4.6 Article

Design Criteria in Sizing Phase-Change RF Switches

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES
Volume 65, Issue 11, Pages 4531-4540

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMTT.2017.2759735

Keywords

Germanium telluride; GeTe; PCM switch; phase-change (PC) material; PC switch; reconfigurable circuits; RF switch; tungsten microheaters

Funding

  1. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency through Radio Frequency-Field Programmable Gate Arrays Program [HR0011-12-C-0095]
  2. Office of Naval Research through Defense University Research Instrumentation Program [N000141310874]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents design criteria for four-terminal phase-change (PC) RF switches as a function of their dimensions, (heater width, RF gap, and barrier thickness), materials, and connection topology. Reducing heater width is shown to reduce switch actuation power, with this reduction ultimately being limited by the maximum allowed heater current density, as set by projected reliability. Narrower RF gaps are shown to increase switch cut-off frequency F-CO, because they decrease on-state resistance more than they increase off-state capacitance. The balance of this increased F-CO versus the estimated reduction in power handling as the RF gap shrinks is quantified. Barrier layers of AIN thicker than 200 nm are shown to be sufficient to electrically decouple the switch from the heater trace. Coupling to heater pads can also be significant unless pad sizes are reduced as in a monolithically integrated switch. Finally, it is demonstrated that division of the switch into multiple parallel segments is a viable approach for lowering the heater actuation voltage for CMOS integration. A 12.5% increase in C-OFF (similar to 1.5 fF) was observed and 35% increase in actuation power at temperature was needed in a two-segment parallel switch, as compared to a single segment switch.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available