cdots} \\ |
| + | & = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_2} + j + \frac{j\omega_0}{a\cdot p_2}\right) \cdot \left(1 + \frac{j\omega_0}{p_3}\right) + \cdots} \approx \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_2} + j \right) \cdot \left(1 + \frac{j\omega_0}{p_3}\right) + \cdots}\\ |
| + | & \approx \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_2} + j + \frac{j\omega_0}{a\cdot p_3} - \frac{j\omega_0^2}{p_2\cdot p_3} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_3}\right)\cdots} \approx \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_2} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_3} + j\right)\cdots} \\ |
| + | & \approx \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_2} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_3} - \ldots \right) + j} \\ |
| + | & \approx \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} -\sum\limits_{i=2}^N \frac{\omega_0}{p_i} \right) + j} |
| + | \end{align} |
| + | </math>|{{EquationRef|17}}}} |
| + | |
| + | For <math>N</math> non-dominant poles. The integrator quality factor is then equal to: |
| + | |
| + | {{NumBlk|::|<math> |
| + | Q \approx \frac{1}{\frac{1}{a} -\sum\limits_{i=2}^N \frac{\omega_0}{p_i}} |
| + | </math>|{{EquationRef|18}}}} |
| + | |
| + | As expected, the effect of finite gain can be cancelled out by the effect of the non-dominant poles. |
| | | |
| === Capacitor Non-Idealities === | | === Capacitor Non-Idealities === |
| + | For lossy capacitors, modeled in Fig. 11 as an ideal capacitor in series with a resistor, <math>R_c</math>, the integrator transfer function becomes: |
| + | |
| + | {{NumBlk|::|<math> |
| + | \begin{align} |
| + | H\left(s\right) = \frac{v_o}{v_i} & = -\left(R_c + \frac{1}{sC} \right)\cdot \frac{1}{R} = -\frac{1}{sRC}\cdot \left(1 + sR_c C\right) \\ |
| + | & = -\frac{\omega_0}{s}\cdot \left(1 + sR_c C\right) = -\frac{\omega_0}{j\omega}\cdot \left(1 + j\omega R_c C\right) \\ |
| + | & = -\frac{\omega_0}{j\omega}\cdot \frac{1 + \omega^2 R_c^2 C^2 }{1 - j\omega R_c C} |
| + | \end{align} |
| + | </math>|{{EquationRef|19}}}} |
| + | |
| + | The magnitude and phase response is shown in Figs. 12 and 13. Notice the phase lead introduced by the zero due to <math>R_c</math>. At <math>\omega=\omega_0</math>: |
| + | |
| + | {{NumBlk|::|<math> |
| + | \begin{align} |
| + | H\left(j\omega_0\right) & = -\frac{1}{j}\cdot \frac{1 + \omega_0^2 R_c^2 C^2 }{1 - j\omega_0 R_c C} = \frac{-\left( 1 + \omega_0^2 R_c^2 C^2 \right)}{j + \omega_0 R_c C} \\ |
| + | & = \frac{-1}{j\frac{1}{1 + \omega_0^2 R_c^2 C^2} + \frac{\omega_0 R_c C}{1 + \omega_0^2 R_c^2 C^2}} |
| + | \end{align} |
| + | </math>|{{EquationRef|20}}}} |
| + | |
| + | The integrator quality factor can then be written as: |
| + | |
| + | {{NumBlk|::|<math> |
| + | Q = \frac{1}{\omega_0 R_c C} = \frac{RC}{R_c C} = \frac{R}{R_c} |
| + | </math>|{{EquationRef|21}}}} |
| + | |
| + | Thus, a non-zero <math>R_c</math> degrades the integrator quality factor, but in typical implementations, the amplifier non-idealities will dominate. |
| + | |
| + | == Summary == |
| + | The quality factor of the integrator is reduced by: |
| + | * The finite gain of the amplifier, |
| + | * The presence of amplifier non-dominant poles, and |
| + | * The loss of passive reactive components, e.g. capacitors. |
| + | |
| + | Note that both the finite amplifier gain and the lossy capacitor introduces a phase lead, and the presence of non-dominant poles results in a phase lag. |
The Ideal Integrator
The ideal integrator, shown in Fig. 1, with symbol shown in Fig. 2, makes use of an ideal operational amplifier with , , and . The current through the resistor, , can be expressed as:
-
|
|
(1)
|
Thus, we can write the integrator output voltage, , as:
-
|
|
(2)
|
In the Laplace domain:
-
|
|
(3)
|
Or equivalently:
-
|
|
(4)
|
The magnitude and phase response of an ideal integrator is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. A key feature to note in ideal integrators is the fact that:
- The unity gain frequency is equal to , and
- The phase at the unity gain frequency is exactly .
Rewriting the transfer function as:
-
|
|
(5)
|
We can then define the quality factor of an ideal integrator:
-
|
|
(6)
|
Since . Fig. 5 shows a multiple-input integrator, with output voltage:
-
|
|
(7)
|
Integrator Noise
Fig. 6 shows an integrator where the output is fed back to one of its inputs, giving us:
-
|
|
(8)
|
Ignoring the noise from the amplifier, the output noise of the integrator in Fig. 6 can be expressed as:
-
|
|
(9)
|
The total integrated noise is then:
-
|
|
(10)
|
Integrator Non-Idealities
In practice, integrators are limited by the characteristics of non-ideal amplifiers: (1) finite gain at DC, and (2) non-dominant amplifier poles. Let us look at the effects of these non-idealities one at a time.
Finite Gain
The transfer function of an integrator using an amplifier with finite gain, , can be written as:
-
|
|
(11)
|
The magnitude and phase response of this non-ideal integrator is shown in Figs. 7 and 8. Note that the integrator quality factor now becomes finite:
-
|
|
(12)
|
The phase at is then:
-
|
|
(13)
|
Thus, if is finite, will approach, but will never be equal to , resulting in a phase lead. For example, if , we get , and will result in .
Non-Dominant Poles
The transfer function of an integrator using an amplifier with infinite gain but with non-dominant poles can be expressed as:
-
|
|
(14)
|
The magnitude and phase response of this non-ideal integrator is shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The phase at the unity gain frequency is then equal to:
-
|
|
(15)
|
Note that the non-dominant poles contribute to the integrator phase lag.
In a real integrator, the effects (phase lead) of the amplifier finite gain can cancel out the effects (phase lag) of the non-dominant poles! Given the transfer function of the integrator with an amplifier that has both finite gain and non-dominant poles:
-
|
|
(16)
|
If we assume that and , we can then rewrite the transfer function as:
-
|
|
(17)
|
For non-dominant poles. The integrator quality factor is then equal to:
-
|
|
(18)
|
As expected, the effect of finite gain can be cancelled out by the effect of the non-dominant poles.
Capacitor Non-Idealities
For lossy capacitors, modeled in Fig. 11 as an ideal capacitor in series with a resistor, , the integrator transfer function becomes:
-
|
|
(19)
|
The magnitude and phase response is shown in Figs. 12 and 13. Notice the phase lead introduced by the zero due to . At :
-
|
|
(20)
|
The integrator quality factor can then be written as:
-
|
|
(21)
|
Thus, a non-zero degrades the integrator quality factor, but in typical implementations, the amplifier non-idealities will dominate.
Summary
The quality factor of the integrator is reduced by:
- The finite gain of the amplifier,
- The presence of amplifier non-dominant poles, and
- The loss of passive reactive components, e.g. capacitors.
Note that both the finite amplifier gain and the lossy capacitor introduces a phase lead, and the presence of non-dominant poles results in a phase lag.