**From:** Brian Young (*brian.young@motorola.com*)

**Date:** Tue Mar 13 2001 - 15:24:45 PST

**Next message:**Zabinski, Patrick J.: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"**Previous message:**Zabinski, Patrick J.: "RE: [SI-LIST] : differences in memory speeds"**In reply to:**Eric Bogatin: "[SI-LIST] : approximations for partial self inductance"

On the two versions of the equation, it looks to me like the version

in Johnson's book has a typo. When d>>r, the external partial

self-inductance of a straight round wire is

L=5.08d*{ln(2d/r)-1}nH,

where d is the length in inches, and r is the radius in inches.

The external inductance is a good approximation at high frequencies

where the skin effect shields the internal metal of the wire. At

low frequencies, the internal self-inductance needs to be

added to the external partial self-inductance to obtain

L=5.08d*{ln(2d/r)-3/4}nH,

which is the formula from Gover, as Eric pointed out.

It seems that Johnson's book has the first (high-frequency) version

with a sign error on the 1 because he has

L=5.08h*{ln(4h/d)+1}nH,

where h is the length in inches, and d is the diameter in inches.

This formula should not be used for vias because it assumes that

the length is much greater than the diameter. To compute partial

self-inductance for vias, you should use the more complex formula

that does not have this assumption built in. The correct formula

is (5.49) from my book. This is the external partial self-inductance,

so if you want the low frequency inductance, you need to add the

internal inductance from (5.45).

Finally, Grover does not actually derive much in his book. If you

are interested, the round wire formula above and many others are

derived in my book.

Regards,

Brian Young

Eric Bogatin wrote:

*>
*

*> Itzhak-
*

*>
*

*> you asked the question about the difference in the approximations
*

*> for the partial self inductance of a via that were given by
*

*> myself and Howard Johnson. I wanted to provide some
*

*> clarification. You wrote:
*

*>
*

*> (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!
*

*>
*

*> The approximation is for the partial self inductance of a round,
*

*> solid rod, of radius, r and length d. The length is in units of
*

*> inches, while the inductance is in units of nH.
*

*>
*

*> This is the approximation that was originally derived by Fred
*

*> Grover, in his classic book, Inductance Calculations", in 1946. I
*

*> just re-checked the one I offered, and it is correctly reproduced
*

*> above. It is listed on page 35, eq 7, of his book. I think it has
*

*> since been reprinted as a Dover Book.
*

*>
*

*> Keep in mind two things when using this approximation: 1st, it is
*

*> an approximation. Grover says it is good to about 2%. I have
*

*> found good agreement to better than 5% for wire bond structures.
*

*> Approximations are wonderful tools to assist you in exploring
*

*> design space, run in a spread sheet and play what-if trade offs.
*

*> They give you good answers and let you see the geometry and
*

*> materials trade offs. However, they are APPROXIMATIONS. You
*

*> should never use an approximation in a situation where the
*

*> accuracy of the answer may cost you significant time and expense.
*

*> You should be using a 3D field solver that you have confidence
*

*> in. One of the second order effects in this approximation, for
*

*> example, is that it includes the "internal" self inductance. As
*

*> the skin depth gets to be comparable to the geometrical cross
*

*> section, the partial self inductance will decrease and reach a
*

*> constant value when all the current is in the outer surface.
*

*>
*

*> The second thing to keep in mind when using this approximation is
*

*> that it is for the PARTIAL self inductance of the via, under the
*

*> assumptions of uniform current flow down the long axis. If you
*

*> are using it in a situation where the length of the structure is
*

*> comparable to the diameter, ie, d ~ 2r, the current distribution
*

*> through the structure may not be even close to parallel to the
*

*> long axis. Further, the actual loop inductance, which is what
*

*> matters in a real circuit, is probably dominated by other
*

*> elements than this small, squat element. The partial self
*

*> inductance may depend strongly on the proximity of other
*

*> conductors and how it affects the current flow through this via.
*

*> If you are in a regime where worrying about the presence of the
*

*> -3/4 term is important, you probably want to use a 3D field
*

*> solver before any design signoff. A good 3D solver will calculate
*

*> the actual current distribution through the via structure and the
*

*> rest of the current path.
*

*>
*

*> I hope this helps.
*

*>
*

*> If anyone is interested, I have various application notes related
*

*> to approximations to inductance and general principles related to
*

*> inductance posted on our web page. These are listed as app notes
*

*> with index numbers: 33, 32, 29, 25, and 9. You can find them
*

*> under application notes at www.gigatest.com
*

*>
*

*> As always, comments are welcome.
*

*>
*

*> --eric
*

*>
*

*> From: Itzhak Hirshtal [mailto:hirshtal@is.elta.co.il]
*

*> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 09:33
*

*> To: si-list
*

*> Subject: [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.
*

-- *************************************************************** * Brian Young phone: (512) 996-6099 * * Somerset Design Center fax: (512) 996-7434 * * Motorola, Austin, TX brian.young@motorola.com * ******************************************************************* 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:**Zabinski, Patrick J.: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Inductance and Decoupling"**Previous message:**Zabinski, Patrick J.: "RE: [SI-LIST] : differences in memory speeds"**In reply to:**Eric Bogatin: "[SI-LIST] : approximations for partial self inductance"

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