Good question...(what should the test load be for a SSO simulation, or measurement?) I think the type of load should be as close to the load of the actual circuit as possible. So a 50 ohm transmission line, that's 2x longer than the rise time should be a decent place to start.... I choose 2x the length of the rise time so that the driver will completely "feel" the 50 ohm load (if rise time is 500ps, then a 6 inch t-line would be good). You also need some way to measure current. Some SI simulators have a current mode selection (as opposed to the normal voltage mode) that the user can select. The simulation then shows the current spike in the circuit as the buffer toggles... To measure it...hmm, I don't think a current probe is quick enough to see these small current spikes - you might need a ~1 ohm series resistor that you can measure the voltage drop on with a couple hi-f scope probes. Anyone have any other suggestions? Regards, Jim Peterson Honeywell ________________________________ From: Canes Venatici [mailto:starsilic@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:49 AM To: Peterson, James F (EHCOE) Cc: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] SSO SSTL Vs LVTTL Jim, Thanks for your answer. I want to explain in-depth, why I considered cap. of T.line. FYI, I'd not lumped the transmission line i/p capacitance as a load cap. First, I'd put transmission line at the o/p of the driver and seen the rise time at the i/p of T.line(Tr), just before the reflection causing the near end signal getting distorted. Then I'd swept the lumped load cap (replaced T.Line load) at the o/p of driver and seen where the rise time matches. I could find some value. It matched exactly with the calculated capacitance of T.Line (C=Td/Zo). Then I assumed L can also be calculated similarly, (L=Td*Zo). ------------------------ Calculations--------------- I assumed 4in lossless transmission line, Prop. velocity = 1.5e8 m/s, Zo=50. So 666.6ps is the delay and C= 13pF, L=33.3nH -------------------------------------------------------- Our first problem was whether we need lumped model or distributed model for the load. For that I calculated the electrical length (length of rising edge), by Tr/[delay(ps/in)]. I'd seen the rise time and length of transmission lines makes me to use distributed model (trace length >= electrical length/2). This made me to ask the question below, I could see in some documents, the SSO simulation set up for SSTL2 interface is like below. I want to know whether the schematic below represents the correct simulation set-up for SSTL2 quite node SSO simulation including T.line effects. I tried inserting transmission line between Rser and Cload-Rt junction. But I get very different values of noise compared to the results provided in the doc, which is using the below set-up. Could anyone explain which is correct method and how the schematic below can represent the T.Line effects. Actually in the simulation I'd added the package modeling for power distribution also, but not shown here. VTT ____ | | / \ Rt / \ ------------ ---------- | | | | | Rser | | Driver |-------| Pkg | ------------/\/\/\/\/\/\----------| | | | model | | | | | | | ------------ ------------ | ==== Cload | | | _____ __ - Regards Canes ----- Original Message ---- From: "Peterson, James F (EHCOE)" <james.f.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Canes Venatici <starsilic@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 5:34:19 PM Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] SSO SSTL Vs LVTTL Canes, That's the beautiful and remarkable thing about transmission lines. They do not distort, only delay. The reason they don't distort is because the t-line looks resistive, not capacitive or inductive. And, indeed, this is what the edge of your signal sees (not the steady state portion of your signal). For a couple references see page 143, last paragraph, of Dr. Johnson's book "High Speed Digital Design -Black Magic" and the last 2 paragraphs of page 295 of Ron Poon's "Computer Circuits Electrical Design". If you have a 10 inch t-line at 4pf per inch, you can't add up the C per inch and replace it with a 40pf cap because "the capacitive effect is tuned out by the inductive effect, and the ladder network just acts as an ideal delay line : it does not degrade the signal risetime and falltime" (R. Poon). Jim Peterson ________________________________ From: Canes Venatici [mailto:starsilic@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:03 AM To: Peterson, James F (EHCOE) Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] SSO SSTL Vs LVTTL Jim, Could you tell me why, for the drivers the T-lines are seen as resistive load? Why I'm asking is during transients only SSN occurs. During that time, the drivers see the T.Lines as inductors and capacitors/unit length, is my understanding. Probably during steady state they (T.Lines) can be seen as resistive loads. Could you correct/explain me if I'm wrong? Regards Canes. ----- Original Message ---- From: " Peterson, James F (EHCOE)" <james.f.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: starsilic@xxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 1:05:55 AM Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] SSO SSTL Vs LVTTL From what I have seen, and it's mostly been the results from simulators and what I've read, so I don't have a lot of lab data to back this up, using this approach of approximating the SSO current with the source impedance is pretty accurate...that said, you do have to figure out what the source-Z is, but there are a couple excellent ways to do that. Your second paragraph below is not clear to me. I'm not sure I understand the question, but remember that to a driver, t-lines look resistive, not capacitive or inductive. You can't lump together the C and L. -Jim ________________________________ From: Canes Venatici [mailto:starsilic@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:13 AM To: Peterson, James F (EHCOE) Cc: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] SSO SSTL Vs LVTTL Jim Peterson, Thanks for your reply. The only concern is the impedance of the driver may be non-linear, depending upon the state (cut-off/linear/saturation) of the transistors, so I was wondering can we approximate the driver impedance. Also I've one more doubt regarding the simulations using T.Lines. I used 4inch lossless transmission line. The equivalent i/p inductance comes around 33nH and capacitance comes to be 13pF, by simple formulas of T.lines. With this if I do simulations, I get very high power cell requirement for each signal cell, or the quite node noise is very high. I could see in some docs related to SSO simulations, they were just putting series resistor at the output of the driver, followed by termination resistor pulled to Vtt for SSTL interfaces, instead of T.lines in their SSO set-ups. Could anyone clarify on how well it can represent SSO noise simulations? Regards Canes ----- Original Message ---- From: " Peterson, James F (EHCOE)" <james.f.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: starsilic@xxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 5:07:14 PM Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] SSO SSTL Vs LVTTL Hello Canes - Since you're measuring noise at a quiet node, I assume you are discussing SSO noise. I'm going to step out a little here and make a bold statement : if you are comparing the SSO characteristics of two different technologies, say 2.5V LVTTL and 2.5V SSTL, and their rise times are the same, and their source impedances are the same, then their SSO noise will also be the same. So, based on that statement, changes in these above mentioned items will cause the SSO to change. If you go to a stronger driver or a larger voltage swing (3.3V LVTTL) - and the rise time stays the same - then you've increased SSO noise. If you go with a weaker driver, or you put a series resistor at the output (like SSTL) then the SSO noise will decrease. Signal swing, rise/fall time, and source-Z are the things that influence SSO noise. As a side note, you mention "12ma driver". IC manufacturers use this as a DC drive number not an AC number. That's why we should use the source impedance of the driver as a better (but not perfect) description of a driver's capability. Regards, Jim Peterson Honeywell -----Original Message----- From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Canes Venatici Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:18 AM To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [SI-LIST] SSO SSTL Vs LVTTL Hi, I did quite node simulations in LVTTL and SSTL class I and II pads. I used transmission line models for all the simulations with noise measured at the Far End. I tried to operate the LVTTL pads at 3.3V with 12mA drive strength. I could see the noise is more than with SSTL2-I/II interface. Since there were no terminations for LVTTL, I suspect it can give more noise compared to SSTL. Comments are appreciated. Even between SSTL2-I and II the power:signal is nearly same (the quite node noise is similar), with class-II is slightly more than class-I and in lower power:signal ratios, the noise is less in class-II compared to class-I. I feel SSTL2-class-II have two terminations, which makes the interface less noisier compared to SSTL2-Class-I. Comments are appreciated. Regards Canes __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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: //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 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 ________________________________ Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http:/autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM- > ________________________________ Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http:/autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM- > ________________________________ Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http:/autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 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