2D, 2.5D, and 3D aren't the only confusing labels out there. "full wave" simulator is another abused label. There are many fast solvers on the market (meaning they make approximations and simplifications) that advertise themselves to be full wave. Nothing wrong with a fast solver - trying to analyze a full package or PCB using a true 3D full wave solver would require immense computational resources and a great deal of time. Unfortunately the term "full wave" has become a semantics game and is misleading to the customer. I would advocate providing your own test cases for the tools you are interested in evaluating. Run the same design on multiple tools - and see how they handle your data. Even better if you have built the device and have some measurements for correlation. To address the original question - 2D and 2.5D are simply approximations that enable problems to be solved faster - or a larger problem to be solved. The question you need to ask - is the approximation valid for my problem? The difficulty here is you don't always know what approximations the EDA vendor has made - and they might not want to admit to some of them. Furthermore - it is entirely possible that the EDA vendor is not aware of some of the limitations of their tool. Just because a tool claims to be "3D" or "full wave" doesn't mean it really is. Disclaimer - I work for an EDA company that makes SI-PI tools. Regards, Mark Scrivener E-System Design -----Original Message----- From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Istvan Nagy Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 12:50 PM To: Heyfitch; si-list Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: 2D vs 3D EM based signal integrity simulators hi the problem with the comparisons is that you can design a sample test vehicle which hides few real problems, but shows a few problems that the eda vendor just recently sorted out to simulate accurately. in this case the simulation graphs will closely match with the measured graphs. what about other cases? Or you can accidentaly create a test vehicle board in a way that some problems show themselves other remain hidden. I think this is the real point in this thread of discussion here. I think its not just the eda vendors who make the product features to appear as blurry as possible for the potentional customers, but anyone from the vegetable market until the computer hardware industry... Agilent mentions green functions to be solved by ADS, mentor does not mention anything like that, other companies also vary in this aspect. instead of praying, we could identify the problematic areas, and ask them to support these. a lot of people selects si software based on their name, not knowing what is happening inside them. I personally know people like that. regards, Istvan ----- Original Message ----- From: Heyfitch To: Istvan Nagy ; si-list Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] 2D vs 3D EM based signal integrity simulators Sorely missing in this discussion is someone coming with a statement like this: "I have tried these 5 different solvers and also performed 3 types of measurements with these 3 kinds of de-embedding schemes. Here are the results comparing all of the above. Solutions A, B, and C have obvious problems for the following reasons ... - even without comparison to the measurements. Whereas solutions D and F are plausibly correct - however they are a little bit different from each other and from every one of the 3 measurements." Such statement would provide a good ground for further discussion. In reality, no one working on a system design has the time to do such comparison or access to various tools, the former reason being more acute than the latter. EDA vendors, who could do such a comparison, don't come out with such date publicly even when they have done such comparison internally and have the data in hand. (There is a number of reasons for them not to.) So, what's next, ladies and gentlemen? Are we going to continue to praise the one or two EDA tools we use? Just look at the papers published at DesignCon every year: half of them - if not more - are authored jointly by a hardware/SI engineer and an application engineer from an EDA company. That is not a bad approach as it gets one in good graces with the EDA vendor he/she chose to pitch for. Hence, free temporary licenses, price discount, etc. I too have done it myself.... For now, we are all stuck in this circular discussion "which solver is better", which reignites every now and then. The labels like "3D" or "2.5D" are overused and oversold. No one really knows what they mean anymore. They should not be used AS ARGUMENTS for or against any EDA tool. My personal preference is for the EDA vendors who allow their developers to speak directly to SI/HW engineers - not necessarily thru an AE/FAE/Mktg engineer in between. This way you, the user, at least have a chance to ask more technical "why?" questions and get hopefully a truthful answer. Or, am I kidding myself about the latter? Even the app notes and presentations that EDA vendors put out there for us to see are of two kinds: 1) look at the new GUI we just added so that now we are caught up to our competitor(s) and can do what they could 12 months ago. Pat on the back.. 2) we have added this algorithm, that does so and so. It's limitations, though, are such and such, because of the following... So, what is next for us? ...DesingCon2010, I suppose ;-) Vadim 2010/1/14 Istvan Nagy <buenos@xxxxxxxxxxx> Hi experts, I would like to ask your opinions about the following: Which one is "better", using 2D or 3D electromagnetics computation based signal integrity simulators? The point is to get a voltage-time waveform at/inside the receiver, with accurate enough electromagnetic modeling of the PCB interconnections. We should get realistic waveforms even on boards without a perfect groung plane. The non-perfect ground plane is the main reason why this topic has been opened, on real product, the ground plane is never perfect for all the signals on all the buses. For the following interfaces: 133MHz PCI-X, DDR1-400MHz, DDR2, DDR3-1066MHz, SATA, PCI-express-2.5Gbps, 10Gig ethernet. If there are splits in the reference planes, it forces the return currents away from the traces cousing reflections, impedance change, EMI, and crosstalk. We want to se the effect of these as well. If someone is not an academic, but a practising design engineer, then he/she knows that to have perfect reference planes (current return paths) on a computer motherboard (or similar product) is mostly just a dream. Some people say "dont route the critical signals over discontinuities", but if we have 500 of these signals on a 160mm x 80mm x86-SBC board, then we just can not make it. this is when we have to simulate how bad it is for the signal integrity. For 2D, I would mention Hyperlynx as an example. As far as I know, it finds segments of the PCB trace structure where the cross section geometry is constant (for example 2 traces 0.2mm gap for 22 milimeter length, then they get closer to 0.15mm for another 10mm, so then the program divides it to 2 segments), then runs a 2D field solver (meshes the cross-section) to get per-unit-length parameters (maybe tline-Z0 or R, L, G, C), then internally runs a time domain simulation using these lumped parameters and the IBIS models of the buffer circuits to get the final time domain waveforms. This segmentation does not deal very well sith layer transitions, and the 2D computations (by their nature) presume perfect reference planes. For 3D, I would mention the Agilent ADS+Momenum macromodeling simulator. It does not take segment-models, but meshes the whole 3D geometry and runs a frequency domain field-solver to get a touchstone macromodel, then we build a simulation circuit with this model and the IBIS models to run the time domain simulation to get the voltage/time signal waveforms. Advantages, 2D: -fast, we get results within a minute. -it can use a lot higher density on the cross-section mesh, since it only meshes the cross sections, and the problem-size is still lower than it is for a 3D simulation. This leads to more accurate impedance and skin-effect computations. -we can simulate a full memory bus with 64 signals and get a timing result spreadsheet. -it runs on a normal desktop PC. Disadvantages, 2D: -does NOT model non-perfect reference planes: plane splits, antipad-fields, layer transitions, stitching vias, decoupling capacitor return paths... -when a signal changes layer on a eg 14 layer board, the return currents have to follow it to the reference planes of the new signal layer. this can be modeled only in 3D simulation. The 2D simulator models a via with lumped RLC elements. It presumes that the return current disappears from the plane at the signal via and reappears on the other reference planes by some magic. This obviously does not happen on a real board. Most of the cases we just can not afford to have stitching vias at every signal via, so the lack-of them should be modeled. The 3D simulators simulate this. Advantages, 3D: -it does exactly model non-perfect reference planes: plane splits, antipad-fields, stitching vias, decoupling capacitor return paths... -when a signal changes layer on a eg 14 layer board, the return currents have to follow it to the reference planes of the new signal layer. this can be modeled only in 3D simulation. The 2D simulator models a via with lumped RLC elements. It presumes that the return current disappears from the plane at the signal via and reappears on the other reference planes by some magic. This obviously does not happen on a real board. Most of the cases we just can not afford to have stitching vias at every signal via, so the lack-of them should be modeled. The 3D simulators simulate this. Disadvantages, 3D: -slow, it may take days to get a result for a difficoult net. (eg. a signal on a DDR3 DIMM memory fly-by address bus) -because of the memory limitations of the available computers, we can not have very dense mesh in the 3d structure. can it be dense enough at all, for example with a server-PC with quad-Xeon + 24GB memory? If the cross-section mesh is not dense enough, then the skin effect and impedance values may not be modeled accurately. -we can only model 1-2 traces at a time, even that takes hours/days. It is another story that we can do 3D computation also on small localised board areas, then chain these models for simulation. For example only on a single via transitions to speed up our simulation. But then it can not be applied to every problem. for example if we dont have a stitching GND via-ring around every single signal via, then a the return current flows out of our model... If we design a test vehicle with one 10Gbps signal and SMA connctors then we can have stitching-via ring around, but route 32 of these signals out from under a 40mm by 40mm BGA next to a memory bus ! The timing is very tight on a DDR3-1066MHz bus or on a PCIe-kink, so every little detail problem on the board may cause the system to fail. They operate with almost zero margin when the board is well-designed. Can we predict these with any of the methods? (2D or 3D) regards, Istvan Nagy ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.net 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 technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.net 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 technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.net 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