
|
[si-list]
||
[Date Prev]
[10-2002 Date Index]
[Date Next]
||
[Thread Prev]
[10-2002 Thread Index]
[Thread Next]
[SI-LIST] Re: Differential microstrip with coplanar ground traces
- From: MikonCons@xxxxxxx
- To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:03:30 EDT
NOTE: This is a re-send of an earlier transmittal as I did not see it get
posted. Perhaps I deleted the original posting inadvertently. If so, just
dump this one.
Mike Conn
*************
Bob:
You appear to have a few misconceptions as evidenced by your trace
descriptions. Without knowing trace lengths or dielectric materials, here are
a few initial observations for you to consider.
"Our digital signals are 2.5Gb/s with the fastest rise time at 100ps."
The fundamental is 1.25 GHz and, at your noted rise time, greater than 90% of
the signal energy is contained within (1/PI*Tr) = 3.18 GHz. (100 ps sounds a
bit slow for this signal; I would expect ~70 ps.) The minimum harmonic
frequency you should design for is the third harmonic, and 3*1.25 GHz = 3.75
GHz.
For effective performance in field capture, lowered crosstalk, and shielding
protection (for lower jitter susceptibility), the guard traces should have
vias to the ground plane at about (1/20) lambda (wavelength) at 3.75 GHz.
Assuming an Er of ~4, the 0.5" spacing you noted is >(1/10) lambda at the
fundamental and is ~(1/3) lambda for the third harmonic.... Bad News!
"We expected the coplanar grounds to better contain the fields, and allow
closer pair to pair spacing without the risk of large crosstalk."
For surface traces/microstrip, you have multi-mode propagation at different
speeds; i.e., most of the energy travels in the dielectric medium, but some
travels in the air above the surface. The wavelengths are different and the
composite signal at the end/destination point suffers rise time degradation
which increases jitter. But perhaps worse, the surface fields are not
effectively captured/terminated by the coplanar guard traces (per the above
comments) and will easily couple to other surface traces to yield substantial
crosstalk.
Relative to microstrip, use of stripline construction will slow the
propagation speed of the wavefront; however, you will experience
substantially less rise time degradation as only one speed of propagation is
present, thereby preserving the signal fidelity. This effect keeps any
contribution to signal jitter to a minimum. The use of stripline also results
in closer coupling of all signal fields to the image/reference planes and
thereby produces lower crosstalk than microstrip construction. Using guard
traces with the stripline pairs further increases crosstalk reduction (per my
experience, ~4-8 dB added reduction), and the ground via spacing becomes much
less critical.
Good luck on your next board spin.
Mike
Michael L. Conn
Owner/Principal Consultant
Mikon Consulting
Cell: (408)821-9843
*** Serving Your Needs with Technical Excellence ***
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
List archives are viewable at:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
or at our remote archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
|

|