IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, VOL. 39, NO.

9, SEPTEMBER 2004

1415

A Study of Injection Locking and Pulling in Oscillators

Behzad Razavi, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractInjection locking characteristics of oscillators are derived and a graphical analysis is presented that describes injection pulling in time and frequency domains. An identity obtained from phase and envelope equations is used to express the requisite oscillator nonlinearity and interpret phase noise reduction. The behavior of phase-locked oscillators under injection pulling is also formulated. Index TermsAdlers equation, injection locking, injection pulling, oscillator nonlinearity, oscillator pulling, quadrature oscillators.

NJECTION of a periodic signal into an oscillator leads to interesting locking or pulling phenomena. Studied by Adler [1], Kurokawa [2], and others [3][5], these effects have found increasingly greater importance for they manifest themselves in many of todays transceivers and frequency synthesis techniques. This paper describes new insights into injection locking and pulling and formulates the behavior of phase-locked oscillators under injection. A graphical interpretation of Adlers equation illustrates pulling in both time and frequency domains while an identity derived from the phase and envelope equations expresses the required oscillator nonlinearity across the lock range. Section II of the paper places this work in context and Section III deals with injection locking. Sections IV and V respectively consider injection pulling and the required oscillator nonlinearity. Section VI quanties the effect of pulling on phase-locked loops (PLLs) and Section VII summarizes the experimental results. I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Fig. 1.

Oscillator pulling in (a) broadband transceiver and (b) RF transceiver.

Oscillatory systems are generally prone to injection locking or pulling. As early as the 17th century, the Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, while conned to bed by illness, noticed that the pendulums of two clocks on the wall moved in unison if the clocks were hung close to each other [6]. He postulated that the coupling of the mechanical vibrations through the wall drove the clocks into synchronization. It has also been observed that humans left in isolated bunkers reveal a free-running sleepwake period of about 25 hours [7] but, when brought back to the nature, they are injection-locked to the Earths cycle.

Injection locking becomes useful in a number of applications, including frequency division [8], [9], quadrature generation [10], [11], and oscillators with ner phase separations [12]. Injection pulling, on the other hand, typically proves undesirable. For example, in the broadband transceiver of Fig. 1(a), , is locked to the transmit voltage-controlled oscillator, , is a local crystal oscillator whereas the receive VCO, locked to the incoming data and hence potentially a slightly different frequency. Thus, the two oscillators may pull each other as a result of coupling through the substrate. Similarly, the high-swing broadband data at the output of the transmitter and as it contains substantial energy in may pull the vicinity of their oscillation frequencies. Fig. 1(b) depicts another example of undesirable pulling. The power amplier (PA) output in an RF transceiver contains large , leaking through the spectral components in the vicinity of package and the substrate to the VCO and causing pulling. II. INJECTION LOCKING

Manuscript received December 16, 2003; revised March 17, 2004. The author is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA (e-mail: [email protected]). Digital Object Identier 10.1109/JSSC.2004.831608

Consider the simple (conceptual) oscillator shown in Fig. 2, where all parasitics are neglected, the tank operates at the res(thus contributing no phase onance frequency

0018-9200/04$20.00 2004 IEEE

1416

IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, VOL. 39, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2004

Fig. 3. Phase difference between input and output for different values of ! ! and I .

j
Fig. 2. (a) Conceptual oscillator. (b) Frequency shift due to additional phase shift. (c) Open-loop characteristics. (d) Frequency shift by injection.

0 j

which reaches a maximum of (3)

shift), and the ideal inverting buffer follows the tank to create a total phase shift of 360 around the feedback loop. What happens if an additional phase shift is inserted in the loop, e.g., as depicted in Fig. 2(b)? The circuit can no longer oscillate at because the total phase shift at this frequency deviates from 360 by . Thus, as illustrated in Fig. 2(c), the oscillation frequency such that the tank contributes must change to a new value enough phase shift to cancel the effect of . Note that, if the contribute no phase shift, then the drain current buffer and must remain in phase with under all condiof tions. by adding a sinuNow suppose we attempt to produce [Fig. 2(d)]. If the amsoidal current to the drain current of are chosen properly, the circuit inplitude and frequency of rather than at and injection locking deed oscillates at occurs. Under this condition, and must bear a phase difference [Fig. 3(a)] because: 1) the tank contributes phase at , rotating with respect to the resultant current, , and 2) still remains in phase with and hence out of phase with respect to , requiring that form an angle . (If and were in phase, then would also be with and thus with ). The angle formed bein phase with and is such that becomes aligned with tween (and ) after experiencing the tank phase shift, , at . across In order to determine the lock range (the range of which injection locking holds), we examine the phasor diagram departs from . To match the increasingly of Fig. 3(a) as greater phase shift introduced by the tank, the angle between and must also increase, requiring that rotate counterclockwise [Fig. 3(b)]. It can be shown that (1) (2)

if (4) Depicted in Fig. 3(c), these conditions translate to a 90 angle , implying that the phase differbetween the resultant and , and the output, , reaches a ence between the input, maximum of . To compute the value of corresponding to this case, we rst note that the phase shift of the tank in the vicinity of resonance is given by (Section III-A) (5) and recognize from Fig. 3(c) that . It follows that and

(6)

(This result is obtained in [3] using a different approach.) We denote this maximum difference by , with the understanding around .1 that the overall lock range is in fact The dependence of the lock range upon the injection level, , is to be expected: if decreases, must form a greater so as to maintain the phase difference between angle with and at [Fig. 3(d)]. Thus, the circuit moves closer to the edge of the lock range. , then (2) reduces to As a special case, if (7)
1We

call ! the one-sided lock range.

RAZAVI: STUDY OF INJECTION LOCKING AND PULLING IN OSCILLATORS

1417

Fig. 5.

(a) Injection-locked divider. (b) Equivalent circuit.

Fig. 4. Phase shift in an injection-locked oscillator.

implying that is small and and (7) therefore give

. Equations (5)

(8)

for the input-output phase difference across the lock range. As this difference reaches evident from Fig. 3(c), for 90 at the edge of the lock range, a plausible result because if the zero crossings of the input fall on the peaks of the output, little phase synchronization occurs. The lock range in this case can be obtained from (6) or (8): (9)

, the lock range exceeds (9) by 3.3%. In other words, for a 90 phase difference between its input and output, an injection-locked oscillator need not operate at the edge of the lock range. 2) Application to Dividers: Fig. 5(a) shows an injecstage [15]. While tion-locked oscillator operating as a previous work has treated the circuit as a nonlinear function to derive the lock range [15], it is possible to adopt a time-variant view to simplify the analysis. Switching at a rate equal to the and form a mixer that translates oscillation frequency, to , with the sum component suppressed by the tank selectivity. Thus, as depicted in Fig. 5(b), injection of at into node is equivalent to injection of (where is the mixer conversion gain) at directly into the oscillator. If and switch abruptly and the capacitance at , and (9) can be written as node is neglected, then (12)

The subtle difference between (6) and (9) plays a critical role in quadrature oscillators (as explained below). Fig. 4 plots the input-output phase difference across the lock range. In contrast to phase-locking, injection locking to mandates operation away from the tank resonance. 1) Application to Quadrature Oscillators: With the aid of a feedback model [13] or a one-port model [14], it can be shown that antiphase (unilateral) coupling of two identical oscillators forces them to operate in quadrature. It can also be shown [14] that this type of coupling (injection locking) shifts the frequency from resonance so that each tank produces a phase shift of (10) denotes the current injected by one oscillator into where is the current produced by the core of each the other and oscillator. Use of (5) therefore gives the required frequency shift as (11) Interestingly, (9) would imply that each oscillator is pushed to the edge of the lock range, but (6) suggests that for, say,

If referred to the input, this range must be doubled: (13) Conrmed by simulations, (13) represents the upper bound on the lock range of injection-locked dividers. III. INJECTION PULLING If the injected signal frequency lies out of, but not very far from the lock range, the oscillator is pulled. We study this behavior by computing the output phase of an oscillator under low-level injection. A. Phase Shift Through a Tank For subsequent derivations, we need an expression for the phase shift introduced by a tank in the vicinity of resonance. A second-order parallel tank consisting of , , and exhibits a phase shift of (14)

1418

IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, VOL. 39, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2004

Since , we have

, and

(15) If the current owing through the tank contains phase modula, then the phase shift can be tion, i.e., obtained by replacing in (15) with the instantaneous input fre: quency, (16) Valid for narrow-band phase modulation (slowly-varying ), this approximation holds well for typical injection phenomena. B. Oscillator Under Injection Consider the feedback oscillatory system shown in Fig. 6, where the injection is modeled as an additive input. The output is represented by a phase-modulated signal having a carrier fre(rather than ). In other words, the output is quency of assumed to track the input except for a (possibly time-varying) phase difference. This representation is justied later. The ob, subject it to the phase jective is to calculate . shift of the tank, and equate the result to The output of the adder is equal to (17) (18) The two terms in (18) cannot be separately subjected to the tank phase shift because phase quantities do not satisfy superposition here. Thus, the right-hand side must be converted to a single and dening sinusoid. Factoring (19) we write (20) (29) Since and hence and , we have , Noting that change of variable gration, we arrive at , making a , and carrying out the inteOriginally derived by Adler [1] using a somewhat different approach, this equation serves as a versatile and powerful expression for the behavior of oscillators under injection. , yielding the same result Under locked condition, , the equation must as in (9) for the lock range. If be solved to obtain the dependence of upon time. Note that is typically quite small because, from (28), it reaches a . That is, varies slowly maximum of only under pulling conditions. Adlers equation can be rewritten as (24) (25) (26) It follows from (23), (24), and (26) that (27) (28) We also note from (19) that
Fig. 6. LC oscillator under injection.

Equating this result to

, we obtain (23)

(21) Upon traveling through the LC tank, this signal experiences a phase shift given by (16):

(30) where .2 This paper introduces a graphical interpretation of this equation that confers insight into the phenomenon of injection pulling.
2Interestingly, ! is equal to the geometric mean of ! ! difference between ! and the upper end of the lock range) and ! (the difference between ! and the lower end of the lock range).

(22)

0 ! (the 0! 0!

RAZAVI: STUDY OF INJECTION LOCKING AND PULLING IN OSCILLATORS

1419

Fig. 7.

Phase variation of an injection-pulled oscillator.

C. Quasi-Lock Let us rst examine the above result for an input frequency just below the lock range, i.e., but . Under this condition, is relatively small, and the right-hand side of (30) is dominated by the rst term so long as is less than one, approaching a large magnitude only for a short duration [Fig. 7(a)]. Noting that the cycle repeats with a period equal to , we plot as shown in Fig. 7(b). The key observation here is that is near 90 most of the timeas if the oscillator were injection-locked to the input at the edge of the lock range. At the end of each period and the beginning of the next period, undergoes a rapid 360 change and returns to the quasi-lock condition [Fig. 7(c)]. We now study the spectrum of the pulled oscillator. The spectrum has been analytically derived using different techniques [4], [5], but additional insight can be gained if the results in Fig. 7 are utilized as the starting point. The following observations can be made. 1) The periodic variation of at a rate of implies that the output beats with the input, exhibiting sidebands with a spacing of . Note that is a function of both and (and hence the injection level). 2) Since the oscillator is almost injection-locked to the input for a large fraction of the period, we expect the spectrum to contain signicant energy at . Redrawing Fig. 7(b) with the modulo- transitions at the end of each period removed [Fig. 8(a)] and writing the instantaneous

Fig. 8. Instantaneous frequency and spectrum of an injection-pulled oscillator.

frequency of the output as , we obtain the result depicted in Fig. 8(b). The interesting point here is that, for below the lock range, the instantaneous , exhibiting a frequency of the oscillator goes only above peak value of as obtained from (28). That is, the output spectrum contains mostly sidebands above . We now invoke a useful observation that the shape of the spectrum is given by the probability density function (PDF) of the instantaneous frequency [16]. The PDF is qualitatively plotted in Fig. 8(c), revealing that most of the energy is conned to the range and leading to the actual spectrum in Fig. 8(d). The magnitude of the sidebands drops approximately linearly on a logarithmic scale [4], [5]. Is it possible for one of the sidebands to fall at the natural frequency, ? The following must hold: , where is an integer. Thus, . Since is out of the lock range, the left side of this equation exceeds unity and no value of can place a sideband at . We therefore say the oscillator is pulled from its natural frequency. This

1420

IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, VOL. 39, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2004

Fig. 10.

One-port representation of an oscillator under injection.

falls below that at the next sideband [Fig. 9(d)]. and have approxEventually, the components at imately equal levels [4], [5]. Interestingly, the analyses in [4] and [5] only reveal the spectrum in Fig. 9(d). On the other hand, the approach presented here, particularly the use of the PDF of the instantaneous frequency, correctly predicts both quasi-lock and fast beat conditions. In quadrature oscillators, pulling may occur if the frequency mismatch between the two cores exceeds the injection lock range. With insufcient coupling, the oscillators display a behavior similar to that depicted in Figs. 7 and 9. Note that the resulting sidebands are not due to intermodulation between the two oscillator signals. For example, the spacing between the sidebands is a function of the coupling factor. IV. REQUISITE OSCILLATOR NONLINEARITY Our analysis of injection locking and pulling has thus far ignored nonlinearities in the oscillator. While this may imply that a linear oscillator3 can be injection pulled or locked, we know from the superposition principle that this cannot happen. Specifically, a linear oscillator would simply generate a sinusoid at in response to an initial condition and another at is response to the input. To resolve this paradox, we reexamine the oscillatory system under injection, seeking its envelope behavior. In this case, it is simpler to model the oscillator as a oneport circuit consisting of a parallel tank and a mildly nonlinear represents the loss of negative conductance (Fig. 10), where and the inverting buffer in Fig. 2(a) the tank. For example, cell. In this circuit constitute a negative (32) Now let us assume and , where denotes the envelope of the output. Substituting the exponential terms in (32) and separating the real and imaginary parts, we have

Fig. 9.

Pulling behavior for injection somewhat far from the lock range.

also justies the use of rather than frequency of the output in Fig. 6. D. Fast Beat

for the carrier

It is instructive to examine the results obtained above as deviates farther from the lock range while other parameters remain constant. Rewriting (30) as (31) we recognize that the vertical offset decreases whereas the slope of the second term increases. The right-hand side therefore appears as depicted in Fig. 9(a), yielding the behavior shown in Fig. 9(b) for . Thus, compared to the case illustrated in Fig. 7: 1) the beat frequency increases, leading to a wider separation of sidebands; 2) stays relatively constant for a shorter part of the period and exhibits a faster variation at the beginning and end; for a shorter duand 3) the instantaneous frequency is near ration [Fig. 9(c)], producing a smaller spectral line at this freis sufciently far from , the energy at quency. In fact, if

(33)

(34)
3A linear oscillator can be dened as one in which the loop gain is exactly unity for all signal levels.

RAZAVI: STUDY OF INJECTION LOCKING AND PULLING IN OSCILLATORS

1421

To simplify these equations, we assume: 1) the envelope varies slowly and by a small amount; 2) the magnitude of the envelope can be approximated as the tank peak current produced by the circuit, , multiplied by the tank resistance ; 3) ; 4) where applicable; and 5) the phase and its derivatives vary slowly. Equations (33) and (34) thus reduce to
Fig. 11. Variation of

across the lock range.

(35) (36) The rst is Adlers equation, whereas the second expresses the behavior of the envelope. To develop more insight, let us study these results within the . Writing lock range, i.e., if gives the following useful identity: (37) For (38) that is, the circuit responds by weakening the circuit (i.e., allowing more saturation) because the injection adds in-phase , energy to the oscillator. On the other hand, for , as if there is no injection. Fig. 11 illustrates we have the behavior of across the lock range. While derived for a mildly-nonlinear oscillator, the above result does suggest a general effect: the oscillator must spend less moves closer to . A linear time in the linear regime as oscillator therefore does not injection lock. V. PHASE NOISE The phase noise of oscillators can be reduced by injection locking to a low-noise source. From a time-domain perspective, the synchronizing effect of injection manifests itself as correction of the oscillator zero crossings in every period, thereby lowering the accumulation of jitter. This viewpoint also reveals that the reduction of phase noise depends on the injection level, [Fig. 12(a)] (where the and it reaches a maximum for greatly impact those of ) and a minzero crossings of imum for [Fig. 12(b)] (where the zero crossings coincide with the zero-slope points on ). of Using the one-port model of Fig. 10 and the identity expressed by (38), we can estimate the phase noise reduction in a mildly nonlinear oscillator that is injection-locked to a noiseless source. As depicted in Fig. 13, the noise of the tank cell can be represented as a current source . In and the cancels the absence of injection, the (average) value of , and experiences the following transimpedance: (39)

Fig. 12. Conceptual illustration of effect of injection locking on jitter (a) in the middle and (b) at the edge of the lock range.

Fig. 13.

Model for studying phase noise.

Thus, is amplied by an increasingly higher gain as the noise frequency approaches .4 Now suppose a nite injection is applied at the center of the lock range, . Then, (38) predicts that the overall tank . In other words, admittance rises to falls from innity (with no the tank impedance seen by at under injection locking. As the freinjection) to quency of deviates from continues to dominate the tank impedance up to the frequency offset at which the phase noise approaches that of the free-running oscillator (Fig. 14). To determine this point, we equate the free-running and note that noise shaping function of (39) to and (40) Thus, the free-running and locked phase noise proles meet at the edges of the lock range.
4For very small frequency offsets, the noise shaping function assumes a Lorentzian shape and hence a nite value.

1422

IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, VOL. 39, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2004

As illustrated in Fig. 12(b), if the input frequency deviates from , the resulting phase noise reduction becomes less proapproaches either edge of the lock nounced. In fact, as range, drops to zero, raising the impedance seen by the noise current. In CMOS technology, it is difcult to rely on the phase noise reduction property of injection locking. Since the lock range is typically quite narrow and since the natural frequency of oscillators incurs signicant error due to process variations and poor modeling, the locking may occur near the edge of the lock range, thereby lowering the phase noise only slightly. For example, if % and the natural frethe two-sided lock range is equal to % with process and temquency of the oscillator varies by perature, then, in the worst case, the injection locking occurs at . It follows from (37) and the above observations that the impedance seen by the noise falls from innity , yielding a 4.4-dB degradation in the phase to . noise compared to the case of VI. INJECTION PULLING IN PHASE-LOCKED OSCILLATORS The analysis in Section III deals with pulling in nominally free-running oscillators, a rare case of practical interest. Since oscillators are usually phase-locked, the analysis must account for the correction poduced by the PLL. In this section, we aswhile phasesume the oscillator is pulled by a component at locked so as to operate at . We also assume that the oscillator control has a gain of and contains a small perturbation, , around a dc level. Examining the derivations in Section III for a VCO, we observe that (19) and (21) remain unchanged. In (22), on the other to . For small perturhand, we must now add can be neglected in the denominator of bations, and

Fig. 14.

Reduction of phase noise due to injection locking.

Fig. 15. PLL under injection pulling.

The above result can now be used in a PLL environment. In Fig. 15, the PFD, CP, and loop lter collectively provide the following transfer function: (45) where the negative sign accounts for phase subtraction by the PFD. We therefore have (46) in (44) and differentiating both sides with Substituting for respect to time, we obtain

(41) Equating the phase of (41) to and noting that (24) and (26) can be shown to still hold, we have (42) Fig. 15 shows a PLL consisting of a phase/frequency detector (PFD), a charge pump (CP), and a low-pass lter ( and ), and the VCO under injection. Since with a low injection level, the PLL remains phase-locked to , it is more meaningful to rather than . Thus, express the output phase as and (43) (44) where it is assumed radian. This approximation is reasonable if pulling does not excessively corrupt the PLL output. where denotes the phase of the transfer function at a frequency .5 of
5A dual-loop model developed by A. Mirzaei arrives at a similar result but with a different value for the peak amplitude of the cosine [17].

(47) where . This reveals that the PLL behaves as a second-order system in its response to injection pulling. Dening (48) (49) we have (50)

RAZAVI: STUDY OF INJECTION LOCKING AND PULLING IN OSCILLATORS

1423

Fig. 16.

(a) LC VCO. (b) Die photograph.

Fig. 17.

Measured spectrum of free-running oscillator under injection. (a) Quasi-lock. (b) Fast beat.

Fig. 18.

Measured spectrum of (a) free-running oscillator under injection, and (b) phase-locked oscillator under injection.

Equation (50) leads to several interesting and important observations. First, the VCO output phase is modulated sinusoidally, thereby creating only two symmetric sidebands (for , i.e., at low injection). The sidebands reside at and . Second, (46) suggests that the control voltage , possibly serving also varies sinusoidally at a frequency of as a point for monitoring the strength of pulling. Third, the peak value of in (50) and hence the sideband magnitudes ; in fact, they approach zero for both vary with and , assuming a peak in between. This is because

is well the PLL suppresses the effect of pulling if within the loop bandwidth and the oscillator pulling becomes is large. less signicant if The bandpass behavior of the peak phase in (50) stands in sharp contrast to the response of PLLs to additive phase at the output of the VCO. For example, the VCO phase noise experiences a high-pass transfer to the output. The symmetry of sidebands can also be interpreted with the aid of the relationship between the shape of the spectrum and the . If the sidebands were PDF of the instantaneous frequency,

1424

IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, VOL. 39, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2004

REFERENCES
[1] R. Adler, A study of locking phenomena in oscillators, Proc. IEEE, vol. 61, pp. 13801385, Oct. 1973. [2] K. Kurokawa, Injection locking of microwave solid-state oscillators, Proc. IEEE, vol. 61, pp. 13361410, Oct. 1973. [3] L. J. Paciorek, Injection locking of oscillators, Proc. IEEE, vol. 53, pp. 17231727, Nov. 1965. [4] H. L. Stover, Theoretical explanation of the output spectra of unlocked driven oscillators, Proc. IEEE, vol. 54, pp. 310311, Feb. 1966. [5] M. Armand, On the output spectrum of unlocked driven oscillators, Proc. IEEE, vol. 59, pp. 798799, May 1969. [6] A. E. Siegman, Lasers. Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books, 1986. [7] R. R. Ward, The Living Clocks. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1971. [8] V. Manassewitsch, Frequency Synthesizers, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1987. [9] E. Normann, The inductance-capacitance oscillator as a frequency divider, in Proc. IRE, vol. 24, Oct. 1946, pp. 799803. [10] C. J. M. Verhoeven, A high-frequency electronically tunable quadrature oscillator, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 27, pp. 10971100, July 1992. [11] A. Rofougaran et al., A 900 MHz CMOS LC oscillator with quadrature outputs, in IEEE ISSCC Dig. Tech. Papers, Feb. 1996, pp. 392393. [12] J. Kim and B. Kim, A low phase noise CMOS LC oscillator with a ring structure, in IEEE ISSCC Dig. Tech. Papers, Feb. 2000, pp. 430431. [13] T. P. Liu, A 6.5 GHz monolithic CMOS voltage-controlled oscillator, in IEEE ISSCC Dig. Tech. Papers, Feb. 1999, pp. 404405. [14] B. Razavi, Design of Integrated Circuits for Optical Communications. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. [15] H. R. Rategh and T. H. Lee, Superharmonic injection-locked frequency dividers, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 34, pp. 813821, June 1999. [16] H. E. Rowe, Signals and Noise in Communication Systems. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1965. [17] A. Mirzaei, private communication.

Fig. 19.

Measured prole of sidebands.

asymmteric, so would the PDF of be. That is, would spend more time at one of its extremes. The PLL would then apply a greater correction at that extreme, eventually creating a symmetric spectrum. The foregoing analysis assumes a rst-order loop lter and continuous-time loop operation. The addition of a second capacitor from the oscillator control line to ground and the discrete-time nature of the loop lead to sideband magnitudes that are somewhat different from those predicted by (50). For this reason, circuit simulations are often necessary to determine the sideband levels accurately. VII. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS A 1-GHz charge-pump phase-locked loop including a circuit has been designed and fabricated in 0.35- m CMOS technology. Fig. 16(a) shows the LC oscillator and the method of injection, with the transistor widths shown in microns (the lengths are equal to 0.35 m), and Fig. 16(b) depicts the die photo. The distinction between quasi-lock and fast beat cases is demonstrated in the spectra of Fig. 17 for the free-running oscillator. Here, the injected level is approximately 38 dB below the oscillation level6 and the lock range is equal to 1.5 MHz. Indeed, for injection 110 kHz outside the lock range, [Fig. 17(a)], displays the largest magnitude. As the sideband at further deviates from the lock range (710 kHz outside the lock range), the component at becomes dominant. Fig. 18(a) and (b) compares the output spectrum before and after phase-locking, respectively. Here, the injected level is approximately 53 dB below the oscillation level. As the analysis in Section III predicts, the sidebands become symmetric after the loop is closed. The left sideband in Fig. 18(b) is located at and is slightly larger than the right one. This is because also feeds through the oscillator to the output. In other words, if is moved to above , then the right sideband becomes larger. Measurements also conrm that the spectrum remains symmetric even for a very small charge pump currentbut the sidebands rise in both magnitude and number. varies from Fig. 19 plots the prole of the sidebands as to large values, conrming the bandpass behavior of pulling. These results agree well with simulations. The theoretical predictions overestimate the peak of this prole by about 7 dB.
6This

is derived from the measured lock range: I

=I

= 2Q(!

=!

).

Behzad Razavi (S87M90SM00F03) received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 1985 and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Stanford University, Stanford, CA, in 1988 and 1992, respectively. He was an Adjunct Professor at Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, from 1992 to 1994, and at Stanford University, Stanford, CA, in 1995. He was with AT&T Bell Laboratories and Hewlett-Packard Laboratories until 1996. Since 1996, he has been Associate Professor and subsequently Professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles. He si the author of Principles of Data Conversion System Design (IEEE Press, 1995), RF Microelectronics (Prentice Hall, 1998) (also translated into Japanese), Design of Analog CMOS Integrated Circuits (McGraw-Hill, 2001) (also translated into Chinese and Japanese), and Design of Integrated Circuits for Optical Communications (McGraw-Hill, 2003), and the editor of Monolithic Phase-Locked Loops and Clock Recovery Circuits (IEEE Press, 1996), and Phase-Locking in High-Performance Systems (IEEE Press, 2003). His current research includes wireless transceivers, frequency synthesizers, phase locking and clock recovery for high-speed data communications, and data converters. Dr. Razavi received the Beatrice Winner Award for Editorial Excellence at the 1994 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), the best paper award at the 1994 European Solid-State Circuits Conference, the Best Panel Award at the 1995 and 1997 ISSCC, the TRW Innovative Teaching Award in 1997, and the Best Paper Award at the IEEE Custom Integrated Circuits Conference in 1998. He was the co-recipient of both the Jack Kilby Outstanding Student Paper Award and the Beatrice Winner Award for Editorial Excellence at the 2001 ISSCC. He has been recognized as one of the top ten authors in the 50-year history of ISSCC. He served on the Technical Program Committees of the ISSCC from 1993 to 2002 and the VLSI Circuits Symposium from 1998 to 2002. He has also served as Guest Editor and Associate Editor of the IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS, and the International Journal of High Speed Electronics. He is an IEEE Distinguished Lecturer.