[hsdd] High-Speed Digital Design Newsletter
- From: "Dr. Howard Johnson" <howiej@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <hsdd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:15:38 -0800
VIA INDUCTANCE
HIGH-SPEED DIGITAL DESIGN -- online newsletter --
Vol. 6 Issue 04
March 15, 2003
I am receiving an increasing flurry of requests for
information about via inductance. Presumably, those
of you asking for such data have reached that level
of speed where the inductance of a via becomes quite
significant.
And what speed is that? Assuming an ordinary pcb
thickness of 63 mils, the inductance of an ordinary
via works out to only a few nanohenries, something
that becomes increasingly significant at data rates
in excess of 1 Gb/s.
Some terrific pictures from my new book, "High-Speed
Signal Propagation: Advanced Black Magic", showing
the path of returning signal current and its impact
on via inductance, are replicated in the web version
of this newsletter. This note discusses the via-
inductance formulas presented in that book and
relates them to other formulas and concepts you may
have seen.
By the way, if you are enjoying my new book (or my
previous title, "High-Speed Digital Design: A
Handbook of Black Magic") please take a moment to
visit www.barnesandnoble.com or www.amazon.com and
enter some reader comments. That's one way you can
help other engineers to better understand the
relavance and importance (as you see it) of these
texts.
______________________________________________________
VIA INDUCTANCE
Rylan Luke of Rymar Engineering writes:
First, thanks both for your book, and the Mathcad
files on your web site.
My question is about the parasitic inductance of
vias. Shouldn't the effective length of the via be
considered? For a recent 6 layer board, 63 mils
total thickness, I calculated the inductance for a
signal via connecting the two outer layers. The
inductance of this via was 1.2nH. The inductance of
a similar structure going only between the top layer
trace and the first ground plane was markedly less,
presumably due to the much smaller length of that
via.
Is this a correct analysis?
______________________________________________________
Dr. Johnson replies:
You are correct that the length of the via affects
its inductance. Not only the length of the via, but
also the shape and proximity of the return-current
path determines the inductance.
For example, let's work with a four-layer board
having signal traces on layers 1 and 4 and solid
reference planes on layers 2 and 3. Consider a
signal via that dives through this board from top to
bottom (1 to 4). Figure 1 illustrates this
configuration, showing how at every point where high-
frequency signal current flows, an equal and
opposite current flows on the solid reference plane
adjacent to the signal conductor.
-sig trace-->-----via-- layer 1
--<--return------ || ------------------ layer 2
||
----------------- || ---<--return------ layer 3
--via-----sig trace-->- layer 4
Figure 1--Near the via, returning signal current
originating on layer 2 must somehow leap to layer 3
("High-Speed Signal Propagation", Fig. 5.33, p. 353)
Prior to encountering the via, returning signal
current associated with your layer-1 signal trace
flows on the top surface of layer 2, right
underneath the signal trace on layer 1. The skin
depth of copper at high frequencies being much less
than the thickness of a typical reference plane, the
return current actually flows only on the top
surface of solid layer 2; it does not penetrate
through that plane.
After traversing the signal via, your signal current
appears on a trace located on layer 4. The return
current at this point needs to flow on the bottom
surface of layer 3 (the nearest surface to layer 4).
How does the returning signal current get from layer
2 to layer 3? It can do so through vias IF THE
PLANES CARRY THE SAME VOLTAGE, or through bypass
capacitors if they do not.
Doesn't the returning signal current just pop
between the planes through the parasitic capacitance
of the planes themselves, you might ask? A complete
answer to that question will have to wait for the
next newsletter. The short answer is that in typical
cases where the planes are widely spaced (as in a
stripline cavity) the current seeks out the nearest
metallic connection, such as a via or bypass
capacitor, and follows that path.
I brought up the subject of returning signal
currents because in order to calculate the
inductance of a signal via you absolutely have to
know where the returning signal current flows. This
need arises because both the signal current and the
returning signal current create magnetic fields.
Inductance being nothing more than the temporary
storage of energy in the form of a magnetic field,
both fields must be calculated to determine the
total inductance.
Next let's get down to the business of calculating
the inductance of a signal via given a known pattern
of inter-plane connections.
Assume one signal via and one inter-plane connection
via, with the following parameters:
s - separation between vias, center-to-center
h - separation between planes 2 and 3 (it doesn't
matter if there are other unused reference planes in
the way, all that matters is the aggregate spacing
between the outermost reference planes traversed by
the signal)
r - radius of the via holes
Inductance is calculated for this configuration by
assuming a current of 1 Amp flowing through the
signal via and the same 1 Amp returning on the inter-
plane connection. From this pattern of currents, one
then calculates the magnetic field at all points
inside the stripline cavity (between the planes).
From this known magnetic field one then integrates,
in the region between the vias, the total magnetic
flux penetrating through a flat 2-D surface held
vertically (like a curtain) and stretched from one
via to the other, covering the entire stripline
cavity from top to bottom. The total flux
penetrating this 2-D surface equals the inductance.
The procedure sounds laborious, I know, but it is
how inductance calculations are done.
Step 1: The magnetic lines of force due to the
signal current form a set of concentric circles
centered on the signal via. The field strength is
constant in the z-axis direction (parallel to the
via). The field falls off with 1/x as you move away
from the via, with intensity
B1(x)=u/(2*pi*x)
where u=4*pi*1E-7 H/m is the magnetic permeability
of free space, and x is the radial distance in
meters away from the signal via.
Step 2: The magnetic lines of force due to the
return current have the same profile, but centered
around the position s of the return-current
connection.
B2(x)=u/(2*pi*(x-s))
Step 3: Integrate the magnetic field between the two
vias. This step assumes that the signal and return
vias are sufficiently far apart that the existence
of each via does not noticeably perturb the magnetic
field from the other.
The symmetrical arrangement of the vias suggests
that the signal and return vias will contribute
equal amounts of flux -- therefore we can just
calculate the flux from the signal via and double it
to get the result.
This is a two-dimensional integration. The first
integration (dx) goes horizontally across the
curtain between the two vias. The second integration
works vertically from floor to ceiling (z=0 to z=h).
Since the field is constant in the z dimension this
second integration merely multiplies the first
result by a factor of h.
L1 = h * 2 * integral [from r to s-r] of B1(x)dx
As the integrand in this expression involves 1/x,
the integrated result involves logarithms. The
inductance represented by the combination of one
signal via and one return via at distance s
equals:
L1 = [u/(2*pi)]*2*h*ln(s/r)
In metric mks units (h, s, and r in meters, L in
Henries), the constant (u/(2*pi)) works out to
2E-07 H/m (assuming a non-magnetic dielectric).
In English units, (h, s, and r in inches, L in nH)
the constant (u/(2*pi)) equals 5.08 nH/in.
Other examples are worked similarly. If the return
current is carried mainly on two vias equally spaced
on either side of the signal via, where the spacing
from signal via to either return via is s and the
via radius is r (with s, r and h in inches, L2 in nH):
L2 = 5.08*h*(1.5*ln(s/r) + 0.5*ln(2)) nH [2]
If the return current is carried mainly on four
vias equally spaced in a square pattern on four
sides of the signal via, where the spacing from
signal via to any return via is s and the via radius
is r (with s, r and h in inches, L4 in nH):
L4 = 5.08*h*(1.25*ln(s/r) + 0.25*ln(2)) nH [4]
If the return current is carried mainly on a coaxial
return path completely encircling the signal via,
where the spacing from signal via to the return path
is s and the via radius is r (with s, r and h in
inches, Lcoax in nH):
Lcoax = 5.08*h*(ln(s/r)) nH [coax]
The last formula I hope you will recognize as the
inductance of a short section of coaxial cable with
length H and outer diameter 2*s. I hope this
recognition will lend credence to the idea that the
position of the returning current path is an
important variable in the problem.
Formula [7.9], page 259 in High-Speed Digital
Design, lists the inductance of a via (with h
and diameter d=2r in inches, L? in nH):
L? = 5.08*h*(ln(4*h/d)+1) nH [?a]
This formula for L? is a gross approximation that
glosses over the position of the returning current
path, a simplification I greatly regret not making
more clear in the book. It makes the crude
assumption that the return path is approximately
coaxial and located at a distance s=2*e*h, where e
is the base used for natural logarithms. When the
inductance really matters, a more accurate
approximation is needed.
To see how formula [7.9] was derived, substitute 2*r
for the diameter d, and incorporate the additive
factor of 1 inside the logarithm as a multiplicative
factor of e:
L? = 5.08*h*(ln(2*e*h/r)) nH [?b]
Comparing this to the formula [coax] shows the
unwritten assumption present within formula [7.9],
namely that the return path is coaxial and located
at a distance of approximately s=2*e*h away from the
signal via.
If you are working with a 0.063-in. thick board with
eight-to-ten layers, the outer two solid planes are
probably about 0.050 in. apart. This height times 2e
would be .2718 in. If you have a bunch of return
paths about this far away, that is the case
approximation [7.9] was intended to cover.
If you hold the position of the return paths
constant and vary the inter-plane separation, the
inductance changes linearly with inter-plane height
(which equates roughly to via length).
If you modulate the position of the return paths at
the same time you vary the inter-plane height,
always keeping s=2*e*h, you get formula [7.9].
Note that all the approximations I have provided so
far have the property that they give you the
inductance of a via and its associated return path
only covering that part of the via embedded between
the planes. The part of the via that sticks up above
the planes is not included. If you want to model
that part (and I think that at today's speeds we are
beginning to *need* that part), check out the models
in my article: "Parasitic Inductance of Bypass
Capacitors", available at www.signalintegrity.com
under "archives".
______________________________________________________
MORE VIA INDUCTANCE
Herbert Seidenberg at Conexant writes:
How do you reconcile that the inductance of a via is
proportional to its length (page 259 of High-Speed
Digital Design) and proportional to the square of
its length in EDN, "Parasitic Inductance of Bypass
Capacitors", July 20, 2000?
Dr. Johnson replies:
Thanks for your interest in High-Speed Digital
Design.
That's the trouble with approximations, there are so
many to choose from.
What you are seeing are two crude approximations
that apply to two different situations.
In 3-dimensional space, as you move to a distance x
away from a magnetic dipole, the fields spread out
in an expanding sphere (whose surface area grows
with x-squared) so you get a field intensity that
falls off with 1/(x-squared).
In a 2-dimensional problem (such as a signal via and
a collection of return vias, with all the fields
trapped between two big, solid reference planes),
the fields spread out radially from the signal (and
return) vias in expanding cylinders whose surface
areas grow proportional to x, so you get a field
intensity that falls off with 1/x.
In the 2-dimensional problem (vias contained within
two reference planes), if I increase the height h
between the planes by a factor of k (essentially
making the board k times thicker) then each new,
longer via generates k times the magnetic flux *all
of which* is captured between the planes. In this
situation inductance grows strictly in proportion to
height.
In the 3-dimensional problem (here I'm thinking
about the partial stubs of the vias that stick up
above the topmost reference plane), the magnetic
fields are not trapped between two planes. The
fields are free to spill all over the place in a
full 3-D pattern. If you measure the total flux that
falls under a particular trace, or under the body of
a bypass capacitor, you are seeing an inductance
that depends only upon a fraction of the total flux
generated by that via.
In the 3-D case when you increase the length of the
vias two things happen: first, the vias create more
total magnetic flux in proportion to their new
length, and second, the percentage of that flux that
falls beneath the associated trace (or bypass
capacitor) goes up. The overall effect is an
increase in inductance proportional to the square of
the length of the part of the via that sticks up
above the planes (which was the point of the July
20, 2000 article).
In the 3-D problem (vias sticking up above the
reference planes) if you increase the via length to
a ridiculous extent the space between the vias will
eventually grow to the point where it accepts as big
a fraction of the flux as it is ever going to get.
Beyond this point the "increased proportion of flux"
part of my argument evaporates, and you revert to an
increase in inductance that scales merely in
proportion to length, not length squared.
This transition from the 3-D behavior to the 2-D
behavior corresponds to the "long, skinny object"
assumption often made in inductance approximations.
That is, for an object sufficiently long and skinny
we can ignore the "fringing fields" at the ends
(that's the 3-D part) and just concentrate on the
part in the middle, for which the field cross-
section is uniform along the length of the object.
The "long, skinny" assumption renders many problems
more tractable. A classic example is the calculation
of inductance between two long parallel wires. One
normally ignores fringing fields at the ends of the
wires in this problem, which leads to the conclusion
that the inductance grows in direct proportion to
the length of the wires. The via problem
investigated in the July 20, 2000 article was so
short that it was "all fringe" and "no middle", so
the inductance developed a squared dependence on
length.
Lastly, please beware that while the approximation
on page 259 produces an answer with the right order
of magnitude, it's not particularly accurate as it
does not take into account details of the actual
signal return path or the configuration of reference
planes near the via.
______________________________________________________
Join us at our upcoming seminar in Dallas, Mar. 24-
25, 2003. A full schedule of cities and dates
appears at: http://sigcon.com.
High-Speed Signal Propagation: Advanced Black Magic
is here! Check for it at www.barnesandnoble.com, or
www.amazon.com , ISBN 013084408X.
A brand new Advanced Signal Propagation course is being
created, and will be available this fall. If you are
interested in attending, please send us an email for
more information. hsdd@xxxxxxxxxx
If you have an idea that would make a good topic for
a future newsletter, please send it to hsdd@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to this list send an email to
hsdd-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field.
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
hsdd-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field.
Newsletter Archives: http://www.sigcon.com/
Copyright 2002, Signal Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Other related posts:
