AnsweredAssumed Answered

Gain and offset errors compensation in ADC

Question asked by gabrielbrunheira on Aug 14, 2012
Latest reply on Aug 15, 2012 by gabrielbrunheira

Hi,

 

It's the first time I'm using an ADC for an application with requirements of high accuracy and high resolution, and I have some questions. I'm currently using the evaluation kit EVAL-AD7634, which contains an AD7634 analog-to-digital converter.

 

Many academic and technical articles refer to the IEEE Standard 1057 (IEEE Standard for Digitizing Waveform Recorders), which states standard meanings for most of the specifications for ADC's and some standard methods to evaluate them. So I decided to use it as my main reference in this topic. The questions are:

 

1) Regarding to the definition of the Terminal-based gain and offset, their values are calculated using T[1] and T[2^N-1], which are the real first and last transition level (N: # of resolution bits from ADC). It states that these values should be located using one of the methods proposed in section 4.7 (static test, sine wave histogram, etc), which are methods to identify all transition levels from the full scale range.

 

At the moment, I'm interested to compensante just these two terminal-based errors, ignoring the other DC imprecisions (INL, DNL, etc). Because these are iterative methods and require some automation process and execution time, I thought if it would be really necessary to identify all transition levels iteratively. My idea was to perform only the steps a) to e) from the 4.7.1 Static Test Method for the first transition level, and then "mirror" these same steps sequence for the last transition level. In other words, steps a) and b) would be like:

 

a) Begin with k = 2^N-1.

b) Apply an input level slightly higher than the expected code transition level. For k = 2^N-1, begin with a value slightly higher than the maximum level recordable by the waveform recorder (e.g., 2% of the input range).

 

and proceed with the rest of the steps using the same idea.

 

Is this a good alternative method to identify T[1] and T[2^N-1], or I should expect some inaccuracy, compared with the iterative methods?

 

2) Because my input signal is single-ended, I'm using and Single-To-Differential driver made with op-amps AD8021, suggested in the AD7634 datasheet. When estimating the ADC parameters above discussed, is it a good pratice to driver the input signal through the Single-To-Differential op-amps (assuming that their offset and gain errors would be included in the overall estimation)? What are the cons and pros?

 

3) I've seen a lot of people that uses much more simpler methods to estimate gain and offset errors, like connecting the analog inputs from the ADC to the ground reference and voltage reference, and using the evaluated codes to compensate all sampled values. I think this would be much more simpler than the methods from IEEE 1057, but I imagine the results wouldn't have the same accuracy for two reasons:

 

     a) The offset code produced by grounding the analog inputs would be the zero offset error, but as I'm working in bipolar mode (-10V to +10V), these value would be conceptually wrong;

     b) My full scalce range is up to 10V, but my Vref is 5V. Combining its offset code with the zero offset value would provide slope value (gain), that could be much different from that produced fitting a line between T[1] and T[2^N-1].

 

Are my arguments correct? I'm really interested in this simpler solution, because features like auto-calibration would be my much more practical in my system.

 

4) Once I have the gain and offset errors, how should use them to compensate each input sample? I couldn't find an expression anywhere, but I imagine it would be something like:

 

     Vin[k]_corrected = Gain*Vin[k] + Offset,

 

where       Gain = (T[2^N-1]_ideal - T[1]_ideal)/(Testimated[2^N-1]_estimated - Testimated[1]_estimated)

               Offset = Tideal[1] - Gain*T[1]_estimated

 

Is this correct?

 

Best Regards,

 

Gabriel

Outcomes