[SI-LIST] Re: AW: Ground vias around signal via
- From: steve weir <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Lee <leeritchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:31:13 -0700
Lee, where is this: "have been said to be needed" coming from? The
various papers and data out there tell us the sensitivities involved and
therefore how to determine in a given situation whether the vias that
come from the PDN alone are adequate or not. In order to resolve your
experience with the science one would have to evaluate the specific
designs involved and see what the science predicts versus measured
data. If disparity results then we have something that merits further
investigation to see if our measurements are off or there is a problem
with the science. On the other hand we have plenty of data from real
correlated simulation, and measurement both that backs up the science as
sound. If you wish to challenge this well verified science I would say
that Clara's famous saying applies to you: "Where is the beef?" Where
is the measured data that contradicts what the science predicts?
The IBM paper, the SUN oracle paper, my presentation have all been
linked already. I have not seen you take to task the contents of any of
those documents.
Best Regards,
Steve
On 10/18/2014 11:21 AM, Lee wrote:
> Maybe I am old fashioned, but I like to draw on experience when I
> can. I have participated in the design of a couple dozen PCBs with
> hundreds of 10 G links and some with 28 G links. All work great
> without any "ground" vias that have been said to be needed and had
> none of the dire problems alluded to in this thread. No EMI problems,
> no SI problems, they just work.
>
> As I said before, where is the proof for all these things that have
> been mentioned? And, don't reply with there has been plenty written
> on the subject unless you are ready to cite those documents for us all
> to read.
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: steve weir
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 2:21 PM
> To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: AW: Ground vias around signal via
>
> Lee, the body of hard scientific data establishing the effects of Vss to
> Vss vias is very well established. As to the practical issue when a Vss
> to Vss via should be added, I there is no simple fits all sizes formula
> or guideline. As with when and where to apply power bypass the generic
> answer as to where to apply Vss to Vss vias is: "Wherever they are
> necessary". It's counter productive to turn a board black with bypass
> capacitors and its counter productive to madly drill Vss vias everywhere.
>
> Additional Vss vias over and above the PDN vias should be added when:
>
> 1) Structural resonances can be excited by by signal energy to create
> excessive EMI.
>
> 2) Cross-talk would be excessive due to too much signal to signal
> coupling.
>
> 3) Loss and or jitter would be excessive due to excess channel
> discontinuity resulting from structural resonances.
>
> Figuring out when the above are really going to happen takes time,
> effort, and capable tools. Circumstances where these sorts of problems
> are more likely to occur have been discussed:
>
> 1) There are many signal penetrations into a cavity with high frequency
> content. Lots of energy coupling through common impedance and in
> particular common impedance that has resonances within the signal
> bandwidth is an invitation to trouble. Adding vias in appropriate
> locations can reduce the extent that signal energy spreads through the
> cavity, and raises the frequency of structural resonances.
>
> 2) Loss and distortion budgets are tight on individual signals. While
> differential signals greatly reduce even mode currents, they do not
> eliminate them. Mode conversion is a particularly evil beast and as
> particularly demonstrated in the IBM paper, location of Vss vias can
> have a marked effect good and bad on mode conversion.
>
> 3) High frequency signal penetrations are electrically far enough away
> from cavity stitch to support standing waves within the the working
> signal bandwidth. Scott has offered a very conservative criteria of
> lambda / 10. That is not a universal hard stop. It is a point that we
> shouldn't go very far beyond on assumption alone.
>
> After a board has been fabricated we don't want to be in a position to
> have discussions like this bit of 39 year old dialog:
>
> Andrel: " You didn't know we were in trouble?"
> Freytag: "No."
> Andrel: "That's not good."
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/16/2014 3:49 PM, Lee wrote:
>> I am not suggesting they are never needed. I am suggesting that
>> postulating
>> their need without evidence that they are needed is not good
>> engineering.
>> Most of the items discussed so far, are being done every day without the
>> need for ground vias. SO, I am asking for evidence of when they are
>> needed.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rick Brooks (ricbrook)
>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:13 PM
>> To: leeritchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
>> Yishan.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Gert.Havermann@xxxxxxxxxxx ; aaditya.kandibanda@xxxxxxxxx ; si-list
>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: AW: Ground vias around signal via
>>
>> The counter argument is that anyone who says that GND stitching vias do
>> nothing or are not needed under any conditions, is also suggesting a
>> "rule"
>> which should be proved for all possible cases.
>> Honestly, I do not remember anyone saying on this thread that having
>> close
>> GND stitching vias is required in every conceivable place or scenario.
>> I have certainly seen specific designs where the location and number
>> of GND
>> stitching vias made a big difference with signals containing even mode.
>> Obviously, that does not mean they are a must have for every via on
>> every
>> board that is built or shipped.
>> It also does not mean that I am willing to share the actual data,
>> because,
>> like others, there may be confidential aspects to it.
>>
>> I have also seen conditions where right angle bends on traces creates no
>> visible problems.
>> That does not mean you should use right angle bends, or that there
>> aren't an
>> infinite number of cases where right angle bends would be a disaster.
>>
>> As always, "it depends"
>>
>> This forum is for people to put forth their ideas and experience.
>> I, for one, welcome their comments, with or without proof.
>> cheers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Lee
>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:16 AM
>> To: scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Yishan.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Gert.Havermann@xxxxxxxxxxx; aaditya.kandibanda@xxxxxxxxx; si-list
>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: AW: Ground vias around signal via
>>
>> This discussion seems to be terribly theoretical. We all know that
>> there
>> are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of assemblies shipped every day
>> with differential signals as high as 28 Gb/S on them that work just fine
>> without the need to put in "ground vias" nearby.
>>
>> What comes to my mind when I read discussions such as this is that old
>> Burger King commercial where Clara Peller asks "where's the beef?"
>>
>> For all of the postulated problems mentioned in these discussions,
>> "where's
>> the proof?"
>>
>> We do too much speculating on this forum and not enough proving!
>>
>> My position on this whole thing as well as many others that appear on
>> this
>> discussion group is, if you are going to put forth a rule, be
>> prepared to
>> offer the proof that the rule is valid as well as where it is valid.
>> If you
>> are not prepared to do this, it is a disservice to those who are
>> asking for
>> advice to make such a posting.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott McMorrow
>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:29 AM
>> To: Yishan.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Gert.Havermann@xxxxxxxxxxx ; aaditya.kandibanda@xxxxxxxxx ; si-list
>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: AW: Ground vias around signal via
>>
>> Gert has good advice about the distance of the ground via to the signal
>> via, but I would like to modify it a bit. A well-referenced set of
>> ground
>> planes will have ground stitch vias that are separated by no more
>> than 1/10
>> the wavelength of the Nyquist frequency of the highest differential bit
>> rate, or the bandwidth of the signal edge rate of the fastest single
>> ended
>> driver.
>> So for some numbers in the English system.
>>
>> Let Dk = 4
>> Tdelay = 170 ps/inch
>>
>> For DDR3/4 with 100 ps driver edge rates
>> BW = .35/100ps = 3.5 GHz
>> lambda = 285 ps
>> 1/10 lambda = 28.5 ps
>> In Dk = 4 ground vias should be separated by a maximum of 167 mil to
>> maintain a good return path for these singled-ended DDR signals.
>>
>> For 10 Gbps
>> Nyquist is 5 GHz
>> lambda = 200 ps
>> 1/10 lambda = 20 ps117
>> In Dk = 4 ground vias should be separated by a maximum of 117 mil
>> for 10
>> Gbps signalling to maintain a good return path.
>>
>> For 28 Gbps
>> Nyquist is 14 GHz
>> lambda is 71 ps
>> 1/10 lambda is 7.1 ps
>> In Dk = 4 ground vias should be separated by a maximum of 42 mil for 28
>> Gbps signalling.
>>
>> These recommendations apply to the region in proximity of the signal
>> transition vias. They serve to tie the ground cavities together,
>> provide
>> shielding for the power/ground cavities, eliminate resonances in the
>> signal
>> passband and first harmonic, and reduce via-to-via crosstalk. If the
>> signal transition is at the balls of a semiconductor device, or in
>> the pin
>> field of a connector, there are "usually" enough ground vias in these
>> regions to meet these requirements. If that is the case, then no
>> additional grounds are required. But, there are often cases that we
>> encounter at Teraspeed Consulting where these rules are violated.
>> Here are
>> some common areas to look at.
>>
>> Via transitions around dc blocking capacitors.
>>
>> Boards with outer layer buildup microvias, where drilled vias do not
>> carry
>> the package or connector grounds down through the board.
>>
>> Areas with asymmetric stripline crossing power splits on the distant
>> plane
>> side of the stripline (the stripline is close to ground.)
>>
>> In all these regions it is necessary to close the return path loop with
>> ground vias as described above. Use the above as a guide to current and
>> future designs.
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott McMorrow
>> Teraspeed® Consulting - A Division of Samtec
>> 16 Stormy Brook Rd
>> Falmouth, ME 04105
>> (401) 284-1827 Business
>> http://www.teraspeed.com
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:39 AM, LI Yishan
>> <Yishan.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Aaditya:
>>> According to 3D simulation, ground vias around signal via deeply
>>> effect
>>> high frequency impedance. If your signal is low speed signal, it
>>> seems the
>>> ground vias are not necessary.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Li Yishan
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> On Behalf Of Havermann, Gert
>>> Sent: 2014年10月16日 14:59
>>> To: aaditya.kandibanda@xxxxxxxxx; si-list
>>> Subject: [SI-LIST] AW: Ground vias around signal via
>>>
>>> Aaditya: My opinion is, if we have a proper return path, they are not
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> -> As Wolfgang said, GND vias are needed for proper return path because
>>> without any GND via there will be no proper return path. You don't
>>> have to
>>> put multiple of those around the signal via. with proper placement
>>> one is
>>> enough even for very high speeds.
>>>
>>> Aaditya: Any situations they are useful other than shielding?
>>>
>>> -> Placing many stitching vias doesn't necessarily provide any
>>> shielding.
>>> That’s an old Myth. Take a look at waveguide filters. The
>>> placement of
>>> screws into the dielectric (air) looks and functions very similar to
>>> a PCB
>>> where the energy also travels in the dielectric. Stitching vias can
>>> act as
>>> a filter, meaning that some frequencies are not shielded but guided
>>> to the
>>> outside.
>>>
>>> Aaditya: How will they help? When do we need them?
>>>
>>> -> As already said, use GND vias to provide a proper GND return. as
>>> a rule
>>> of thumb there should be a return via within the range of 1/8
>>> wavelength
>>> (Nyquist) to the signal via.
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Gert
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>> Absender ist HARTING Electronics GmbH, Marienwerderstraße 3, D-32339
>>> Espelkamp; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Bad Oeynhausen;
>>> Register-Nr.: HRB
>>> 8808; Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Kfm. Edgar-Peter
>>> Düning, Dipl.-Ing. Torsten Ratzmann, Dipl.-Wirtschaftsing. Ralf Martin
>>> Klein
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Im Auftrag von Aaditya K
>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2014 19:42
>>> An: si-list
>>> Betreff: [SI-LIST] Ground vias around signal via
>>>
>>> Hello Experts,
>>> I have a question on ground vias placement around signal via.
>>>
>>> My opinion is, if we have a proper return path, they are not
>>> necessary.
>>> Am I correct?
>>>
>>> Any situations they are useful other than shielding?
>>>
>>> How will they help? When do we need them?
>>>
>>> Please help.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Aaditya
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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:
>>> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>>
>>> For help:
>>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>>
>>>
>>> List forum is accessible at:
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
>>>
>>> List archives are viewable at:
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>>>
>>> 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:
>>> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>>
>>> For help:
>>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>>
>>>
>>> List forum is accessible at:
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
>>>
>>> List archives are viewable at:
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>>>
>>> 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:
>>> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>>
>>> For help:
>>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>>
>>>
>>> List forum is accessible at:
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
>>>
>>> List archives are viewable at:
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>>>
>>> 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:
>> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>
>>
>> List forum is accessible at:
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
>>
>> List archives are viewable at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>>
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8400 - Release Date:
>> 10/16/14
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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:
>> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>
>>
>> List forum is accessible at:
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
>>
>> List archives are viewable at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>>
>> 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:
>> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>
>>
>> List forum is accessible at:
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
>>
>> List archives are viewable at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>>
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8400 - Release Date:
>> 10/16/14
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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:
>> //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>
>>
>> List forum is accessible at:
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
>>
>> List archives are viewable at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>>
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Steve Weir
IPBLOX, LLC
1580 Grand Point Way
MS 34689
Reno, NV 89523-9998
www.ipblox.com
(775) 299-4236 Business
(866) 675-4630 Toll-free
(707) 780-1951 Fax
All contents Copyright (c)2013 IPBLOX, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
This e-mail may contain confidential material.
If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all records
and notify the sender.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
List forum is accessible at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
Other related posts:
