[SI-LIST] Re: decoupling capacitor placement/route

• From: steve weir <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>
• To: Gene Glick <gglick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:41:46 -0700

```Gene the idea is to minimize the inductance seen by the IC.  So to

In case 1. you've imposed what is likely to be a pretty big inductor
between the IC pin and the cap.  You can estimate that inductor's value as:

L = 32pH * H * L/W

You can estimate the inductance of a via pair as:

L = H*32pH / pi * ln( 2*S/D )

Where H is the height of the trace in mils above a ground plane, or well
bypassed RF plane connected to a different rail for the straight trace,
or the distance to the center of the power cavity from the surface for
the vias.
L and W are length units in the same dimension:  cm/cm, inch/inch,
mils/mils, etc.
S is the center to center via spacing
D is the via DRILL diameter

For example if you have a plane 5 mils below the top surface of the PCB,
then a 5mil wide, 25mil long trace will cost you 5 squares at 160pH /
square or 800pH, give or take.  Fatten the trace up to 10 mils and it
drops to 400pH and so/on

If on the other hand you have a power cavity right there then a pair of
power / ground vias from the IC spaced one mm apart will cost you about
100pH to get to the cavity, as will the vias from the cap.  The common
"wisdom" is to always follow such an approach.  Good engineering
practice says do the math and compare your options.

Steve.
Gene Glick wrote:
> Where is it best to place decoupling caps (surface mount)?
>
> 1) A trace connects an IC power pin to the cap.  Then, the cap connects
> to a trace and finally a via to power plane.  (these cheezy ascii
> drawings don't alway work, but here goes)
>
>   |PowerPin|------| CAP |----|via|
>
>
> 2) Power pin, to short trace, to via to power plane.  Then either place
> the decoupling cap top or bottom of the bard
>
>   |PowerPin|-----|via|----|CAP|
>
>
>
> I contend that one reason for going to surface mount chips is to
> minimize lead inductance.  Option 1 seems to negate that philosophy.
> Seems that option 2 is better in this regard.  Yet, many data sheets
> recommend option 1, thinking the chip is forced to get power from the
> cap first, by nature of the physical layout.  I'm willing to bet the
> inductance of the via is far lower than the trace inductance of option 1.
>
> In your experiences, which is more correct?  Or maybe another method is
> better yet :)
>
> regards,
>
> gene
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 technical documents are available at:
>                 http://www.si-list.net
>
> List archives are viewable at:
>               http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>
> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>               http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>
>
>
>

--
Steve Weir
IPBLOX, LLC
150 N. Center St. #211
Reno, NV  89501
www.ipblox.com

(866) 675-4630 Toll-free
(707) 780-1951 Fax

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field

http://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:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list

Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu

```