A 2.2mW CMOS LNA for 6–8.5GHz UWB receivers

A 4.5 mW 3–5 GHz low‐noise amplifier in 0.25‐μm silicon‐on‐insulator CMOS process for power‐constraint application

“…Because the nature of the proposed LNA is to superpose a HG narrowband signal with a LG wideband signal, rather than those reported in Refs. 7–10 that superpose two HG narrowband signals at the output, the −3 dB bandwidth of the proposed LNA is less sensitive to process corner variations than the ones presented in Refs. 7–10.…”

“…In Refs. 7–10, a stagger‐tuning technique was used for bandwidth extension. The bandwidth of the LNA is determined by the resonance frequency of each amplification stage.…”

“…As reported in Refs. 7–10, the disadvantage of this technique is that the overall frequency response is sensitive to component variations. In particular, the process corner variations can cause large frequency shifts and deteriorate the gain flatness within the frequency band.…”

“…As a result, not only the −3 dB bandwidth of the LNA, but also the stability of the LNA will become an issue. Although the CG‐CS configuration [7–9] is more attractive than the CS‐CS [10] one due to the ease of wideband input matching, the NF of the CG‐CS configuration needs to be improved, as the measured NF in Refs. 7–9 all exceed 5 dB.…”

“…Although the CG‐CS configuration [7–9] is more attractive than the CS‐CS [10] one due to the ease of wideband input matching, the NF of the CG‐CS configuration needs to be improved, as the measured NF in Refs. 7–9 all exceed 5 dB. Using the CS‐CS configuration, the NF can be improved, but it still needs to be further optimized, as even the simulated NF in Ref 10.…”