Optimizing GPSDO for phase stability
The GPSDO/Timer/Counter I'm building also is intended to have a
stabilized PPS output (so with GPS jitter removed).
The output PPS is created by multiplying/dividing the 10MHz of a
disciplined TCXO up and down to 1 Hz using a PLL and a divide by 2e8. No
SW or re-timing involved.
The 1 PPS output is phase synchronized with the PPS using a SW control
loop and thus should be a good basis for experiments that require a time
pulse that is stable and GPS time correct.
As I have no clue how to specify or evaluate the performance of such a
PPS output I've done some experiments.
In the first attached graph you can see the ADEV of the GPS PPS (PPS -
Rb) and the 1 PPS output with three different control parameters (Tick - RB)
As I found it difficult to understand what the ADEV plot in practice
means for the output phase stability I also added the Time Deviation
plot as I'm assuming this gives information on the phase error versus
the time scale of observation.
Lastly a plot is added showing the Phase Difference. All plots where
created using the linear residue as the Rb used as reference is a bit
out of tune.
Also the TIM files are attached
The "PPS - RB" and "Tick - RB Kp=0.04" where measured simultaneously and
should show the extend to which the GPS PPS is actually drifting in
phase versus the Rb and how this impacts the output phase of the
stabilized output PPS.
My conclusion is that a higher then expected Kp of 0.1 gives the most
stable output phase performance where the best frequency performance is
realized with a Kp = 0.04
I welcome feedback on the interpretation of these measurements and the
application of output phase stabilization.
Dear Erik,
On 2022-05-27 18:02, Erik Kaashoek via time-nuts wrote:
The GPSDO/Timer/Counter I'm building also is intended to have a
stabilized PPS output (so with GPS jitter removed).
The output PPS is created by multiplying/dividing the 10MHz of a
disciplined TCXO up and down to 1 Hz using a PLL and a divide by 2e8.
No SW or re-timing involved.
The 1 PPS output is phase synchronized with the PPS using a SW control
loop and thus should be a good basis for experiments that require a
time pulse that is stable and GPS time correct.
As I have no clue how to specify or evaluate the performance of such a
PPS output I've done some experiments.
In the first attached graph you can see the ADEV of the GPS PPS (PPS -
Rb) and the 1 PPS output with three different control parameters (Tick
- RB)
As I found it difficult to understand what the ADEV plot in practice
means for the output phase stability I also added the Time Deviation
plot as I'm assuming this gives information on the phase error versus
the time scale of observation.
The ADEV plot is the frequency stability plot, so it can be a bit
challenging to use it for phase stability.
The TDEV plot is the phase stability plot, so it is more useful for that
purpose.
There is a technical difference between these beyond the difference of
frequency vs phase stability, and that is that ADEV is the frequency
stability for a Pi-counter where as TDEV is the phase stability for a
Lambda-counter, where MDEV is the frequency stability for the
Lambda-counter. There is no standardized phase-stability for Pi-counter.
For a nit-pick like me it is significant, but for others it may be
mearly a little confusing.
Lastly a plot is added showing the Phase Difference. All plots where
created using the linear residue as the Rb used as reference is a bit
out of tune.
Also the TIM files are attached
The "PPS - RB" and "Tick - RB Kp=0.04" where measured simultaneously
and should show the extend to which the GPS PPS is actually drifting
in phase versus the Rb and how this impacts the output phase of the
stabilized output PPS.
My conclusion is that a higher then expected Kp of 0.1 gives the most
stable output phase performance where the best frequency performance
is realized with a Kp = 0.04
I welcome feedback on the interpretation of these measurements and the
application of output phase stabilization.
Since Kp is proportional to the damping-factor, this is completely
expected result for me. As the damping factor increases, the jitter
peaking decreases, and thus the positive gain at the loop resonance
frequency.
What I seem to notice is that the resonance seems to move with Kp
shifts, rather than having a peak of fixed frequency/tau. Doing
phase-noise plots of the data in Stable32 should be a way to see if this
is an actual shift or just an apparent shift.
The details of the PI-loop control may be relevant to correct for if the
f_0 shifts as consequence of changing Kp rather than changing Ki.
The trouble one faces with a PLL is that optimum phase stability and
optimum frequency stability comes at different PLL bandwidth settings.
Keeping the damping factor high to keep jitter peaking low is however a
common optimization.
Cheers,
Magnus
Hi
What is the “customer” after?
For a PPS, it could be the offset from UTC. This gets into GPS to UTC and then into
GPS master to local GPS pulse. Bottom line usually is that the raw GPS pulse is
the answer to “close to UTC”. Equally it could be a PPS used for metrology ( = ADEV
measurement). Then you want the lowest ADEV PPS. The answer here is a PPS divided
off the local oscillator with nothing else done to it.
Different customers, different needs, different answers. The same applies to how
the local oscillator is disciplined.
What to do (without building a dozen different designs?) ….. give the customer a
software setting that lets them pick what they get. Write up a couple dozen pages
on why you would use one or the other. Yes, the software switch takes about two
minutes to code. The pages of “yack” may take a couple weeks to fully sort out.
Bob
On May 27, 2022, at 8:02 AM, Erik Kaashoek via time-nuts time-nuts@lists.febo.com wrote:
The GPSDO/Timer/Counter I'm building also is intended to have a stabilized PPS output (so with GPS jitter removed).
The output PPS is created by multiplying/dividing the 10MHz of a disciplined TCXO up and down to 1 Hz using a PLL and a divide by 2e8. No SW or re-timing involved.
The 1 PPS output is phase synchronized with the PPS using a SW control loop and thus should be a good basis for experiments that require a time pulse that is stable and GPS time correct.
As I have no clue how to specify or evaluate the performance of such a PPS output I've done some experiments.
In the first attached graph you can see the ADEV of the GPS PPS (PPS - Rb) and the 1 PPS output with three different control parameters (Tick - RB)
As I found it difficult to understand what the ADEV plot in practice means for the output phase stability I also added the Time Deviation plot as I'm assuming this gives information on the phase error versus the time scale of observation.
Lastly a plot is added showing the Phase Difference. All plots where created using the linear residue as the Rb used as reference is a bit out of tune.
Also the TIM files are attached
The "PPS - RB" and "Tick - RB Kp=0.04" where measured simultaneously and should show the extend to which the GPS PPS is actually drifting in phase versus the Rb and how this impacts the output phase of the stabilized output PPS.
My conclusion is that a higher then expected Kp of 0.1 gives the most stable output phase performance where the best frequency performance is realized with a Kp = 0.04
I welcome feedback on the interpretation of these measurements and the application of output phase stabilization.
<Allan_deviation.png><Time_Deviation.png><phase_difference.png><PPS - Rb.tim><Tick - Rb Kp=0.1.tim><Tick - Rb Kp=0.01.tim><Tick - Rb Kp=0.04.tim>_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com
Thanks Bob,
It is indeed planned to give the user the option to have either
frequency stability of phase stability and adapt the PLL parameters
accordingly
I still need to learn a lot before I can write the "couple dozen pages"
Erik.
On 28-5-2022 6:54, Bob kb8tq wrote:
Hi
What is the “customer” after?
For a PPS, it could be the offset from UTC. This gets into GPS to UTC and then into
GPS master to local GPS pulse. Bottom line usually is that the raw GPS pulse is
the answer to “close to UTC”. Equally it could be a PPS used for metrology ( = ADEV
measurement). Then you want the lowest ADEV PPS. The answer here is a PPS divided
off the local oscillator with nothing else done to it.
Different customers, different needs, different answers. The same applies to how
the local oscillator is disciplined.
What to do (without building a dozen different designs?) ….. give the customer a
software setting that lets them pick what they get. Write up a couple dozen pages
on why you would use one or the other. Yes, the software switch takes about two
minutes to code. The pages of “yack” may take a couple weeks to fully sort out.
Bob
On May 27, 2022, at 8:02 AM, Erik Kaashoek via time-nuts time-nuts@lists.febo.com wrote:
The GPSDO/Timer/Counter I'm building also is intended to have a stabilized PPS output (so with GPS jitter removed).
The output PPS is created by multiplying/dividing the 10MHz of a disciplined TCXO up and down to 1 Hz using a PLL and a divide by 2e8. No SW or re-timing involved.
The 1 PPS output is phase synchronized with the PPS using a SW control loop and thus should be a good basis for experiments that require a time pulse that is stable and GPS time correct.
As I have no clue how to specify or evaluate the performance of such a PPS output I've done some experiments.
In the first attached graph you can see the ADEV of the GPS PPS (PPS - Rb) and the 1 PPS output with three different control parameters (Tick - RB)
As I found it difficult to understand what the ADEV plot in practice means for the output phase stability I also added the Time Deviation plot as I'm assuming this gives information on the phase error versus the time scale of observation.
Lastly a plot is added showing the Phase Difference. All plots where created using the linear residue as the Rb used as reference is a bit out of tune.
Also the TIM files are attached
The "PPS - RB" and "Tick - RB Kp=0.04" where measured simultaneously and should show the extend to which the GPS PPS is actually drifting in phase versus the Rb and how this impacts the output phase of the stabilized output PPS.
My conclusion is that a higher then expected Kp of 0.1 gives the most stable output phase performance where the best frequency performance is realized with a Kp = 0.04
I welcome feedback on the interpretation of these measurements and the application of output phase stabilization.
<Allan_deviation.png><Time_Deviation.png><phase_difference.png><PPS - Rb.tim><Tick - Rb Kp=0.1.tim><Tick - Rb Kp=0.01.tim><Tick - Rb Kp=0.04.tim>_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com
Hi Magnus,
I've insufficient understanding of PLL's to grab the full meaning of
your remark on "shift of the resonance"
Attached are the 3 phase PSD plots from stable32. Is that what you where
looking for?
Tick_01 is for Kp=0.1, Tick_004 is for Kp=0.04, etc...
With Kp=0.01 there seems to be a peak at 3e-3Hz, for the other Kp it
seems to be less evident if there is a resonance peak in the phase.
Also attached are the Frequency PSD plots (Freq_001, Freq_004, etc...)
and these show a clear shift of the peak.
Does this shift imply the loop is not yet tuned optimal?
Erik.
On 27-5-2022 21:30, Magnus Danielson via time-nuts wrote:
Dear Erik,
On 2022-05-27 18:02, Erik Kaashoek via time-nuts wrote:
The GPSDO/Timer/Counter I'm building also is intended to have a
stabilized PPS output (so with GPS jitter removed).
The output PPS is created by multiplying/dividing the 10MHz of a
disciplined TCXO up and down to 1 Hz using a PLL and a divide by 2e8.
No SW or re-timing involved.
The 1 PPS output is phase synchronized with the PPS using a SW
control loop and thus should be a good basis for experiments that
require a time pulse that is stable and GPS time correct.
As I have no clue how to specify or evaluate the performance of such
a PPS output I've done some experiments.
In the first attached graph you can see the ADEV of the GPS PPS (PPS
- Rb) and the 1 PPS output with three different control parameters
(Tick - RB)
As I found it difficult to understand what the ADEV plot in practice
means for the output phase stability I also added the Time Deviation
plot as I'm assuming this gives information on the phase error versus
the time scale of observation.
The ADEV plot is the frequency stability plot, so it can be a bit
challenging to use it for phase stability.
The TDEV plot is the phase stability plot, so it is more useful for
that purpose.
There is a technical difference between these beyond the difference of
frequency vs phase stability, and that is that ADEV is the frequency
stability for a Pi-counter where as TDEV is the phase stability for a
Lambda-counter, where MDEV is the frequency stability for the
Lambda-counter. There is no standardized phase-stability for
Pi-counter. For a nit-pick like me it is significant, but for others
it may be mearly a little confusing.
Lastly a plot is added showing the Phase Difference. All plots where
created using the linear residue as the Rb used as reference is a bit
out of tune.
Also the TIM files are attached
The "PPS - RB" and "Tick - RB Kp=0.04" where measured simultaneously
and should show the extend to which the GPS PPS is actually drifting
in phase versus the Rb and how this impacts the output phase of the
stabilized output PPS.
My conclusion is that a higher then expected Kp of 0.1 gives the most
stable output phase performance where the best frequency performance
is realized with a Kp = 0.04
I welcome feedback on the interpretation of these measurements and
the application of output phase stabilization.
Since Kp is proportional to the damping-factor, this is completely
expected result for me. As the damping factor increases, the jitter
peaking decreases, and thus the positive gain at the loop resonance
frequency.
What I seem to notice is that the resonance seems to move with Kp
shifts, rather than having a peak of fixed frequency/tau. Doing
phase-noise plots of the data in Stable32 should be a way to see if
this is an actual shift or just an apparent shift.
The details of the PI-loop control may be relevant to correct for if
the f_0 shifts as consequence of changing Kp rather than changing Ki.
The trouble one faces with a PLL is that optimum phase stability and
optimum frequency stability comes at different PLL bandwidth settings.
Keeping the damping factor high to keep jitter peaking low is however
a common optimization.
Cheers,
Magnus
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com
Hi Erik,
On 2022-05-28 10:29, Erik Kaashoek via time-nuts wrote:
Hi Magnus,
I've insufficient understanding of PLL's to grab the full meaning of
your remark on "shift of the resonance"
OK, so a PI-controlled PLL has two basic characteristics, it's resonance
frequency and it's damping factor (reciprocal of Q-factor).
You will get a frequency where there is a positive gain, giving
jitter-peaking, as the phase-noise (aka jitter) from the reference port
get's increased gain over to the output. The I factor of the PI-looped
PLL is proportional to the square of this characteristics. The P factor
is then proportional to the resonance frequency times the damping factor.
Now, this peak of noise energy will have a tell-tail in the ADEV plot as
being similar to the wavey pattern you get from a pure sine of the same
frequency as the mid-point of the jitter-peaking. What I was observing
was how that peak moved in the ADEV plot, and suggested that a better
view could be given in the phase-noise domain.
For jitter-peaking, see for instance Wolaver "Phase-locked loop circuit
design".
Attached are the 3 phase PSD plots from stable32. Is that what you
where looking for?
Tick_01 is for Kp=0.1, Tick_004 is for Kp=0.04, etc...
With Kp=0.01 there seems to be a peak at 3e-3Hz, for the other Kp it
seems to be less evident if there is a resonance peak in the phase.
Also attached are the Frequency PSD plots (Freq_001, Freq_004,
etc...) and these show a clear shift of the peak.
Indeed, as I suspected
Does this shift imply the loop is not yet tuned optimal?
I wonder how your model and parameters work.
I tend to label the phase-detector to EFC gain factor as P and the
phase-detector into the integrator (who's output is added to the EFC)
gain factor as I.
VD = PhaseDetector output
VI = VI + VDI
VF = VI + VDP
EFC = VF
I tend to model it as analog continuous time, but similar enough
properties occurs in digital discrete time.
In such a model, the steering parameters is resonance frequence f0 and
damping factor d.
I = KI * f0^2
P = KP * f0 * d
The fixed constants KI and KP can be derived from loop and scaling
parameters.
Notice that there is no single gain-point which will only dial for f0,
but both I and P need appropriate scaling.
To keep jitter peaking reasonable, the damping factor d should be 3 or
higher. However, for test purposes it can be set lower to make jitter
peaking and thus resonance frequency easier to observe.
Cheers,
Magnus
Erik.
On 27-5-2022 21:30, Magnus Danielson via time-nuts wrote:
Dear Erik,
On 2022-05-27 18:02, Erik Kaashoek via time-nuts wrote:
The GPSDO/Timer/Counter I'm building also is intended to have a
stabilized PPS output (so with GPS jitter removed).
The output PPS is created by multiplying/dividing the 10MHz of a
disciplined TCXO up and down to 1 Hz using a PLL and a divide by
2e8. No SW or re-timing involved.
The 1 PPS output is phase synchronized with the PPS using a SW
control loop and thus should be a good basis for experiments that
require a time pulse that is stable and GPS time correct.
As I have no clue how to specify or evaluate the performance of such
a PPS output I've done some experiments.
In the first attached graph you can see the ADEV of the GPS PPS (PPS
- Rb) and the 1 PPS output with three different control parameters
(Tick - RB)
As I found it difficult to understand what the ADEV plot in practice
means for the output phase stability I also added the Time Deviation
plot as I'm assuming this gives information on the phase error
versus the time scale of observation.The ADEV plot is the frequency stability plot, so it can be a bit
challenging to use it for phase stability.The TDEV plot is the phase stability plot, so it is more useful for
that purpose.There is a technical difference between these beyond the difference
of frequency vs phase stability, and that is that ADEV is the
frequency stability for a Pi-counter where as TDEV is the phase
stability for a Lambda-counter, where MDEV is the frequency stability
for the Lambda-counter. There is no standardized phase-stability for
Pi-counter. For a nit-pick like me it is significant, but for others
it may be mearly a little confusing.Lastly a plot is added showing the Phase Difference. All plots where
created using the linear residue as the Rb used as reference is a
bit out of tune.
Also the TIM files are attached
The "PPS - RB" and "Tick - RB Kp=0.04" where measured simultaneously
and should show the extend to which the GPS PPS is actually drifting
in phase versus the Rb and how this impacts the output phase of the
stabilized output PPS.
My conclusion is that a higher then expected Kp of 0.1 gives the
most stable output phase performance where the best frequency
performance is realized with a Kp = 0.04
I welcome feedback on the interpretation of these measurements and
the application of output phase stabilization.Since Kp is proportional to the damping-factor, this is completely
expected result for me. As the damping factor increases, the jitter
peaking decreases, and thus the positive gain at the loop resonance
frequency.What I seem to notice is that the resonance seems to move with Kp
shifts, rather than having a peak of fixed frequency/tau. Doing
phase-noise plots of the data in Stable32 should be a way to see if
this is an actual shift or just an apparent shift.The details of the PI-loop control may be relevant to correct for if
the f_0 shifts as consequence of changing Kp rather than changing Ki.The trouble one faces with a PLL is that optimum phase stability and
optimum frequency stability comes at different PLL bandwidth
settings. Keeping the damping factor high to keep jitter peaking low
is however a common optimization.Cheers,
Magnus
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com
To unsubscribe send an email to time-nuts-leave@lists.febo.com