From: Rachild Chen (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Oct 29 1999 - 18:47:03 PDT
Hi every specialist,
I'm do some simulations with Hspice too.Who can tell me how to simulate the SSN eye diagram
Bradley S Henson wrote:
> I see you're using 'W' element t-line models, so I guess your using HSPICE for
> generating the eye diagrams too???
> To answer your question, I've done a similer stackup under duress, and it wasn't
> a production board. I think it can be done with the type of rigorous engineering
> you appear to be doing. I'll suggest adding extra margin for inter-layer
> effects: When we did inter-layer SSO we saw more interaction than
> predicted...the z-axis and diagonal coupling of lots of bus lines to a victim on
> another layer appeared to have more of a cumulative impact than we expected.
> I've bounced around jobs a couple times in the last 2 years so I no longer have
> the writeup, but I think I've hit the high/low points.
> Brad Henson, Raytheon
> "Pat Zabinski" <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 10/28/99 05:25:48 AM
> Please respond to email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> cc: (bcc: Bradley S Henson/RWS/Raytheon/US)
> Subject: [SI-LIST] : quad offset stripline?
> On a rather route-intense design we're working on, we are trying
> to squeeze in as many signal layers as we possibly can in
> a given overall board thickness. We've been playing around
> with different scenarios with different board vendors for
> the past month, and what we've come up with is a layer stackup
> based on "quad offset stripline", meaning:
> ---------------------- plane
> ---- signal-T
> ---- signal-S
> ---- signal-Y
> ---- signal-X
> ---------------------- plane
> X is horizontal, Y is vertical, S is 45, and T is 135. We have
> buried vias between S & T and between X & Y. For a particular
> signal, we only route on orthogonal layer-pairs.
> We've been analyzing this for a short time now, and it looks like
> it might work out for our application. But before we take it too
> far, I'd like to get input from folks on potential gotchas that
> I should be concerned with.
> As background, we have:
> * designed a line width for the respective layers to obtain
> our target impedance (50 ohms).
> * ran SSN eye diagram simulations of multiple signals
> on one layer at a time to determine the minimum
> trace-pitch for that layer.
> * using the minimum-pitch per layer, mutual capacitance
> and inductance of the crossovers (taking into account
> the relative angle of the traces), and a W-element
> representation of lines on each of the four
> layers, we ran an SSN eye diagram simulation of random
> signals on all four layers to determine the effects
> of the mutual parasitics from the other layers.
> So far, if we keep the trace pitch wide enough, this seems to
> work just fine. However, I'd like input of other areas we
> should look at.
> Any ideas? Has anyone used this sort of thing in the multi-100's
> of MHz (<500 psec Tr) regime? Am I missing something?
> **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to email@example.com. In
> the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list
> archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list ****
> **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list ****
**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to email@example.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list ****
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 11:39:26 PST