RE: [SI-LIST] : Coplanar Transmission Line

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Jian Zheng (jian@zeland.com)
Date: Fri Feb 04 2000 - 08:20:46 PST


Hi, Ron:

I did not say dielectric loss is related to capacitance. All the discussion
I made is based upon the formula:

Loss = volume_integraion_of ( sigma * E * E ), where sigma is the
conductivity and E is the electric field.

You should check any electromagnetic text book for this formula. The above
formula has nothing to do with capacitance. Thanks!

Best regards,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Jian-X. Zheng, Ph.D
Zeland Software, Inc., 39676 Mission Blvd., Fremont, CA 94539, U.S.A.
Tel: 510-797-8109, Fax: 510-797-8241, Web: http://www.zeland.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Special Announcement: (1)We are offering a training class on April 4 and 5.
Please check our web site for more information; (2) IE3D 7.0 is released. It
is a big step from IE3D 6.0 according to its optimization capability. It has
the implementation of symbolic optimization goals. It also features
integrated IE3D+CURVIEW+PATTERNVIEW for automated pattern calculation and
pattern optimization.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-si-list@silab.eng.sun.com
[mailto:owner-si-list@silab.eng.sun.com]On Behalf Of Ron Miller
    Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 6:02 PM
    To: si-list@silab.eng.sun.com
    Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : Coplanar Transmission Line

    Hi Jian
    It appears that we differ again. My understanding of the dielectric
losses is
    that the losses are magnetic/eddy current rather than electrostatic
capacitive in nature.
    It is produced by the nature of the material and has nothing to do with
capacitance.

    Perhaps a materials literate person is on the list and can fill in the
details. Help??

    ron miller

    Jian Zheng wrote

        Hi,
        From electromagnetics, loss in any dielectrics (substrate or
metallic strip)
        is calculated as:

        Loss = Volume_Integration ( Sigma * E * E ) where Sigma is the
conductivity
        and E is the electric field.

        Loss on a transmission line is mainly determined on the percentage
of the E
        field in lossy dielectrics. A bitmap picture is attached to this
e-mail to
        illustrate the cross-section of microstrip and CPW (co-planar
waveguide).
        For microstrip, most of the field (significantly more than 50% of
the field)
        is concentrated between the strip and the ground or the substrate.
For CPW,
        about 50% of the field will be in the air and the rest is in the
substrate.
        In fact, if the substrate is thin, more than 50% of the field will
be in the
        air (see the attached picture). There is no doublt about it that
the
        dielectric loss is lower on CPW.

        Interestingly, when frequency increases, more field will be
concentrated
        into the substrate for microstrip line (an in-direct indication is
that the
        effective dielectric constant Ereff of the waveguide is increasing
with
        frequency), it makes microstrip line more frequency dependent.
However, the
        field pattern in the cross-section of CPW is almost unchanged with
        frequency. That is the reason why CPW has less dispersion.

        As metallic loss is concerned, the loss is more related to the cross
section
        area of the middle strip of the CPW and the cross-section area of
the
        microstrip. If they are identical, the metallic loss should be very
close.
        This is in fact ohm's law says at DC frequency.

        Certainly, if you do not force identical voltage between the two
side (or
        ground) strips in the CPW, you will create other modes mentioned in
my
        previous e-mail. The other modes will have different propagation
speed and
        they will cause dispersion to the signals and it is not what you
want.

        You may ask why the propagation speed of the other modes are
different. It
        is also related to the field distribution in the cross-section or
the
        percentage of the field in different dielectrics. Thanks!

        Best regards,

        --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
        ------------
        Jian-X. Zheng, Ph.D
        Zeland Software, Inc., 39676 Mission Blvd., Fremont, CA 94539,
U.S.A.
        Tel: 510-797-8109, Fax: 510-797-8241, Web: http://www.zeland.com
        --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
        ------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-si-list@silab.eng.sun.com
> [mailto:owner-si-list@silab.eng.sun.com]On Behalf Of WAUGH,RAY
> (HP-SanJose,ex1)
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 3:34 PM
> To: 'si-list@silab.eng.sun.com'
> Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] : Coplanar Transmission Line
>
>
> I doubt if losses in the metal are significant. In my experience
(as a RF
> and microwave circuit designer), losses in dielectric
(particularly FR4)
> dominate total losses in symmetrical stripline, microstrip and
coplanar
> waveguide. I would not worry much about skin effect when your
> dielectric is
> so lossy.
>
> I have found that CPW losses are generally about the same as
> those found in
> a comparable microstrip. Keeping the potential on both CPW ground
strips
> exactly the same can be tricky, however.
>
> Ray
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Raymond W. Waugh - WSD Diode Applications
> E-mail: ray_waugh@agilent.com
>
> USPS: Agilent Technologies
> Wireless Semiconductor Division
> 39201 Cherry Street, MS NK20
> Newark, California 94560
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zabinski, Patrick J. [mailto:zabinski.patrick@mayo.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 12:49 PM
> To: si-list@silab.eng.sun.com
> Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] : Coplanar Transmission Line
>
>
> Possibly.
>
> If the CPW line width (and conductivity, roughness, etc.) is
> the same as microstrip/stripline ***AND*** the CPW ground
> traces are adequately wide, then the metal losses are
> the same (within engineering tolerance anyway).
>
> However, some compromise on the ground strip widths is generally
> needed, which will incease the effective inductance and resistance
> of the return path, which in turn increases the effective loss
> of the line. There are rules of thumb to follow in terms of
> how wide the grounds need to be to avoid this, but you won't
> hear them from me.
>
>
> Pat
>
> >
> > Will the skin loss not be higher in CPW than in
microstrip/stripline?
> >
> > Vinu
>
> **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
> majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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
> ****
>
> **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
> majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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
> ****
>
>

        **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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
        ****

--
Ronald B. Miller  _\\|//_  Signal Integrity Engineer
(408)487-8017    (' 0-0 ') fax(408)487-8017
     ==========0000-(_)0000===========
Brocade Communications Systems, 1901 Guadalupe Parkway, San Jose, CA  95131
rmiller@brocade.com,  rbmiller@sjm.infi.net

**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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 ****


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:34:57 PDT