0
\$\begingroup\$

Suppose you have two reciprocal (passive) devices, A and B, both described with S-parameters \$S_a\$ and \$S_b\$. With a VNA, you measure \$S_a\$ and \$S_{\rm tot}\$ (S-parameters of AB, both devices cascaded).

From circuit theory, we can convert both to its T-parameters, \$T_{\rm tot}\$ and \$T_a\$. Now we know that $$T_{\rm tot}=T_a T_b\,.$$

So we can obtain

$$ T_b = T_a^{-1} T_{\rm tot} , $$

and convert this to \$S_b\$.

There is just one problem: For my measurements, \$|S_{b,11}| \gt 1\$ or, in other words, the real part of the input port impedance of B (its resistance!) is less than zero.

This is clearly wrong because the devices are passive. How can this happen? Which sanity checks can be invoked to see where things/intermediate results are wrong (maybe which measurement point is off)? Intuitively, under which condition can this happen?


Additional Info: The measured results at 915MHz are:

$$ S_a = \begin{bmatrix} -0.0376-i0.2195 & 0.0949-i0.7257 \\ 0.0949-i0.7257 & -0.2423-i0.1649 \\ \end{bmatrix} . $$

\$S_a\$ is is a signal path on a PCB which includes (passing) RF switches, a discrete delay line and ac coupling caps. Parameters were measured using the method from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/780284 with an Agilent VNA at -30dBm but large amount of averaging. The magnitues (return loss and insertion loss) make sense to me and are on the order of what I expect from simulations.

\$S_b\$ is actually a one-port (just a termination impedance), hence I only care about \$S_{b,11}\$. When I measure \$S_{\rm tot}\$, I can still treat it as two-port, just with \$S_{12}=S_{22}=0\$ and \$S_{21}\$ arbitrary. My measurements for \$S_{\rm tot}\$ are:

$$ S_{\rm tot} = \begin{bmatrix} -0.2285+i0.2936 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \\ \end{bmatrix} . $$

Using this measured data and the approach from above, I obtain:

$$ S_{b,11} = −0.2194−i1.1959 . $$

Choosing a characteristic impedance \$Z_0=50\Omega\$, this corresponds to a negative input impedance: \$Z_{\rm b,in} = -8.2055-i40.997\Omega\$ (any \$Z_0\$ will result in a negative input impedance!). This is unphysical (it could only be generated by an active element). For comparison, the output impedance of block A is \$Z_{\rm a,out}=29.0993-i10.4982\Omega\$. As such, it is not possible to find an L-match to match the impedance between the two blocks.

\$\endgroup\$
15
  • \$\begingroup\$ First sanity check: If you compute (Ta^-1)*Ta, what do you get? \$\endgroup\$
    – user16324
    Commented Oct 31, 2020 at 13:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ What is your actual device, andwhat is the intermediate device? Do you get this "funny" result at all frequencies or only at certain frequencies? How noisy are your measurements? \$\endgroup\$
    – The Photon
    Commented Oct 31, 2020 at 14:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BrianDrummond \$T_a^{-1} T_a\$ gives me the identity matrix. The eigenvalues of \$I-S_a^H S_a\$ are real-valued, positive and smaller than 1 in magnitude. \$\endgroup\$
    – divB
    Commented Oct 31, 2020 at 21:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ So, first sanity check passed. And this isn't my field so good luck. \$\endgroup\$
    – user16324
    Commented Oct 31, 2020 at 21:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThePhoton The actual devices are PCBs with only passive components. The measurements are not too noisy I think (I enabled significant averaging on the VNA). I haven't tried multiple frequencies yet. For debugging, I'd just be curious what could cause such a behavior. I tried to "unroll" the algebra based on the \$|S_{b,11}|>1\$ to see what could be the conditions on \$S_a\$ or \$S_{\rm tot}\$ for this to happen. But the math just gets too messy for an insight. \$\endgroup\$
    – divB
    Commented Oct 31, 2020 at 21:52

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.