**From:** Itzhak Hirshtal (*hirshtal@is.elta.co.il*)

**Date:** Mon Mar 12 2001 - 06:32:47 PST

**Next message:**Michael Nudelman: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"**Previous message:**KokTongTHAM: "Re: [SI-LIST] : Simulation of address and data bus"**Next in thread:**Michael Nudelman: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"**Maybe reply:**Michael Nudelman: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"**Maybe reply:**Zabinski, Patrick J.: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"**Maybe reply:**John Lipsius: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"

Hello, all

I've recently started to calculate the de-coupling needed for

efficiently supplying the spike currents needed by high-speed devices.

During this task, I've encountered several ambiguities and results that

I would like to share with you and perhaps hear some (useful) feedback

from you.

(1) I tried to evaluate the situation for one high-pin-count device with

several buses connected to it (essentially a bus bridge). Even

calculating for just one synchronous bus (with 144 bits overall) I

arrived to the result that a few Amps (maybe even 5) are drawn when all

or most of this bus bits change state. I wonder what will be the result

if I would calculate for an additional bus (assuming it's synchronous

with the first). And what about the internal changes? They might be

contributing even more than the external bus! (e.g., the Motorola

PowerPC HW manual states that 90% of the power consumption of this

device is drawn internally, not externally).

(2) I've also tried to calculate the inductance of the decoupling

capacitors connections to the device. Even assuming a 40-mil wide 50-mil

long trace right above a reference plane for the connection I have app.

L=150-200pH. If I can't connect at least one of the capacitor pads so

short I might have to do a direct connection via to a reference plane. I

calculated this to have more than L=1nH!

(3) I assumed the calculated peak currents change at a rate equivalent

to the rise time of the device's output buffers. I don't know if it's

true, but this seems to me the most logical thing to do. Even if I take

it to be 2ns (1 ns is closer to worst-case, I believe), I get the

result that I need 40 to 50 low-ESL decoupling capacitors for the case

where L=1nH. Only if I succeed to connect the capacitors directly and

close enough to both GND and VDD pins (L=150-200pH) do I get the result

that it is sufficient to use 4-6 decoupling capacitors.

(4) While calculating vias inductance, I've encountered 2 similar but

different equations for this parameter. One is given by Mr. H. Johnson

in his famous book (page 259), as follows:

L=5d*{ln(2d/r)+1}nH.

The other is given by Mr. Bogatin in one of his articles, and is:

L=5d*{ln(2d/r)-3/4}nH.

Can somwone explain the reason for the difference, or who is right? The

difference starts to be quite critical when dealing with u-Vias!

Thanks for anyone who makes the effort to read this email.

-- Itzhak Hirshtal Elta Electronics POB 330 Ashdod Israel 77102 Tel: 972-8-8572841 Fax: 972-8-8572978 email: hirshtal@is.elta.co.il

- text/x-vcard attachment: Card for Hirshtal, Itzhak

**** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to majordomo@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu ****

**Next message:**Michael Nudelman: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"**Previous message:**KokTongTHAM: "Re: [SI-LIST] : Simulation of address and data bus"**Next in thread:**Michael Nudelman: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"**Maybe reply:**Michael Nudelman: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"**Maybe reply:**Zabinski, Patrick J.: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"**Maybe reply:**John Lipsius: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Thu Jun 21 2001 - 10:11:10 PDT
*