[SI-LIST] Re: 12 Layer stack

Is there any book or material that explains how to define the stack-up 
layer, on which layer to route the hi-speed signal, Ref signal, etc ?

saoer
NXP

steve weir wrote:
> I like continuous references where I can get them cheap or for free.  
> Vss references everywhere in the PCB is usually by far the easiest way 
> to get close to that.  But the IC mfg has to have done their part too.  
> Referencing Vss everywhere in a PCB creates continuous references IF and 
> ONLY IF the signals reference GND at the source and end-point as well.  
> This is an issue with many packages that use mix and match or partial 
> references.  In those cases the PDN still operates in series with the 
> return path.  What a Vss only referenced PCB will do in that case is 
> restrict injection to near ICs where we tend to have decoupling anyway.
>
> Steve.
> Mangipudi, Prasad wrote:
>   
>> Bill,
>> My GROUND assertion works for ALL signals, not just when passing through 
>> connectors.
>>
>> Consider a situation signals passing from one IC to another IC on a board.  
>> If the ICs are referenced to different voltage planes V1 and V2, you have to 
>> work on making the return path cross from V1 to V2. If the signal passes to 
>> multiple ICs, which are referenced to different voltage planes, or the 
>> signals pass through referencing other voltage planes or ground, you have to 
>> work through the entire route and work this way on all signals, which is 
>> avoidable. In my stackup, this entire work is eliminated.
>>
>> My methodology is to keep things simple.  There is no need to create a 
>> concern and then solve it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Prasad
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:55 PM
>> To: Mangipudi, Prasad
>> Cc: 'SI LIST'; 'si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'sunil bharadwaz'
>> Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] Re: 12 Layer stack
>>
>>
>> Prasad,
>>
>> I agree with the GROUND assertion if you are going through a connector but 
>> even then with a few well placed capacitors (assuming we're not in Terahertz 
>> freq range) can mitigate most of your concerns with the voltage plane. As 
>> long as there is a good path somehow, I think you're in good shape. On a 
>> design at a different company, we did 800-1200Mhz single ended with 
>> misreferencing caps at the connector boundaries with the signals referenced 
>> to power that didn't pass through the connector.
>>
>> I guess my main point is, rules of thumb should be applied carefully; not 
>> all rules apply everywhere. I'm sure Dr. Johnson or Dr. Bogatin or any other 
>> pro would agree with that statement, as most of here would as well.
>>
>> I've done it both ways Prasad and have had 100% success with 
>> power-signal-ground or ground-signal-ground referencing on hundreds of 
>> cards, assuming you design for the return paths. Given a choice, I would 
>> take 4 striplines instead of 2 strips and 2 dual strips. There's nothing 
>> wrong with your stack, I've done that myself as well. I guess it's just a 
>> personal preference.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> William Csongradi
>> Senior Electrical Engineer
>> Rockwell Collins Heads Down Display Center
>> 319-295-7884
>>
>> Mailing Address
>> Rockwell Collins
>> 400 Collins Road NE
>> MS 105-167
>> Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52498-0001
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mangipudi, Prasad" <Prasad_Mangipudi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> 07/28/2008 04:29 PM
>>
>> To
>> "'wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> cc
>> 'SI LIST' <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" 
>> <si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'sunil bharadwaz' <sunil_bharadwaz@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject
>> RE: [SI-LIST] Re: 12 Layer stack
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> The original question is a general one without details and the 133MHz speed 
>> is not very high. The suggested stackup keep things simple.  Even both of 
>> the original two stackups can be made to work, with extra effort.
>>
>> By referencing all signals to continuous ground planes, there is no need to 
>> keep track of return signal path for any signal assuming all the ground 
>> planes are stitched together nicely.  This is not true if the signals are 
>> referenced to power planes.
>>
>> Dual strip line crosstalk: I have advised increasing the distance between 
>> the signal layers and/or power planes to adjust for the board thickness.  By 
>> following orthogonal routing on adjacent signal layers, crosstalk is 
>> minimized. You can also reduce the crosstalk by decreasing the dielectric 
>> thickness between signal layer and ground plane.  The signals are coupled 
>> more strongly to the reference plane than to other signal layer.
>>
>> Power planes:  The power planes may look adjacent, but they are more 
>> strongly coupled to the adjacent ground planes than to each other.  Also, 
>> most of the current devices need multiple power inputs and by localization 
>> of power pours, the coupling between them can be made far less compared to 
>> the coupling to the ground.  Those G/P pairs can be thin dielectric 
>> materials if required.
>>
>> I have used the suggested stackup on many different designs for PCIe, DDR2, 
>> SAS, SATAI/II, Gigabit Ethernet, FC and never had to worry about EMI/EMC, 
>> Noise and crosstalk.  The stackup alone will not solve all issues, but is a 
>> starting point for good design.  I do not see any limitation in the proposed 
>> stackup.  The devices I have used needed multiple power supplies and the 
>> best place for decoupling caps had always been back of the BGA in my case. I 
>> could carve out multiple local power pours on the power planes and if 
>> required even on signal layers.
>>
>> -Prasad
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:40 PM
>> To: Mangipudi, Prasad
>> Cc: 'SI LIST'; si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'sunil bharadwaz'
>> Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] Re: 12 Layer stack
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Another interesting topic to get the list fired up with discussion.
>>
>> Prasad, please explain why you think referencing all signals to GND is a 
>> good thing? And why coupling power planes of different noise levels in the 
>> middle of this mess is a good thing?
>>
>> Our Intel friends can certainly point to the now famous paper about this GND 
>> referencing stuff. I believe we will discover that as always, rules of thumb 
>> must be applied with care and not willy nilly everywhere.
>>
>> I'm very interested in the comments on this one.
>>
>> I would probably vote to minimize dual stripline wiring to minimize xtalk. 
>> With the stack below, you'll still have 4 good easily controlled wiring 
>> layers, 2 on top and bottom for fan out. And you can stick a hunk of that 
>> buried capacitance stuff in the middle. 'P' in the stack is plane. I don't 
>> care, except in the middle, if it's power or GND. With any stack discussed 
>> so far, you really only get 4 good layers.
>>
>> S-G-S-P-S-G-P-S-G-S-G-S.
>>
>> If that dual strip doesn't bother you, go for A.
>>
>> Also, doesn't the final answer depend on how many power planes you will need 
>> in your design? If you're a 10W board, for example, maybe one power layer is 
>> sufficient. There's that Ohm's law thing again: - )
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> William Csongradi
>> Senior Electrical Engineer
>> Rockwell Collins Heads Down Display Center
>> 319-295-7884
>>
>> Mailing Address
>> Rockwell Collins
>> 400 Collins Road NE
>> MS 105-167
>> Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52498-0001
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mangipudi, Prasad" <Prasad_Mangipudi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent by: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> 07/28/2008 03:19 PM
>>
>> To
>> 'sunil bharadwaz' <sunil_bharadwaz@xxxxxxxxx>, 'SI LIST' 
>> <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> cc
>> Subject
>> [SI-LIST] Re: 12 Layer stack
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sunil,
>>
>> Neither.  I would use S/G/S/S/G/P/P/G/S/S/G/S to simplify the design.  All 
>> signals reference to ground.  Required board thickness is achieved by 
>> increasing the dielectric between power planes and/or signal planes.
>>
>> -Prasad
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of sunil bharadwaz
>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:08 AM
>> To: SI LIST
>> Subject: [SI-LIST] 12 Layer stack
>>
>>
>> Hi ,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have following two stack up's
>>
>>
>>
>> Stack 'A'
>>
>>
>>
>> 1)Signal
>>
>> 2)PWR
>>
>> 3)GND
>>
>> 4)Signal
>>
>> 5)PWR
>>
>> 6)Signal
>>
>> 7)Signal
>>
>> 8)Gnd
>>
>> 9)Signal
>>
>> 10)PWR
>>
>> 11)GND
>>
>> 12)Signal
>>
>>
>>
>> Stack 'B'
>>
>>
>>
>> 1)Signal
>>
>> 2)GND
>>
>> 3)Signal
>>
>> 4)Signal
>>
>> 5)Ground
>>
>> 6)Power
>>
>> 7)Power
>>
>> 8)GND
>>
>> 9)Signal
>>
>> 10)Signal
>>
>> 11)PWR
>>
>> 12)Signal
>>
>>
>>
>> Intent is to use one of these stacks for an FPGA based high speed Design (Max
>> 133 Mhz).
>>
>> Can i know which one is preferable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Sunil.B
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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 technical documents are available at:
>>               http://www.si-list.net
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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 technical documents are available at:
>>               http://www.si-list.net
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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 technical documents are available at:
>>                 http://www.si-list.net
>>
>> 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
>>   
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>   

------------------------------------------------------------------
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 technical documents are available at:
                http://www.si-list.net

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

Other related posts: