[SI-LIST] Re: SSO SSTL Vs LVTTL

  • From: "Peterson, James F \(EHCOE\)" <james.f.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "Canes Venatici" <starsilic@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 06:54:47 -0500

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
  

Other related posts: