> ----------
> From: Peterson, James F
> (FL51)[SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 1998 12:19 PM
> To: Lawrence Butcher; [email protected]; Haruny Said
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] : bypass cap question (long, simple)
>
> I have worried and wondered about this issue before (the impact on
> impedance & return paths caused by the trace jumping to another layer
> with a different reference plane). Lawrence's (should have said Haruny
> Said here) input sounds intuitive
> and, if correct, I believe it makes a good case for allowing for
> adjacent layering of vcc/gnd planes in a stackup (if done correctly
> this
> should provide a very effective capacitor at high frequencies and thus
> a
> low impedance path for the return currents).
> Jim Peterson
> Honeywell Space Systems
> [email protected]
> ----------
> > From: Haruny Said[SMTP:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 31, 1998 11:05 AM
> > To: Lawrence Butcher; [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : bypass cap question (long, simple)
> >
> > Lawrence,
> >
> > after I read you message a couple of times I decided what you
> said
> > does
> > make sense. I look at the problem as follows:
> >
> > You are connecting two transmission lines together, one side of
> the
> > lines are connected by the via, the other side of the lines are
> > connected
> > via the inter-plane capacitance, Ci, between the power, ground and
> > other
> > planes.
> >
> > This connection will cause an impedance mismatch because Ci will
> be
> > in
> > series with the two lines. For the sake of argument let's say you
> want
> > to
> > keep the mismatch within 10% of the characteristic impedance of the
> > line.
> > If the capacitive impedance of Ci at the low frequency is more than
> > 10% of
> > Zo then you need to add a capacitor at the via. Otherwise a
> capacitor
> > isn't
> > required.
> >
> > I would choose the capacitor as follows: the capacitor's impedance
> > (taking
> > into account series L and R etc) in parallel with Ci would need to
> be
> > less
> > than 10% of Zo at the low and high frequencies, and in your example
> I
> > would
> > take the high frequency as being 500MHz - 1GHz, i.e. 5 - 10X 100MHz.
> >
> > To calculate Ci I would take into account the area around the via
> > whose
> > radius
> > is given by the propagation time that is equivalent to the rise time
> > of the
> > signal.
> >
> > The 10% is plucked out of the air, the value you choose would
> depend
> > on
> > how much mismatch your design can tolerate.
> >
> > If there are 40 wires then it gets a little more complex, it
> > depends on
> > how the wires are placed but I think the same argument still
> applies.
> >
> > Does this make sense, or does anybody strongly disagree? I know
> there
> > is a
> > lot of rule-of-thumb in this answer but I don't think there is a
> > perfect
> > solution.
> >
> > If you want I can sketch something on paper to make it clearer and
> > fax it
> > to you.
> >
> >
> > At 12:58 AM 1/31/98 -0800, Lawrence Butcher wrote:
> > >Imagine that I build a 4 layer board. Imagine that there were two
> > chips on
> > >it, labeled U1 and U2. Imagine that I route the board strictly
> > manhatten
> > >style. All horizontal wires are on top above the ground plane, and
> > all
> > >vertical wires are on the bottom below the power plane.
> > > _______________
> > > | |
> > > | U1 ------* |
> > > | | |
> > > | | |
> > > | | |
> > > | U2 |
> > > |_______________|
> > >
> > >Normally, I would put bypass caps under U1 and bypass caps under
> U2.
> > >I would cosy them up so that there was minimum distance between the
> > >caps and the power supply pins on the chip.
> > >
> > >Consider the image currents running on the power and ground planes.
> > >An image current will sit directly under each wire. But that
> current
> > >will have a hard time following the wire through the via, because
> it
> > >would have to hop from the ground plane to the power plane.
> > >
> > >It seems clear that a capacitor might be needed at that via site to
> > >give the current in one plane a chance to hop to the other. Even
> > >though there are no components nearby.
> > >
> > >Intuition rarely substitutes for calculation. Question: Is this
> > true?
> > >How much capacitance? How does that vary if there are 40 wires
> > instead
> > >of 1? How does the number change with frequency?
> > >
> > >
> > >The above illustrates a real problem. I am building an 8-layer
> > board,
> > >with a tentative stackup of:
> > >
> > >1 Horizontal
> > >2 GND Plane
> > >3 V33 Plane
> > >4 Vertical
> > >5 Horizontal
> > >6 V5 Plane
> > >7 GND Plane
> > >8 Vertical
> > >
> > >My component placement places all of the 3 volt components above
> the
> > >midline of the board, and all of the 5 volt components below the
> > midline.
> > >
> > >Therefore, there are NO bypass caps from the 5V plane to ground in
> > the
> > >top half of the board, and NO bypass caps from the 3.3V plane to
> > ground
> > >in the bottom half of the board.
> > >
> > >A trace running horizontally on layer 5 in the top half of the
> board
> > >will have an image current running on the V5 plane, and that
> current
> > >has no way to get to the ground plane at a via site. Same for
> traces
> > >running on layer 4 in the botton half of the board.
> > >
> > >
> > >I want to add about 1 cap per square inch (about 50 more bypass
> > caps).
> > >Half will be between V5 and ground in the top half of the board,
> and
> > half
> > >will between V33 and ground in the bottom half of the board.
> > >
> > >These components are there only to deal with my paranoia about
> image
> > >currents. They would be placed even though there are already tons
> of
> > >bypass caps in the same area, but exclusively to only one power
> > plane.
> > >
> > >My coworkers have doubts. They especially don't like 50 more caps
> > when
> > >there are no nearby chips connected to the power planes I am
> > concerned with.
> > >
> > >Most of my signals are changing at 100 MHz, but there is a bunch of
> > 33 MHz
> > >activity running around. (Fast, for me).
> > >
> > >Is this a non-existent problem, or a real one? Comments?
> > >
> > >Lawrence
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Haruny Said
> > H.A.S. Electronics, Inc.
> > 33 Boston Post Rd West
> > Suite 270
> > Marlborough
> > MA 01752
> >
> > Email: [email protected]
> > WWW: http://www.haselect.com
> > Phone: (508) 624 6227
> > Fax: (508) 624 6054
> >
>