I have seem "bumping" on edges often. This will work:
8" .75" .75" .75" .75" .75" .75"
10ohm 10ohm 10ohm
The catch is you need a board impedance of less than 50 ohms. e.g 10 mil trace
w/stack up of 5-plane-6-x-6-plane-5. where x adjusts to make up for board
thickness. BTW, the 245's have clamping diodes. If the DPS's don't you
will get large under shoots. You can play around with removing resistors and
changing the value for dsp to cpu communications, but this will work for
the CPU to dsp. You can get the resistors in packs too. The are other solutions
but I just happen to be working on the likes of this recently,
BTW this is a common problem for memory design.
Rich Mellitz, NCR
On Apr 24, 11:27am, Norman Wong wrote:
> Subject: Re: SI- Termination Comment
> Reply to: RE>>SI- Termination Comments Wanted
> Thank you for all those who replied. Sorry I was too busy (and still is) =
> on this problem I don't even have time to reply right away.
> First off I would like to thank you for all the inputs and ruls of =
> thumbs. They are mostly consistant and confirmed what I have learned =
> before. Changing the thickness of different layers is also a good =
> suggestion and I am current considering it.
> My Problem (firstly reflections and secondly, ringings) has not been solv=
> e yet and I still need suggestions from experts like yourselves. The =
> following are some details of situation:
> I just start routing a PCB for a controller board. There are Intel-type =
> uC and DSP's. The PCB is about 8" in length and due to space limitation, =
> the DSP's are distributed on one end of the PCB and the uC is on another. =
> Before I start routing, I manually routed two signals almost =
> side-by-side so when I do signal integrity simulation I could compare =
> them. The tracks are switched back and fro between the two routing =
> layers to match a real life situation. These two signals are driven by a =
> 74AC245 xcvr (originated from the uC) and branched to all DSPs. The =
> final track is about 10-15" long. This is a 6 layer board with only two =
> internal routing layers in the middle. From one DSP to another it is =
> about 2" or so. BTW, locations of the DSP and the uC cannot be =
> alternated (mechanical constrain for heat sinking).
> I ran the simulation (UNISOLVE) and compared the two signals at the =
> source and the end of the daisy chain, with one terminated with 100 Ohm R =
> and 100 pF Cap, and another is not terminated. As I indicated earlier, =
> the terminated signal is not much cleaner but the amplitude is way low(RC =
> too large). I also tried different RC values and there isn't much =
> improvement. I could restore the amplitude with smaller RC but the =
> double edges are still there. I also tried T versus Daisy Chain and also =
> tried source series termination. The best I could achieve is when using =
> a 10-15 Ohm series termination with Daisy Chain configuration. However, =
> some pins still have a small notch at the edge (some are up to 1 ns in =
> I was using 1.6 ns rise time and a 10 MHz clock rate for the simulation. =
> With the 2 to 3 times prop delay to rise time rule this is definitely a =
> transimission line. With a 1/10 rule on stubs, I think I could not use =
> them to branched between the DSP either.
> There are a lots more signals which are similar to these two signals. I =
> am using these two as a benchmark.
> After using the textbook solution of Daisy Chain and termination, the =
> signal is still having ringing and double-edges. I think it is related =
> to the mismatch bewteen layers, the drive capability, and the change in =
> Z0 when devices are attached along the chain. The solution to the first =
> constrain, my guess, would be using impedence controlled PCB and/or =
> change the thickness of each layer for a better match. I may not able to =
> use impedence controlled PCB due to cost issue. With the initial Zo's =
> number I have, I think the reflection is very small from layer to layer =
> anyway. I can't do much for the second constrain (the driving =
> capbaility) unless adding more drivers. The last one, in theory, should =
> be fixed by simply changing the match resistor value to the new Zo'. =
> However, I have no luck on that.
> I almost exhaust all my avenues to fix this problem. I have already =
> keep all the tracks short (however, still too long ), daisy chained the =
> devices, and try terminating. I haven't tried diode clamping yet and I =
> will. Nevertheless, I would like to avoid them as they are physically =
> bigger than a 0805 or 0603 chip. It also mostly for ringing, not for =
> I would like some more ideas or suggestions.
> Thank you in advance for you help.
> Norman Wong
> Hardware Design Engineer
> Wireless Development Center, Nortel
> email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: 4/22/96 9:45 PM
> To: Norman Wong
> From: mellitz@eagle.ColumbiaSC.NCR.C
> ----- E X T E R N A L L Y O R I G I N A T E D M E S S A G E -----
> I agree with all that Arpad said... Yes the bread and butter of SI. :-) =
> really need a board level simulator to find the best solution. There are =
> a lot
> of variables. How many do you control? Somethings that were not =
> mentioned are
> drive strength and strategicly placed series terminators (R or L). Also =
> need to know how forgiving you receivers are. Then once you think you =
> a solution, margin it all with voltage, temperature, silicon, and PWB =
> variations. Yup, looks like a full time job to me.
> On Apr 22, 4:28pm, Arpad Muranyi wrote:
> > Subject: Re: SI- Termination Comments Wa
> > Text item:
> > Norman,
> > Your questions are addressing issues that is the bread and butter of =
> > signal integrity engineer. There are lot of books out there which =
> address these
> > issues, including my good old favorite, the Motorola ECL Design =
> > Everything you say in your EMAIL makes sense.
> > The impedance will vary with distance to GND plane, but ~50~75 Ohms are =
> in the
> > range of numbers I have seen.
> > If possible avoid changing layers.
> > Chain topology is better than having stubs.
> > Parallel terminations do draw DC current which normal buffers are not =
> > to do, so your Vol and Voh might be "loaded" depending on which supply =
> you are
> > using for your termination.
> > 5 ns rise/fall times are more forgiving than 1 ns, but to decide what =
> you can do
> > you need to know the length of the trace also. This goes for the =
> length of the
> > stubs as well. With slower rise/fall times you can generally have =
> longer stubs.
> > The best, however, is not having stubs at all...
> > There are no short, clear answers to these questions. Most often you =
> need to
> > run a lot of simulations and learn from the simulation results... Most =
> of the
> > questions you are asking can be answered by parameterized Monte Carlo =
> > simulations and plotting the results in a statistical manner. This is =
> how most
> > of us figure out the best solutions and the design space for a given =
> > topology, loading condition, etc...
> > Good luck,
> > Arpad Muranyi
> > Intel Corporation
> > =
> > Subject: Time:3:44 =
> > PM
> > OFFICE MEMO SI- Termination Comments Wanted =3D
> > Date:4/19/96
> > I am currently working on a mid-speed (<50MHz) digital circuit pack and =
> > would like to proper terminate some long lines(up to 15 inches). It =3D
> > consists of CPU, DSP, SRAM, Flash etc. I am approaching the problem by =
> > using Daisy-Chained tracks and AC terminations. There are some =
> findings =3D
> > that I would like your comments:
> > 1. When using uncontrolled-impedance FR4 PCB, based on my calculation =
> on =3D
> > a 6 layer board, the micro-strip (8 mil) Z0 is about 75 Ohm and the =3D
> > STRIPLINE Z0 is about 45 Ohm. That means a mismatch every time I =3D
> > switch layers. Does anyone has experience on this? Does it matter for =
> 5 =3D
> > ns rise time? How about 1ns rise time?
> > 2. My EDA simulation package showed that after termination, my signals =
> > do not look much cleaner. In fact, it look worse and seems to be =
> loaded =3D
> > down (Vpeak is about 3.5-4V instead of 5V). Does this make sense?
> > 3. At want point could I use T instead of Daisy-Chain so that the stub =
> > look like capacitance, no transmission lines? A lot of time daisy =
> chain =3D
> > line is longer than a treed line.
> > All comments on this matter are welcome.
> > Thank you.
> > Norman Wong
> > Hardware Design Engineer
> > Nortel, Wireless Development Center, Calgary
>-- End of excerpt from Norman Wong