Article

Errors and Error Budget Analysis in Instrumentation Amplifier Applications

10/1999;
Source: CiteSeer

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION This application note describes a systematic approach to calculating the overall error in an instrumentation amplifier (in amp) application. We will begin by describing the primary sources of error (e.g., offset voltage, CMRR, etc.) in an in amp. Then, using data sheet specifications and practical examples, we will compare the accuracy of various in amp solutions (e.g., discrete vs. integrated, three op amp integrated vs. two op amp integrated). Because instrumentation amplifiers are most often used in low speed precision applications, we generally focus on dc errors such as offset voltage, bias current and low frequency noise (primarily at harmonics of the line frequency of either 50 Hz or 60 Hz). We must also estimate the errors that will result from sizable changes in temperature due the rugged and noisy environment in which many in amps find themselves. It is also important to remember that the effect of particular error sources will vary from application to

1 Follower
 · 
553 Views
 · 
42 Downloads
  • Source
    Experimental Techniques 02/1977; 2(2). DOI:10.1111/j.1747-1567.1973.tb01631.x · 0.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tests on instrumentation amplifiers exposed to neutron radiation have been done. The tested devices were commercial instrumentation amplifiers or designed with rad-tol commercial operational amplifiers. The results show changes in frequency behavior, gain, offset voltage, output saturation voltages, and quiescent current. The radiation tolerance is bigger in amplifiers with JFET input stage or with large frequency bandwidth and is smaller if the amplifier has been designed for reducing the power consumption. The IAs built with OPAMPs have a higher tolerance than the commercial ones, but they have disadvantages: high temperature influence, low CMRR, etc.
    IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 01/2004; 50(6-50):2433 - 2440. DOI:10.1109/TNS.2003.820628 · 1.46 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
42 Downloads
Available from