[SI-LIST] Re: UltraCAD ESR and Bypass Capacitor Caculator


Dear Istvan,

 > Such
 > a spreadsheet will be available for free download in the near future: send
 > me an off-line
 > mail if you are interested.  Notification is sent out only to those, who ask
 > for the
 > e-mail notification.

I would appreciate receiving an email notification when this becomes
available.

Thank you very much.

--rod.

Istvan NOVAK wrote:
> Fred, Peter,
> 
> You are correct, as always, it depends.  For people who might be familiar
> from their experience mostly with only one or the other extreme scenario,
> let
> me summarize briefly the situation.
> 
> Though it was not specifically mentioned, everyone on this thread assumed
> (or I think so) that the bypass capacitors are connected to planes (as
> opposed
> to the smallest possible power patch, when we cant speak about distance,
> because there is just an active device with a few capacitors around it on
> the
> patch).  It is usually agreed that at low frequencies, the location of
> capacitor
> does not matter much.  So bulk capacitors could be excluded from the
> discussion, though it is easy to show that we can always find an exception
> if we want to: imagine the bulk capacitors that have their series
> resonance frequencies in the 100kHz-1MHz range.  The wavelength is very long
> compared to any practical PCB size, and still, it may be a good idea to put
> the
> bulk capacitors close to the output of the DC-DC converter, otherwise the
> switching ripple current (in the other of a few hundred kHz) will have to
> travel
> all over the board and would spread the switching ripple.
> 
> At higher frequencies, the location of capacitors MAY matter.  It depends on
> the
> impedance ratio of planes and capacitors.  Similar to a matching resistor
> for a
> trace, when the impedance values agree or are close, the setup becomes
> increasingly
> insensitive to the geometry and relative locations.  If we terminate the end
> of a trace
> properly, the input impedance on a low-loss trace is always the
> characteristic
> impedance, regardless where we are along the trace.  Same applies in two
> dimensions
> to planes: if the impedance of the planes is close to our required PDN
> impedance,
> component locations matter very little as long as we provide a matched
> termination to
> the planes.
> 
> The capacitor location increasingly matters as soon as we cannot or
> do not want to use matched planes: either the impedance requirement might be
> so
> low that it cannot be easily provided by (matched) planes, or we do not have
> the
> proper components to provide the plane matching.  As the ratio of plane
> impedance
> and capacitor ESR increase, there is an increasing sensitivity to component
> location.
> The typical scenario is that the plane impedance is high and the ESR is low.
> This is
> similar to having a shorted trace: the input impedance is a strong function
> of distance
> even at very low frequencies. If we keep the proper distance from the active
> device, our impedance target still can be met.  Capacitor-plane resonance
> will build
> up, but as long as we dont excite them, it is OK.
> 
> Dependent on system considerations (determining our particular impedance
> target),
> available components, cost and manufacturing constraints, we may have one or
> the
> other extreme, or anything in between.  All of the comments leaning one way
> or
> the other on this thread are correct within their validity range.  We have
> designs
> embracing the full range explained above, we built and measured them.
> 
> This thread started out with the posting about the UltraCAD tool.  It is a
> matter of
> preference to use expression solvers (like the UltraCAD tool, or a
> spreadsheet, or
> a MATHCAD file) or a simulator (SPICE or alike).  I use several different
> options,
> Berkeley SPICE, PSPICE, HSPICE, spreadsheets and scripts based on analytical
> expressions.  All have their particular sweet spot of usage.  SPICE can run
> fast, but
> it is easier to use an expression solver to simulate a full impedance
> surface, which
> can be set to step through a range of frequencies and display the changing
> impedance
> surface of a plane with a bypass capacitor at an arbitrarily specified
> location. Such
> a spreadsheet will be available for free download in the near future: send
> me an off-line
> mail if you are interested.  Notification is sent out only to those, who ask
> for the
> e-mail notification.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Istvan Novak
> SUN Microsystems
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Balistreri" <fred@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:21 PM
> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: UltraCAD ESR and Bypass Capacitor Caculator
> 
> 
> 
>>I believe the condradictions start when we generalize. Every design
>>is different and the solutions for one do not necessarily apply to
>>another. But we should be able to agree on the basic concepts and
>>come to understand what the assumptions are when statements are made.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Peter Arnold wrote:
>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>I am not sure there should be so much controversy over this placement
> 
> thing.
> 
>>>Among the conclusion in the UMR paper that I have a copy of [1] is this
>>>assertion: "...all decoupling capacitors are shared in the frequency
> 
> range
> 
>>>where they are effective (typically below 200-300MHz), and the location
> 
> of a
> 
>>>decoupling capcitor on the board is relatively unimportant."
>>>
>>>The "unimportant placement" claim is made dependent on the condition
> 
> that
> 
>>>the caps, as mounted, are ineffective above 200MHz. At this frequency an
>>>8"x9" test board is electrically small with respect to 200MHz wavelength
> 
> in
> 
>>>FR4 (30") and the paper reports placement not to be crucial in
> 
> determining
> 
>>>impedance.
>>>
>>>I think this electrical-smallness, and taking capacitor mounting
> 
> inductance
> 
>>>at 2-10nH to be >> plane inductance between parts, is what prompts them
> 
> to
> 
>>>simplify the power delivery model to a network connected between two
> 
> spice
> 
>>>nodes as if all components were physically at the same place. Analyzing
> 
> this
> 
>>>the authors identify a frequency "fa" lying between the last zero and
> 
> the
> 
>>>last pole of the impedance plot above which the decouplers are
> 
> ineffective.
> 
>>>If this frequency is low as in the examples given, then cap placement
> 
> might
> 
>>>well not matter.
>>>
>>>But designs today do not necessarily support the simplification given
> 
> above.
> 
>>>Modern techniques like via-in-pad, multiple fanouts, "broadside" case
>>>connections etc. reduce mounted inductance to 1nH or less per part. This
>>>should allow mounted capacitors to be effective at higher frequencies
> 
> where
> 
>>>wavelengths are only a few inches and the board is no longer
> 
> electrically
> 
>>>small. At this point the everything-between-two-nodes and
>>>no-inductance-in-series-with-plane-capacitance simplification may not
> 
> hold
> 
>>>and a bedspring-type model would be needed. Decoupler placement may then
>>>become important (as experience appears to confirm!) This does not
>>>contradict the UMR authors' statement, which relates to a
>>>high-mounted-inductance regime and frequencies below 200MHz on a small
>>>board.
>>>
>>>Can anyone comment?
>>>
>>>[1] Hubing et al., "Power Bus decoupling on Multilayer Printed Circuit
>>>Boards," in IEEE trans. EMC vol 37, no. 2, May 1995.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>peter arnold.
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ray Anderson
>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:36 AM
>>>To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: UltraCAD ESR and Bypass Capacitor Caculator
>>>
>>>Lee Ritchey wrote:
>>>
>>>>If the location of decoupling capacitors matters, perhaps some
> 
> technical
> 
>>>>demonstration would prove that.  Short of such a demonstration, this
> 
> is
> 
>>>>speculation and not the sort of thing that should be used to make
> 
> design
> 
>>>>choices.
>>>>
>>>>It's time to do some good engineering on this subject and do away with
>>>>opinion.  The UMR paper is good engineering.  Anyone who chooses to
>>>>disagree with it has the burden of showing where it is wrong by using
> 
> some
> 
>>>>good science.
>>>>
>>>>Lee
>>>>
>>>>Lee Ritchey
>>>>leeritchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>Why Wait?  Move to EarthLink.
>>>
>>>Or conversely, show that it doesn't matter.
>>>
>>>Take a large system board (say about 24" square) put a bunch of high
> 
> current
> 
>>>processors and ASICS on the left side of the board. Put all your decaps
>>>on the right side of the board (since you maintain position doesn't
> 
> matter).
> 
>>>In this hypothetical case I can just about guarantee the board won't
>>>function
>>>properly or pass EMI. Admittedly, it is a contrived case, but I think it
>>>illustrates the point.
>>>
>>>As far as the technical demonstration goes, we have indeed demonstrated
> 
> to
> 
>>>ourselves that position does matter.
>>>
>>>I'm not attempting to further an argument, but I do feel those who have
>>>responded with  viewpoints other than yours shouldn't be chastised and
>>>accused
>>>of spreading unfounded opinion. Don't discount the chance that an
> 
> opinion
> 
>>>that
>>>differs from yours just might be correct.
>>>
>>>-Ray Anderson
>>>Sun Microsystems Inc.
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>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
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Fred Balistreri
>>fred@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>http://www.apsimtech.com
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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
>>
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>   

------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Other related posts: