VNA Error Model Conversion for

N-Port Calibration Comparison

Leonard Hayden, Senior Member, IEEE

Cascade Microtech, Inc., 2430 NW 206 th Avenue, Beaverton, OR, 97006, USA, leonard@cmicro.com

Abstract - This paper examines the extended 12-term error model commonly used in commercial multiport vector network
analyzers, introduces a generalized multiport error model, and applies this error model for the purposes of general N-port comparison
of calibrations. These tools have been implemented in a commercially available calibration and measurement software product [I].
Previous work demonstrated the utility of these tools in the estimation of calibration error associated with ignoring coupling [2] and for
evaluating measurement system repeatability [3]. Equations are presented for bidirectional conversion between an extended 16-term-
like error model and the extended 12-term model as well as for calculation of DUT-specific and worst-case multiport calibration
comparison error bounds.
Index Terms - Vector Network Analyzer, VNA, Calibration, Multiport,Accuracy, Calibration Comparison, Extended 16-Term.

I. INTRODUCTION

Commercial makers of multiport vector network analyzer systems have recently introduced stand-alone systems capable of
dramatically higher maximum frequencies , from a previous high of 20 GHz to the current maximum of 67 GHz [4]. These
systems normally include software features to convert native single-ended measurement data to the common/differential mixed-
mode representation [5] useful for the characterization of balanced circuits and devices. Commercially available systems rely on
calibration to single-ended (non-modal) reference planes using a simple extrapolation of the 12-term error model traditionally
used for two-port systems. The extended 12-term error model is shown in Fig. l(a).
While expedient for makers of multiport analyzers , this extended 12-term error model does not allow for any fixture or other
DUT-dependent coupling . Simplistic isolation terms are available but are only suitable for modeling DUT independent signal
leakage typically found only as leakage paths internal to the VNA (and also normally small).
A 16-term error model for two-port network analyzers has been studied for many years [e.g., 6] and practical methods for
calibration have been developed [e.g., 7]. Historically , these methods have been of limited utility for probing applications since in
many situations the crosstalk related error terms are not independent of the structure being probed. Recently , however, improved
transistor model extraction using a 16-term calibration approach has been demonstrated [8]. Coupled error models have also been
explored for use with multiport analyzers [e.g., 9].
Calibration comparison [10] provides a method for evaluating the measurement differences associated with the differences
between two error models and is a useful tool with many uses such as evaluating system drift and comparing calibration
algorithms and their sensitivity . Using the 16-term error model the calibration comparison process becomes conceptually simple
and the extension to the multiport case becomes a straight-forward exercise, as will be shown .
The following sections of this paper will review the conversion between 12-term and 16-term error models for the two-port
case and extend this basic method to the multiport case with extended 12-term and extended 16-term error model conversions .

a, Q - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - i a,
N+1
b, 0--'~---'------<i=------>.-------i b,
OUT OUT
a2 Errors
b2 r 21
2 N+2
b2 o-- -+- - - ____O=--- ---->.- - - ----i
[8]N'N [8]N'N
[E]2N'2N
aN
E rN1 ELN bN r N1
N 2N
bN C5-- - - - - -----'O=-- ---->.- - - -----j

W 00
Fig. I. Multiport VNA error models : (a) extended 12-term error model (3N 2 terms total), (b) extended 16-term error model
used for advanced calibration (4N terms when excluding crosstalk). In both cases the port one excitat ion is shown. The error
model conversion is obtained using a straight-forward extension of the process described for two-ports by Marks [11]. When
neglecting crosstalk [E] can be replaced by two-port error boxes at each port.

0-7803-9763-0/071$20.00 2007 IEEE

The generalized n-port calibration comparison process will be outlined and specific mathematical solutions of both DDT specific
and worst-case error bounds will be provided.

II. TWO-PORT ERROR MODELS

Traditional VNA error models do not contain all of the possible error mechanisms that may be corrected. For example , the
twelve-term error model for the two-port case is incomplete. This error model is shown in Fig. 2. The cross-talk (isolation term)
between ports is independent of the DDT and is only valid for limited cases such as the leakage in the VNA source switch . It is
not valid for probe-tip crosstalk. Advanced VNA calibrations like TRL apply switch corrections independently and ignore (or
pre-correct) isolation resulting in the error model shown in Fig. 3(a). For a general two-port error model , 16 terms are needed and
are represented by a four-port error network in Fig. 3(b).
A. ExtractingGeneral2-port 16- Term Errors and Switching Terms from a 12 term Error Model
In the 12-term error model, port 2 of the DDT is terminated by ELF for the forward excitation and by ESR for the reverse
excitation. To make these consistent we need to make the termination impedance "seen" by the DDT the same when considering
the termination r 21 For this to be true (and also for the reverse case) we use the derivation and notation in [II] to get:
E RR'121 E RF'I)2
E LF = E SR + E LR = E SF + (1)-(2)
l-E DR'121 l-E DF'I)2
The switching terms are obtained from:
- E LF - ESR 1 _ E LR - ESF
1 21 - ( ) 12 - ( )
(3)-(4)
~+~.~-~ 4+~'~-~
After use of switching correction the combined error model is that shown in Fig. 3(a) or in detail in Fig. 4.
The isolation term EXF maps directly to E 21 of the error box after switch correction. Similarly EXR becomes switch corrected
DUT
EXF
r---------------------------------, Reverse 2-port error
I I
I I model
I
(6 terms)

I
I
I I
Forward 2-port error 1_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _.!
model EXR
DUT (a) (6 terms) (b)

Fig. 2. (a) Forward and (b) reverse halves of the 12 term error model. The isolation terms EXF and EXR are independent of the
DUT behavior. After removing isolation and accounting for switching terms the error-model is equivalent to this eight-term
model used for advanced cals like TRL.

- '-
-
A
I-

- '- - I--

DDT A DDT
- '- - I--

- B - - I--

00 ~
Fig. 3. Two-port error models after accounting for switching terms. (a) The eight-term error model used for advanced cals like
TRL is equivalent to the 12-term error model after accounting for switching terms and either ignoring or pre-correcting for
isolation errors. The error boxes (A and B) at each port are independent. (b) For the more general 16-term error model after
accounting for switching terms the errors for the two-port calibration are fully contained by one four-port network. This model is
general and allows for any type of coupling (within the context of modes supported by S-parameter corrections).
E\2. Other crosstalk terms are zero:
E21 = EXF'(I-EDRr21) E I2 = EXR'(1-EDFrI 2) (5)-(6)
E I4 = E41 = E 23 = E 32 = E 34 = E43 = 0 (7)
By analyzing an ideal thru case it becomes clear that: [11]-[12]
Ell = EDF E22 = EDR (8)-(9)
E33= ESF E44 = ESR (10)-( 11)
E31'E24 = ETF'(I-EDRr21) E 42'E l3 =E TR'(I-EDFr\2) (12)-(13)
E 3I'E l3 = ERF E24'E42 = ERR (14)-(15)
These last four terms are interdependent and could potentially cause two different answers to the same question. They need to
be consistent so a single estimate is required. [12] suggests the estimate should be obtained from:

K = ( E 42
E 31 )
est = (EE
31

42
)
fwd
(E
E 42
31
)
rev
(16)

with

(~)
E 42 fwd
TF
-- E .(I-EDR
ERR
.r)
21
E 31 )
(E
42 rev
E RF
= ETR (I-EDF .r12 ) '
(17)-(18)

Then to separate the interdependent equations we need further to assume one term since we cannot know all of them. Choosing
E42 = 1 makes it the normalizing term. Then we get:
E31 = K E l3 = ERF/K (19)-(20)
E42 = 1 E24 = ERR (21)-(22)
All of these terms are summarized in the following equation and in Fig. 4.

EDF E XR.(I-EDF .r12 ) E RF 0 b,

K
[E]= E XF .{I-EDR.r2 J EDR 0 ERR with b2 = [E). G 2 (23)-(24)
K o b, G3

o 1 b4

B. Determining I2-Term Errorsfrom Genera/2-port I6-Term Errors and Switching Terms

The terms ofE along with r\2 and r 21 can also be used to obtain the 12-term error model terms
EDF = Ell EDR = E22 (25)-(26)
~=~ ~=~ (27)-(28)
ERF = E31'E l3 ERR = E24'E42 (29)-(30)

~
J(

E DF
E SF
b3
ER F/J( iI'
bl

s. ,
S 12 S 21 DUT
S 22

a2 I
~

a,
E DR E SR
b2 ~

Fig. 4. Combined error model , excluding isolation terms .

 E TF = E 31E24/(l - E 22r21) E TR = E42E13/(l - E l1r 12) (31)-(32)
ELF = E 44 + E24E42r21/(l - E 22r21) E LR = E33 + E I3E31r 12/ ( 1 - E l1r 12) (33)-(34)
E XF = E 21/(l - E 22r21) EXR = E 12/(l - E l1 r 12). (35)-(36)
C. Storage ofError Terms
It should be noted that the transformation between a 12-term error and the error matrix [E] with switching terms [r] is not
always perfectly reversible using equations (3)-(4), and (23) reversed by (25)-(36). If the 12-term error model was originally
obtained from E and I' then it will be reversible, but in general it is possible to have an inconsistent 12-term error model that will
not be reversibly represented by E and r.

III. MULTIPORT ERROR MODEL CONVERSIONS

A. Multiport Error Model Conversion

The terms of a general, n-port extended 16-term error model of Fig. 1(b) may be extracted from the extrapolated 12-term error
model of Fig. 1(a) using a process similar to that described above for the two-port case:

EXI,2 .(1-ED} ~,2) ... EXI,N .(1- ED} '~,N) i'E~

RI K. 0 o
I I,N

E
X2,N
.(I-E.r):
ill 2,N I
0 E.R~K o
I 2,N
I
I

[E]=ExN,I(I-EDN['N,l)ExN,2(I-EDN['N,2)" EDN i 0 0 .. ERN (37)

---------------------------------------------------;--------------------
~,N O 0 : ESI O 0
o
I
K 2,N 0: 0 ES2 0
I
I
I
o o 1 : 0 o E'SN
where the off diagonal terms in all but the first quadrant are zero. The switching terms are given by
EL . -Es '
t.= I,J( I ), fori,j=1...N,i:;tj, (38)
I,) E Ri + E Di ELi,} - E S i

and
E Ri ETN,i l - EDN rN,i
(39)
ERN ETi,N (I-EDi ['i,N)
provides the estimates equivalent to equation (16) for the two-port case.
The extended 12-term error model can also be obtained from the extended 16-term error model. The terms for the source port
are simply:
E Di = Ei,i, for i = 1...N (40)
E Si= Ejj, fori= 1 N,j=i+N (41)
ERi = Ej,iEij, for i = 1 N,j = i + N. (42)

The terms that account for the behavior between ports are given by:

E T .. =
n, .E./
,fori=l ...N,j=l ...N,itj,k=j+N,I=i+N (43)
I-E.. .r ..
,j I,
I,)
1,1 I,)

E k E k -T..
E =E + for i.j l ... N,itJ,k=i+N (44)
1- E . . r.. '
,1 I, I,) >
u., k,k
1,1 I,)
 E
Xi,}
=
E ..
I-E..
1,)

1,1
.. ' for i,j = 1... N, i j.
. r 1,)
* (45)

The extended 12-term error model for convenience can be represented as a single matrix:
E :E : :E
D1 LI 2 L1 N
I ' I I '
E Rl I
I Err 2 I ''E
I Tl N
I ' I I '
E S1 : E .r r 2 : : E Xl N
----~---~'--r--~
E L 2,1: E D 2 ::EL 2,N
I I I
E I E 1 IE
T 2 ,1 I R2 I I T 2' N

E X2 1 : E S2 : : E X2 N
[ Errors extended 12term ] = --~:"i--~--t;--~--;...:- (46)
: I : 11 :
I I I
I I. I
I 11
I I. I
I I I
I 11
----1----1--1----
E L N,1 : E L N,2 : : E DN
I I I
E T NIl E T N 2 I I ERN
, I ' I I
E IE I IE
XN,I! XN,2 !... ! SN

B. Multiport Error Model Conversion Considering Reciprocity

The extraction of the generalized error model of (37) is perfectly suitable for VNA calibration and determination of corrected
measurement data. However, sometimes we may need to use the calibration process for identification of the error box. This may
be useful for indirectly identifying a network or for primitive two-tier calibration comparison. For example, complete two-port
scattering parameters of probes may be determined as the error box associated with a second-tier calibration at the probe tip after
a first-tier calibration at the coaxial connector. In this case, a one-port calibration is used to identify the two-port error box
8-parameters of the probe. We expect the probe 8-parameters to exhibit reciprocity (8 12 = 8 21) , but this would not be the case
using the normalization of (23) or (37).
In calibration it is not necessary to fully identify the error box. Often it is not possible since, without a further assumption about
the measurement system, not enough information is available to fully characterize the error box. Normally one term of the error
box is selected as a normalizing parameter for successful calibration. In (37), element E2N,N was assigned to be unity, providing
the arbitrary normalization.
While an arbitrary normalization is acceptable for calibration, the more useful solution for error box identification is to
determine the parameters of reciprocal networks. The assumption of reciprocity provides the additional information needed to
fully identify the error box. Note that this approach makes sense in a second-tier calibration where the error box is associated
with a physical structure that can be identified as reciprocal. The reciprocity assumption is normally not needed in first-tier
calibration since the various elements of a VNA error box, particularly those internal to the analyzer, are likely to contribute a
large degree of non-reciprocity. The reciprocity assumption provides both a useful normalization for both calibration and error
box identification.
For the two-port DDT case, Marks [11] noted that due to the coupling of the equations one can't simply force one error box
port to be reciprocal and expect an optimal solution for the other port. Instead he proposed identifying a least squares
minimization of the deviation from reciprocal behavior at all ports. Marks' work can be generalized to the N-port case as follows:
First, assign the least squares residual:
f == IIQxi -Qoxil 2
= (Qxi -QoxJ(Qxi -QoxJ (47)

where Qxi is the ratio of the reverse to forward transmission terms for port i (corresponding to Ei,i+N / Ei+N,i) and Qoxi is the
expected value of the ratio (normally unity for the reciprocity assumption with equal and real normalizing impedances).
We can further determine Qx:

(48)
with the defmitions:
1
and Z=-2 . (49)-(50)
at
The ratio U/Ui is found to be given by
a. ET
) I,) for it j. (51)
-;;; = E Ri + E Di (EU,j - EsJ
Applying the complex differential operator after [11] yields a value of z that minimizes the residual f:
LOi QOXi
Z=_i _
(52)
LI
2
Oil
i
with bi given by:

(53)

and
(54)
This yields the solution for the Ui terms:
_+_1_
a] - - -r;' (55)

and
1 E Ri +EDi (Eu,] -EsJ
i for it 1. (56)
a = a] ( %i) = a] E ri,]

The choice of root in (55) must be determined by additional information such as a delay estimate of the error box or minimizing
phase discontinuities.
The revised error model conversion equation replacing (37) is then:
IE /
Ex1,2(I-ED\r;,2) ... Ex1,N(I-ED\.rLN)! R1 ia. 0 ... 0

... EX2,N . (1- ED2 . F2,N ):II 0 E%a

R2
2
0
I

[E]= EXN,lV-EDNrN,l) EXN,2V-EDNrNJ ..

EDN
!
: 0
:0 'E.~/
.. RjaN
(57)

------------------------------------------------------~--------------------
~ 0 0 : ES1 0 0
o a2 0: 0
I
ES2 0
I
I
I
o o : 0 o

IV. CALIBRATION COMPARISON

Calibration comparison [10] provides a method for evaluating the measurement differences associated with the differences
between two error models. The idea of calibration comparison grew from the desire to measure a verification device to determine
the quality of a calibration. Use of a single verification structure provides data about the calibration quality only for the value it
presents (e.g., one point on the Smith chart). More structures are required to fully map the space of possible values. Indeed, it is
necessary to have a set of structures equivalent to those required to perform a calibration to fully map the space.
The error boxes computed by the second-tier calibration for the ideal, no-error case would be perfectly matched with unity
transmission. Any difference between the calibration results means that the second-tier error boxes will contain residual errors
 D

Fig. 5. The preferred method is to directly compare first tier calibrations. The errors of one calibration (denoted by error boxes
with superscript a are corrected by the second calibration (denoted by b superscripts). Mathematically this is performed by
inverting the error box transmission scattering parameters of one cal and multiplying the other cal error box T-parameters. The
residual T-parameter error boxes are denoted by BX and BY. The deviations from the ideal unity matrix error boxes are denoted
by BX and BY.

corresponding to the difference. Of course, when using this two-tier approach, we want to make sure we don't just map the points
where we calibrated so we need to use structures that are distinct from our original calibration standards.
A preferred approach is to directly compare two first-tier calibrations [13], see Fig. 5. In this method the residual error terms
are computed mathematically by correcting the error boxes of one calibration with the errors of the other. This method is
preferred over the two-tier approach since the second-tier calibration is using data that is corrected by the first-tier, skewing the
results. For example, imagine the case with a first-tier SOLT calibration and a second-tier LRRM calibration. Subject to
repeatability the corrected standards measurement from the SOLT is exactly the SOLT calibration definitions. Such an input to
LRRM can only produce an ideal result, not a fair comparison.
A. Two-Port Calibration Comparison Equations
Error bounds on a specific, measured DDT were developed in [10] and [13] and are given by:

ISI~jJ -s;rl~laiil+lslll-lal~ -a;I+ls21-S12I-la~I+lsllI2 -la2i1 (58)

ISI~ -S;11 ~ lal~ -a~I-IS121 +I S221-laJII-IS121 +I Slll-la2iI-IS121 (59)

ISff -S;lI ~ lal~ -a;I-l s211 +IS221-laJII-ls211 +lslllla2iIls211 (60)

ISft -S;11 ~ lal~1 +ls221-lal~ -a~I+ls21 -SI21-la2i1 +IS221 2-laJII (61)

where the residual error terms are:
~;X = oX - I, oY = oY - I. (62)-(63)
A general error bound for a worst-case passive device with alllSijl < I was also presented:
1+laJII+la2i I
ISI~iff - S;:I Is laii I+lal~ - O2; (64)

IS~jJ - S;;/I ~ lal~ - aJ21 +laJII +la2~1 (65)

Isff -s;11~lal~ -a;I+laJII+la2i1 (66)

ISft -s;11~lal~I+lal~ -a~I+laJII+la2il (67)

In original form the transmission expressions were normalized by the transmission terms themselves. In the expressions above
and in the following development of the generalized approach, normalization was not used.
B. A Generalized Approach to Calibration Comparison
It is actually conceptually simpler to use the 16-term (or extended 16-term) error model instead of the eight-term error model
for deriving the calibration comparison equations. Instead of dealing with separate error boxes on each side of the device and
neglecting the crosstalk terms, we can directly compute everything with one error box as shown in Fig. 6. The S-parameters of
 N/2
" " "
,-
Inv Cal b
,-
Cal a
,-

Errors Errors
lOUT I
" " " I
,- ,- "':
N/2
Fig. 6. In the general calibration comparison formulation we again correct one calibration with another to get residual error
terms. In this situation the error boxes are of extended I6-term form. The correction is readily determined by cascading the
inverted T-parameter form of one error set with the T-parameter form of the other.
the DUT when corrected by error set a are given by Sa and appear as the DUT in the figure since the error set is assumed to be
invertible. The S-parameters when corrected by error set b, Sb, are then obtained from the cascade of the residual errors with Sa:
s, = {OJ; .s, +8T2){8T3 .s, +8T4 t l (68)
where oT j are the nxn submatrices of the residual error matrix, ~T, given by:

I1T =. [OJ; 8T2] =. Tb- I t, . (69)

8T3 8T4
A further simplification is obtained by identifying the matrix ~ as the deviation of the residual error matrix from the ideal
2n-port identity matrix 12n ~ is then given by:

11 =. 81 82] =. ~
_I T - I = I1T - I
a 2n 2n (70)
[ 83 84
Since ~T = 1 +~, (68) can be written using the elements of~ :

s, = [{In +8J.Sa +82].[83.s, +In +8J-'. (71)

By assuming small errors we can make an approximate evaluation:
s, : : : [{In +8JSa + 82]. [In -83.s, -84] (72)
since (HoY' = (1-0) when 10iji 1. Expanding this expression and retaining only the terms which are linear in Ojj gives:
s, : : : Sa +81.s, +82-Sa .83.s, -Sa .84, (73)
The difference between the two determinations of the DUT is then given by:
I1S =. s, -Sa::::: 82+81.s, -Sa .84-Sa .83.s, (74)
This result may be expressed generally for any n-port case by the expansion:
n-I n-I n-I n-I
I1Si,J ::::: 82i,J + I8'i,k ,Sak,J - ISai,k .84k,J - IISai,k .83k,p ,Sap,J (75)
k=O k=O p=o k=O
where i and j are the indices of the S-parameter difference.
The DUT specific error bound may then be expressed:
n-I n-I n-I n-I
82 Sak
IMi,JI :51 i,JI+ II8Ii,klI ,JI+ II Sai,kI184k,JI+ IIISai,kI183k ,plISap,j1 (76)
k=O k=O p=o k=O
However this is larger than necessary since there is some cancellation of terms when computing the difference. More precisely
(and also similar to the equations in [11]) the bound may be expressed:
n~ n~

IMi,JI:5182 i,JI+I 181i,k 1ISak,J 1-181i,i 1ISai,JI +I Isaik 1184k,J 1-ISai,J 1.184 J,J 1+181i,i - 84J,J ISai,j I
k=O k=O (77)
n-I n-I
+ I I I Sai,kl183k,plI Sap ,JI
p=o k=O
and the worst-case passive structure error bound can be determined by setting alllS~jl = 1 yielding:
n-I n-I n-I n-I
worst-case IMi,J I:51 ,JI+ II8Ii,kI-181i,il+II84k,JI-184J,JI+18Ii,i -84J,jI+ II183k,pl
82i (78)
k=O k=O p=O k=O
 If a single, frequency-dependent figure of merit is desired, one can simply take the maximum (for all i and j) of the ~Sij traces
at each frequency [10].

V. CALIBRATION COMPARISON RESULTS

The generalized calibration comparison has been implemented in a commercial calibration and measurement software product
[1]. Both the DUT specific and worst-case variations are available. Previous work [2] used the worst-case error bound equations
for comparing a two-port 16-term error set with a calibration that ignored the crosstalk elements but was otherwise identical. This
work provided a quantitative study of the levels of isolation required in a two-port probing system to minimize impact on device
measurement data, see Fig. 7.
More recently [14] the generalized calibration comparison was used to study the sensitivity of an advanced LRRM-SOLR
hybrid calibration for a four-port vector network analyzer. By comparing the results for positional offset and the nominal position
for each calibration type we gain a measure of the sensitivity of the calibration to the positional variation of the probe . For the
test cases we used normal probe placement on the alignment marks and a position approximately 15 urn back from the target
position, see Fig. 8(a). For the normal probe position test case all standard data were acquired with automated stage moves. The
load standard was then remeasured using the offset probe position. For each positional case both a hybrid calibration and a four-
thru four-port SaLT calibration were calculated. Then for each calibration type the calibrations with and without the positional
offset were compared to determine sensitivity. As expected, the hybrid calibration showed less sensitivity to longitudinal probe
positional error on the load standard than SaLT, see Fig. 8(b).

VI. CONCLUSION
This paper has provided a detailed look at error models for multiport vector network analyzers. Specific equations were
included for converting between the extended 12-term error model used in many commercial systems and a more general
extended 16-term error model. The extended 16-term error model was used in a simple but more general derivation of an n-port
calibration comparison method. This extension to calibration comparison not only handles any multiport case, but also includes
the effect of the general coupling terms provided by the extended 16-term error model.
The tools and methods described have been implemented in a commercial software application. Applications of these new
tools are very broad and open-ended. Two specific example applications were previously published. This paper provides the
mathematical details supporting these prior publications.

0.5 -,---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --,

0.45 -

Coupled 0.4 -
Ul
Erro rs
~ 0.35 -
:!::
i 0.3
-g::::l 0.25
o
D?... 0.2
I 8-term
errors
g 0.15 - B
w

===========================_~~:i==
0.1
0.05 -
o +, ------,----...,------,-----------,-------1
o 10 20 30 40 50
Isolation (dB)

Fig. 7. Calibration comparison error bound for a calibration ignoring coupling vs. various levels of simple capacitive coupling
in the actual error box. The error bound magnitude represents a bound on the vector error difference when comparing S-
parameters for any passive DUT measured with and without coupling correction. Points A and B represent the coupling levels
for state-of-the-art GSSG and GSGSG probes respectively (at 40 GHz). Point C indicates typical coupling for two opposing
GSG probes. At this level the error-bound is at a comparable level to typical system repeatability (dashed region) and usually
not significant. This result was previously presented in [2].
 .04

.035

.03

1i .025
-"
];
2- .02
~ .015

.01

5e3

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Fteouencv IGHz)

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. A deliberate misalignment of probes for purposes of evaluating probe placement sensitivity is shown in (a). The offset is
approximately 15 urn. The sensitivity to small longitudinal offsets in probe position on the load standard for the 4-port SaLT and LRRM-
SOLR hybrid calibration methods is shown in (b). These curves bound the maximum vector error difference on a worst case passive device
measurement associated with the different calibration. SaLT shows more than four times the sensitivity to longitudinal load offset than the
hybrid cal. This result was previously published in [14].

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to thank the WinCal development team for their wonderful ability to tum seemingly strange ideas into
useful tools for calibration and measurement.

REFERENCES

[1) WinCal XE Software , Cascade Microtech Inc., Beaverton, OR.

[2] L. Hayden, "Calibration errors when neglecting crosstalk," 6(Jh ARFTG Conference Digest, Fall 2005, pp. 65-68.
[3] J.R. Fenton, "Validation of on-wafer vector network analyzer systems," 6(JhARFTG Conference Digest, Fall 2005, pp. 50-54.
[4] "Agilent test solutions for multiport and balanced devices," Agilent Technologies, Inc. March, 2006.
[5] W. Eisenstadt, B. Stengel, and B. Thompson, Microwave Differential Circuit Design Using Mixed-Mode S-Parameters, Boston: Artech
House, 2006, ch. 2.
[6] R. Speciale, "A generalization of the TSD network-analyzer calibration procedure, covering n-port scattering-parameter measurements,
affected by leakage errors," IEEE Trans. MTT, Dec. 1977, vol. MTT-25, no. 12, pp. 1100-1115.
[7] lV. Butler, D.K. Rytting, M.F. Iskander, R.D. Pollard, M. Vanden Bossche, " 16-term error model and calibration procedure for on-wafer
network analysis measurements," IEEE Trans. MIT, Dec. 1991, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 2211-2217.
[8] X. Wei, G. Niu, et al., "Singular-value-decomposition based four port de-embedding and single step error calibration for on-chip
measurement," 200 7 IEEE MTT-S IMS Digest. vol. 3, June 2007, To be published.
[9] V. Teppati and A. Ferrero, "On-wafer calibration algorithm for partially leaky multiport vector network analyzers," IEEE Trans. MTT,
Nov. 2005, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 3665-3671.
[10] D. Williams, R.B. Marks, and A. Davidson, "Comparisons of on-wafer calibrations," 3Efh ARFTG Can! Dig.. San Diego, CA, Fall 1991,
pp.68-81.
[11] R.B. Marks, "Formulations of the basic vector network analyzer error model including switch-terms," 5d h ARFTG Can! Dig.. Portland,
OR, Fall 1997, pp. 107-114.
[12] Vandenberghe et ai, "Identifying error-box parameters from the twelve-term vector network analyzer error model," 6d h ARFTG
Conference Digest, Fall 2002, pp. 157-162.
[13] R.B. Marks, lA. Jargon, and J.R. Juroshek, "Calibration comparison method for vector network analyzers," 4Efh ARFTG Can! Dig.,
Clearwater, FL, Fall 1996, pp. 38-45.
[14] L Hayden, "A hybrid probe-tip calibration for multiport vector network analyzers," 6Efh ARFTG Confe rence Digest, Fall 2006,
pp. 176-183.