MEASUREMENTS AND NONLINEAR MODELING

Stephen Maas
Nonlinear Technologies, Inc.
PO Box 7284, Long Beach, CA 90807 USA
ABSTRACT
This paper examines some issues at the interface between nonlinear circuit analysis and RF/
microwave measurements. We examine methods of nonlinear circuit analysis and device
modeling, consider how device measurements affect accuracy of analysis, and identify areas
where the process could be enhanced.
INTRODUCTION
RF and microwave measurements have always been an essential part of nonlinear circuit
analysis. These are used for determining model parameters and for verifying models.
Although researchers and circuit designers have been measuring and modeling nonlinear
devices for many years, many of the problems of modeling such devices are still largely
unsolved, and the measurement techniques necessary for solving these problems are still
uncertain. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of these issues, and to discuss what
can be done about them.
NONLINEAR CIRCUIT ANALYSIS
Circuit-Level Analysis
The two dominant (but certainly not the only) methods for RF and microwave circuit analysis
are transient analysis and harmonic-balance analysis. SPICE [1], developed in the 1970s at the
University of California at Berkeley, is the most common transient-analysis program in use.
Its popularity probably is attributable to its low cost (it is distributed for a nominal fee) and to
the existence of a large number of commercial spin-offs having improved user interfaces.
SPICE is appropriate for RF circuit design, but the difficulty in handling frequency-domain
data and lossy or dispersive transmission lines limits its usefulness for microwave work.
Hewlett-Packards harmonic-balance simulators Libra and MDS own approximately 80% of
the circuit-simulator market; these recently have been merged into a single product. Other
products from Applied Wave Research, Inc., Jansen Research, and Ansoft Corp. also have
loyal followings.
Virtually all harmonic-balance simulators use Newton iteration to solve their circuit equations.
This is clearly the best algorithm developed so far for performing harmonic-balance iterations.
However, there are different ways to formulate the circuit equations. One is the classical
approach, [2, 3] in which the voltages across the individual nonlinear elements are treated as
variables. The alternative, developed by Kundert [4] is to treat all the node voltages of the

circuit as variables. The latter method is preferable when there are a large number of nonlinear
elements and a relatively small number of linear ones; the former is best for the opposite
situation. The Hewlett-Packard products use Kunderts method, while the AWR and Ansoft
products use the classical approach.
The type of formulation has some effect on the type of device modeling that can be used, and,
in turn, on the necessary measurements. Since the Kundert approach does not partition the
circuit, it is easier to provide all (or at least a large number of) node voltages to any nonlinear
circuit element. This allows the use of very complex device models having a large number of
control voltages. The classical method, however, tends to compartmentalize the nonlinear
elements, so it is difficult to provide a large number of control voltages to them. The models
must be simpler (and that simplicity is not necessarily a disadvantage) and the measurements
needed to find the parameters of those models are also simpler.
The method of analysis affects modeling as well. For example, in transient analysis of FETs,
it is common to treat the gate-to-channel capacitance as a single depletion charge, Qg. The
current in that charge is the gate current, ig, where
Ig =

Q g dV gs Q g dV gd
+
V gs d t
V gd d t

(1)

where Vgs is the gate-to-source voltage and Vgd is the gate-to-drain voltage. Then we assume
that
I g = I gs + I gd

(2)

where the first term of (1) is the gate-to source reactive current, igs, and the second is the drainto-source current, igd. This approach works very well in transient analysis, where the
derivatives of the voltages are readily available. However, in harmonic-balance analysis, the
differentiation is best performed in the frequency domain by multiplying by j. The above
approach is clumsy to implement in harmonic balance, since the time derivatives are not
available. It is possible to determine the current by accumulating the charges, but this requires
some type of memory, which is equally undesirable. As a result, the FETs capacitance is
usually treated as two separate charges, one the gate-to-source charge and the other the drainto-source. This approach is more amenable to harmonic-balance analysis, but it creates a
number of difficulties, which have been well described in the literature [5, 6].
System-Level Analysis and Black-Box Models
Virtually all nonlinear analysis is on the circuit level. Very little work has been performed on
methods for black-box characterization of nonlinear elements. Such characterization, if
possible, could be very useful for many purposes, especially for system analysis.
The Holy Grail of nonlinear system-level analysis is to measure a set of large-signal
components and to use the data directly to predict their performance in a system. The work in
this area is somewhat limited, but nevertheless promising [7, 8]. As with Volterra methods,
however, both the measurement process and the use of the data in system analysis promise to
be complex.

The difficulty in creating a rigorous, black-box model is easy to illustrate. Consider a steadystate excitation s(t) consisting of a spectrum of sinusoids,
Q

s(t ) =

S q exp ( j q )

(3)

q = Q

In general, the frequencies q are noncommensurate (i.e., they are not harmonics of some
fundamental frequency). The response of a nonlinear network to this excitation consists of all
n-fold mixing products of these excitations, where n = 1,2.... Thus, the response r(t) is

r(t) =

n = 1 q1 = Q q2 = Q

R q1, q2qn exp ( j ( q1 + q2 + + qn ) )

(4)

qn = Q

Thus, a black-box model requires a mapping of the excitation components Sq to all the
response components, R q1, q2qn . The mapping between any pair of frequency components is
nonlinear in both amplitude and phase and depends on the magnitudes of all components Sq.
Of course, the component may have more than two ports, and in this case mappings must be
provided for all combinations of ports. Finally, the set of port terminations at all mixing
frequencies is yet another component of R q1, q2qn .
This type of model can be implemented only if certain simplifying assumptions are made. One
obvious necessity is to limit n to some reasonable value, N, which depends on the strength of
the nonlinearity and the magnitude of the excitation. Also, if the excitation is monochromatic,
consists only of harmonics of a single frequency, or mixing products involving only a limited
number of excitation frequencies, (4) becomes much easier to employ.
Further simplifications are possible. For example, in a so-called behavioral model, the
simplest possible mapping is made between a limited set of excitation components Sq and the
set of output frequency components of interest. Typically the excitation is a modulated signal
and the output is a distorted version of the input. Port terminations are fixed at a single value,
often the common 50 standard. Finally, the excitations modulation is assumed to vary
slowly. This way, the excitation can be approximated as a single frequency and, since the
output spectrum is similarly very narrow, the mapping can be assumed identical for all
frequency components.
With these limitations, R q1, q2qn can be found easily from the circuits AM-to-AM and AMto-PM characteristics, measured at band center. The simplifying assumptions, although severe,
still allow prediction of the circuits response to such large, complex excitations as a digitally
modulated carrier. In spite of the restrictive assumptions, promising results with this type of
model have been reported [9-11], and its advantagesimplicity of measuring the necessary
characteristics and ease of creating the modelmake it attractive.
Another approach is to assume that the excitations are very small and that the circuit is only

weakly nonlinear. In this case (4) can be expressed as

r(t) =

n = 1 q1 = Q q2 = Q

S q1 S q2 S qn

(5)

qn = Q

H ( q1, q2 qn ) exp ( j ( q1 + q2 + + qn ) ) )
Under this assumption, N is limited to the order of the mixing products of interest.
H ( q1, q2 qn ) is called the nonlinear transfer function. In the simple case where the
component is unilateral and can be treated as a cascade of linear and resistive nonlinear
networks, the nonlinear transfer function is [2]
H ( q1, q2 qn ) = a n H ( q1 )H ( q2 )H ( qn )

(6)

where H ( q ) is the linear transfer function, at frequency q, of the linear block preceding the
nonlinearity, and an is the nth-degree coefficient of a Taylor series describing the nonlinearity.
This formulation is very simple to implement. It is used frequently in system simulation.
Volterra methods create a type of behavioral model. Such models are considerably more
sophisticated than the ones described above, but are limited to weak nonlinearities. Compared
to the earlier behavioral model, the Volterra approach has a more rigorous theoretical basis. It
is quite accurate as long as the assumption regarding weak nonlinearities is not violated.
One possibility for generating a Volterra model of a component is to map its nonlinear transfer
function and to use Volterra theory to calculate the response [12]. Once the data are measured,
they can be used, with some additional theory, to analyze a network having arbitrary
terminations, much as scattering parameters are used in linear circuits. The measurements and
the implementation of the theory are, however, fairly complex.
In view of the difficulty in creating a black-box model of a system component, it is usually
much more practical to reduce the system to a single circuit element, and to make the
excitation a voltage (or current) and the response its current (or voltage, respectively).
Thus, the nonlinear component becomes a nonlinear circuit. The disadvantage of this approach
is in the complexity of the interconnections between these components, compared to the
simple (usually) cascaded blocks of an RF or microwave system.
MODELING SOLID-STATE DEVICES
Modeling solid-state devices, which are invariably nonlinear, is arguably the most critical part
of nonlinear circuit analysis. Important considerations in developing device models are (1)
determination of the general form of the model, (2) extraction of model parameters, and (3)
validation of the model. All these issues are beset by considerable subtlety. Although blackbox models for solid-state devices occasionally are proposed, most models are based on
equivalent circuits. These may be derived from the physics of the device or may be completely
empirical.

Physical Models
All solid-state device models must be based, to some degree, on the physical operation of the
device. By physical models, however, we usually mean models that solve a set of equations
that describe the motion of charge carriers through the device. From these results, terminal
voltages and currents, and their derivatives, are determined.
Solving the physical equations of the device in a rigorous manner is extremely expensive, and
a circuit designer rarely is able to measure the parameters necessary for such models. Thus,
full physical modeling is probably impractical for most circuit analyses.
Certain approaches can be used to simplify the modeling task while allowing the model to
remain closely tied to the physics of the device. One is to break the device into pieces, create
a physical model of each part (with parameters that are straightforward to measure), and to
interconnect the parts as a circuit [13-15]. This is a thoroughly practical approach. Another is
to simplify the equations by the inclusion of empirical parameters. This results in a largely
physical model that is reasonably efficient.
It is a commonly held belief that physical models represent the highest possible accuracy at
the cost of high computational expense. In practice, however, the trade-off is not so clear. All
physical models are, at some level, approximate, and the model is largely a prisoner of its
built-in approximations. An empirical model, in contrast, can be designed to do anything;
there are no built-in restrictions on the form of its equations. Thus, empirical equivalent-circuit
models are clearly more efficient, and generally no less accurate, than physical models. For
this reason, empirical models (as well as physical models described by equivalent circuits and
including empirical elements or parameters) are generally preferred.
Empirical Equivalent-Circuit Models
Most practical device models are mostly or completely empirical. These consist of an
interconnection of linear and nonlinear elements. The nonlinear elements may be two-terminal
devices or may be current or charge sources controlled by one or more voltages or currents.
Often, thermal effects are included as well.
Model Structure
The elements of the equivalent circuit should represent parts of the physical structure of the
device. This way, the model is likely to be valid in a wide range of applications. Some of the
circuit elements (e.g., intermetallic capacitances) are clearly linear; others (e.g., junction
capacitances) usually must be treated as nonlinear elements. Many elements are weakly
nonlinear and can be treated as linear of nonlinear according to the needs of the analysis.
Equivalent-circuit models can be very simple or very complex. The more complex (e.g., the
BSIM3v3 model, which has over 400 parameters [16]) usually represent an attempt to be valid
for all purposes. Considerable simplification can be achieved by abandoning the largely futile
goal of creating a multipurpose model, and by tailoring the model for the application at hand.
Done intelligently, this type of model results in high accuracy, efficient analysis, and a simple
modeling task. In view of the increasing size of RF integrated circuits, often using several
thousand transistors, simplifying such modeling and optimizing its efficiency is extremely

important.
For example, it has long been recognized [17, 18] that modeling nth-order intermodulation
distortion requires accurately modeling the first n derivatives of a devices I/V (currentvoltage), Q/V (charge-voltage), or /I (flux-current) characteristic. Simple, small-signal
models can be devised that do this very accurately, and these are thoroughly adequate for
analyses of intermodulation distortion by either Volterra or harmonic-balance methods.
Conversely, however, general-purpose large-signal models such as BSIM3v3 often model the
large-signal characteristics accurately but fail to model derivatives with sufficient accuracy.
Deciding whether to treat a circuit element as a linear or a nonlinear element has additional
pitfalls. For example, in many large-signal FET circuits, the nonlinearity of the gate-to-source
capacitance has little effect on the operation of the circuit; replacing it by the average
capacitance (i.e., averaged over the large-signal excitation waveform) is often adequate.
However, that average capacitance cannot be known unless the nonlinearity is characterized
adequately; averaging the capacitance over its range of control voltages is clearly not the same
thing as averaging it over a period of some particular excitation. Furthermore, even weakly
nonlinear elements can have surprisingly large effects, depending on their placement in the
equivalent circuit. Nonlinearities in the emitter resistance of a bipolar transistor are an
example of this situation.
Parameter Extraction
Parameter extraction is the process of determining values of model parameters from
measurements of the solid-state device. Traditionally, this involves small-signal quasilinear
measurements of the device. Linear elements are determined directly from those
measurements, and parameters of the nonlinear elements are determined by linearizing the
model at its bias point.
This process can be difficult. Certain quantities are especially troublesome to measure; for
example, it is quite difficult to separate the effect of the transconductance and parasitic source
series resistance in a FET. Increasing or decreasing both the source resistance and the
transconductance in tandem has little effect on the small-signal equivalent circuits scattering
parameters. To determining these quantities, it is necessary to begin with an estimate of the
resistance (which can be provided by measurements on test structures or by analysis) or to
measure the resistance in an unbiased (cold) FET, so the transconductance is zero. All these
methods have disadvantages.
Inherent in this process is a quasistatic assumption: that the values of current, voltage, charge,
or flux are memoryless functions of their controlling voltages or currents. This assumption is
violated regularly. For example, the drain-to-source resistance of a FET is known to be
dispersive; that is, the resistance varies with frequency. The phenomenon is attributed to
traps in the FETs channel. These traps have long time constants, so most of the resistance
variation occurs at frequencies below 1 MHz. This phenomenon, important as it is, has never
been analyzed and modeled rigorously. Another nonquasistatic phenomenon is the transit-time
(diffusion) capacitance of bipolar devices (BJTs). This capacitance is caused by the storage of
charge that transits the base region of the BJT. If the frequency is much lower than the inverse

transit time, the effect can by modeled by noting that the stored charge Qt is
Q t = I c

(7)

where is the transit time and Ic is the collector current. The capacitance Cbe is then
C be =

dQ t
d V be

(8)

(This approach is used the SPICE BJT model.) When the inverse frequency is on the order of
the transit time, this approach loses accuracy [14]. Very few BJT models, however, account for
it accurately.
A second inherent assumption is the equivalence of the small signal and linearized large-signal
models. This equivalence is often called consistency, and it is regularly violated. Many of the
problems with inconsistent models were identified in a classic paper by Root [5]. The most
serious of these are inconsistencies in the large- and small-signal capacitances, necessitating
the use of a new element, which Root calls a transcapacitance. Furthermore, nonconservative
charge functions that can occur in such models result in dc currents in nonlinear capacitors and
numerical overflow in analyses.
Model Verification
The only effective way to verify a model is to show that it accurately models the phenomenon
that it was designed to model. This obvious point seems to be lost on many model designers.
Often, the only verification presented for a model consists of comparisons of measured and
modeled dc I/V curves. Such measurements say nothing about the models ability to reproduce
RF phenomena.
Showing the accuracy of the critical characteristics of a model is necessary but insufficient to
validate it for RF or microwave use. For example, a FET model designed for intermodulation
analysis must reproduce accurately the derivatives of its gate-to-channel I/V characteristic;
these can be perfect, yet other problems with the model may cause it to be inaccurate. Only
RF intermodulation measurements, in conjunction with parameter measurements, validate the
model for RF purposes.
Verification measurements must show that the model reproduces the phenomenon of interest
when all relevant parameters are varied. Input level, frequency, bias voltages, and embedding
impedances should be varied if the model is designed to work under these conditions.
Frequently, model verification does not do this in a valid manner. For example, small-signal
intermodulation models are often validated by plots of IM level as a function of input power,
and a display of the expected n dB/dB slope of the output power curve, for nth-order
intermodulation, is displayed as verification. However, virtually any model will reproduce
such a curve, so, if the model produces a correct result at one input level, it will produce the
correct result at all input levels below saturation. The correct result at one input level can
occur, of course, by accident. Similarly, a plot of IM level as a function of frequency may
simply reflect the passband of the output matching circuits. A much better validation is to
show how the intermodulation level varies with dc bias or terminating impedance.

One disturbing trend is the complete lack of even simple error analysis in modeling research.
Most models are validated by a plot of measured and calculated data, and if the plot looks
good, the model is validated. It would be a welcome development if this process were to
become more quantitative.
Accurate modeling of nonlinear elements is not sufficient to achieve accurate nonlinear
analyses; linear elements, some of which may be part of the device model, must also be
accurately modeled. This is especially important, since large-signal circuits generate a large
number of harmonics, and the linear-element models must be reasonably accurate over this
entire frequency range. It is sometimes difficult to say what reasonably accurate means;
certainly, the device parasitics, which short-circuit the device at high frequencies and decouple
it from the rest of the circuit, reduce somewhat the importance of the linear element models.
Lack of validation can be caused by improper use of an analytical method as well as invalid
modeling. For example, analyzing small-signal intermodulation by harmonic-balance analysis
is especially tricky. Even if the model is valid, the analytical results can be incorrect. Causes
of inaccurate intermodulation analysis by harmonic balance include inadequate convergence
and noise in the Fourier transforms.
CONCLUSIONS
It seems clear that we do not have the analytical and modeling technology that we need for
accurate designs of many types of nonlinear components. Most important is the need to
develop accurate, theoretically rigorous models of solid-state devices and even of the linear
elements that are used in conjunction with them. Validation methods must be tightened and
model consistency must be enhanced. Extraction procedures for both linear and nonlinear
parameters must be improved. Finally, an understanding of the interplay between model
parameters and analysis accuracy, and information about appropriate methods of analysis,
must be made available to circuit designers.
REFERENCES
[1]

Electronics Research Laboratory, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California,

USA 94720.

[2]

S. A. Maas, Nonlinear Microwave Circuits, IEEE Press, New York, 1997.

[3]

V. Rizzoli, State-of-the-Art Harmonic-Balance Simulation of Forced Nonlinear Microwave Circuits by

the Piecewise Technique, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 40, p. 12, 1992.

[4]

K. Kundert, J. White, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Steady-State Methods for Simulating Analog and
Microwave Circuits, Kluwer, Norwell, MA, 1990.

[5]

D. E. Root and B. Hughes, Principles of Nonlinear Active Device Modeling for Circuit Simulation, Proc.
32nd IEEE MTT ARFTG Conference, p. 3, 1988.

[6]

I. W. Smith, H. Statz, H. A. Haus, and R. A. Pucel, On Charge Nonconservation in FETs, IEEE Trans.
Electron Devices, vol. ED-34, no. 12, p. 2565, Dec., 1987.

[7]

J. Verspecht and P. Van Esch, Accurately Characterizing Hard Nonlinear Behavior of Microwave Components with the Nonlinear Network Measuring System: Introducing Nonlinear Scattering Functions, 5th
International Workshop on Integrated Nonlinear Microwave and Millimeterwave Circuits Digest of
Papers, p. 17, Gerhard Mercator University, Duisburg, Germany, 1998.

[8]

D. Schreurs, Nonlinear Device Modeling and Circuit Design Based on Vectorial Large-Signal Measurements, 5th International Workshop on Integrated Nonlinear Microwave and Millimeterwave Circuits
Digest of Papers, p. 28, Gerhard Mercator University, Duisburg, Germany, 1998.

[9]

J. F. Sevic, Analysis of GaAs MESFET Spectrum Regeneration Driven By a /4 DQPSK Modulated

Source, 1995 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium Digest, p. 1375, 1995.

[10] E. Ngoya and R. Larcheveque, Envelop [sic] Transient Analysis: A New Method for the Transient and
Steady-State Analysis of Microwave Communication Circuits and Systems, 1996 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium Digest, p. 1365, 1996.
[11] J. F. Sevic, M. B. Steer, and A. M. Pavio, Nonlinear Analysis Methods for the Simulation of Digital Wireless Communication Systems, International J. Microwave and Millimeter-Wave Computer-Aided Engineering, vol. 6, p. 197, 1996.
[12] F. Verbeyst and M. Vanden Bossche, VIOMAP: The S-Parameter Equivalent for Weakly Nonlinear RF
and Microwave Devices, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 42, p. 2531, 1994.
[13] C. Snowden, Large-Signal Microwave Characterization of AlGaAs/GaAs HBTs Based on a PhysicsBased Electrothermal Model, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 45, p. 58, 1997.
[14] P. C. Grossman, A Physically Based Large-Signal HBT Model with Self Heating and Transit-Time
Effects, 1991 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium Digest, p. 233, 1991.
[15] C. M. Snowdon and R. E. Miles, (Eds.) Compound Semiconductor Device Modelling, Springer-Verlag,
London, 1993.
[16] Y. Cheng et al., BSIM3v3 Manual, University of California, Berkeley, 1996.
[17] S. Maas and D. Neilson, Modeling MESFETs for Intermodulation Analysis of Mixers and Amplifiers,
IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. MTT-38, p. 1964, 1990.
[18] S. A. Maas, How to Model Intermodulation Distortion, 1991 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium Digest, p. 149, 1991.