[SI-LIST] Re: Diff.Pairs

  • From: "Scott McMorrow" <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: leeritchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:55:46 -0700

All,
So, "just for fun"  I decided to run a differential pair trace through a 
field solver and put some numbers to our musings on differential pair 
loss vs. width and spacing.  As Lee Richey likes to point out, it is 
always to add a bit of science to our conjectures about these things.

For this particular experiment I assumed FR-4 with an Er = 4.2 and a 
loss tangent of .02, which is representative of some of the resent 
designs we have built and measured.  The dielectric width from plane to 
plane was kept at a constant 14 mils, and the differential pair was 
constructed as stripline in the center of the layer.  Finally, the pair 
width and spacing was adjusted from weak coupling to tight coupling, 
always keeping differential impedance constant at 100 ohms.  Here are 
the results for a frequency of 1.5625, which is the Nyquist frequency 
for 3.125 Gbps binary data streams::

width    separation      height          routed   width          conductor loss 
dB/in 
 dielectric loss dB/in   total loss dB/in        20"     30"

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
7.5      30      14      45      0.0958          0.1481          0.2439         
 4.878   7.317
6.79     13.89   14      27.47   0.0973          0.1481          0.2454         
 4.908   7.362
6.05     9.62    14      21.72   0.101   0.148   0.249   4.98    7.47
5.4      7.55    14      18.35   0.1052          0.1481          0.2533         
 5.066   7.599
4.82     6.25    14      15.89   0.1098          0.1481          0.2579         
 5.158   7.737
4.3      5.35    14      13.95   0.1147          0.148   0.2627          5.254  
 7.881
3.84     4.67    14      12.35   0.1197          0.148   0.2677          5.354  
 8.031
2.5      3.07    14      8.07    0.1406          0.148   0.2886          5.772  
 8.658

There are several things to note here:

1) Since impedance is kept constant, dielectric loss is constant.
2) As pointed out by others, as trace spacing becomes smaller, and trace width 
becomes narrower, and conductor losses increase.
3) Loss is dominated by dielectric loss.
4) For long traces there is just a titch less than 20% improvement in loss by 
using a 7.5 mil conductor vs. a 2.5 mil conductor, with constant impedance.
5) Trace linear density is improved by greater than 550% by using a narrower 
conductor.
6) A wider trace is easier to manufacture and has better impedance control than 
a narrow trace.


So, as with all things in engineering, there are tradeoffs.  We can trade off 
loss for density by changing the conductor width.  We can also trade of 
manufacturability, since a narrow conductor with small space is harder to 
produce and control.  We can trade off poor vs. good impedance control.  All of 
these must be evaluated for any design. One assumption that everyone makes is 
that loss is bad.  This is not always the case.  Given a choice, I generally 
appreciate having a bit of conductor loss in a design, as it tends to de-Q 
resonant circuits quite nicely.  Little things like package, connector, 
blocking capacitor and via discontinuites can benefit from a bit of increased 
resistive loss.

If you require the density, close spaced, narrow width differential pairs win 
hands down, at a slight sacrifice in loss performance.  The interesting thing 
to consider will be the overall system performance.  Due to other 
discontinuities, it may be that overall performance is actually improved by a 
little additional loss here and there.


regards,

scott

-- 
Scott McMorrow
Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
2926 SE Yamhill St.
Portland, OR 97214
(503) 239-5536
http://www.teraspeed.com





Lee Ritchey wrote:

>More than that, it does not have any benefit.  Tight coupling of
>differential pairs forces the traces to be narrower increasing the skin
>effect losses.  Also, this tight coupling is going to result in good old
>cross talk that actually degrades the edges.
>
>How the notion of tight coupling of differential pairs as beneficial got
>started is a mystery to me.  There are several references that show that
>tight coupling is not beneficial, one of them is Howard Johnson's latest
>book, at least one column he has written and my recently released book.
>
>Lee Ritchey
>
>
>  
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: Duane Takahashi <duanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: 10/2/2003 3:58:59 PM
>>Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Diff.Pairs
>>
>>Hi Juergen:
>>
>>Aligning the stack up for the broadside coupled diff lines is expensive. 
>>   You can do this, but it drives up the cost of the board.
>>
>>Duane
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hi Juergen,
>>>You can find lots of  application notes
>>>especially with respect to process variation
>>>on differential pairs here:
>>>
>>>
>>>www.polarinstruments.com/support/cits/cits_index.html
>>>
>>>In particular this one may be of interest:
>>>
>>>
>>>How measured impedance may vary from field solver calculations when
>>>using woven glass reinforced 
>>><http://www.polarinstruments.com/support/cits/AP139.html>laminates
>>>
>>>www.polarinstruments.com/support/cits/AP139.html
>>>
>>>
>>>And this note:
>>>
>>>Copper thickness, edge coupled lines and
>>>characteristic 
>>><http://www.polarinstruments.com/support/cits/AP151.html>impedance
>>>
>>>
>>>www.polarinstruments.com/support/cits/AP151.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hope this helps....
>>>
>>>
>>>Kind regards
>>>Martyn Gaudion
>>>www.polarinstruments.com
>>>T: +44 1481 253081
>>>F: +44 1481 252476
>>>M: +44 7710 522748
>>>E: martyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>============================================
>>>  Controlled Impedance & Signal integrity tools
>>>  for the Printed circuit fabrication industry
>>>============================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 19:00 02/10/2003, you wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I am seeking help in finding enlightenment regarding electrical 
>>>>performance pros and cons and how manufacturing tolerances play a role 
>>>>when comparing side by side and tandem differential pairs. I'd
>>>>        
>>>>
>appreciate 
>  
>
>>>>your opinion, experience, analysis, pointers to papers and articels,
>>>>        
>>>>
>etc.
>  
>
>>>>In return, I would offer to share a summary of the finding/discoveries 
>>>>with interested parties.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks
>>>>
>>>>Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>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 archives are viewable at:
>>>>               //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:
>>>//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>>
>>>For help:
>>>si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>>
>>>List archives are viewable at:     
>>>             //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
>>>  
>>>      
>>>
>>-- 
>>Duane Takahashi              phone: 408-720-4200
>>Greenfield Networks            fax: 408-720-4210
>>255 Santa Ana Court          email: duanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Sunnyvale, CA 94085
>>
>>* MOVING!  Please note new numbers and address *
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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 archives are viewable at:     
>>              //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:
>//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>
>For help:
>si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>
>List archives are viewable at:     
>               //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:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list

For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field

List archives are viewable at:     
                //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: