Jeff, In your experiments did you see ringing on the TDR response when the planes weren't connected together? I think there is a potential problem with plane resonances in a structure with no solid connections between the planes. I believe that these will be narrow band effects, but potentially troublesome depending on the structure and the signals. ---Bob Lewandowski Stratos Lightwave -----Original Message----- From: Loyer, Jeff W [mailto:jeff.w.loyer@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7:57 AM To: 'Ege Engin'; Loyer, Jeff W; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: reference plane The short answer to your second question (Is this amount of AC decoupling achievable solely through the interplane capacitance?) is yes. The short answer to your first question is yes, you would get the same measurement if you measured a trace between 2 ground planes. The following is a longer response to that question; it's an extract of an experiment I did: I found that, when TDR'ing a stripline trace that was referenced to both power and ground, I got the same impedance whether decoupling caps were populated or not. Actually, instead of a cap, I physically shorted power and ground pins together at the launch point to keep even the parasitics of a capacitor out of the equation. What I found was that, for the stackup (5mil trace 7 mils above ground and 7 mils below Vcc), I saw no substantial difference, regardless of whether I measured: (1) with the probe referenced to GND, (2) referenced to VCC, and=20 (3) with GND and VCC shorted together (at the launch). =20 Also, TDR'ing between the two planes shows a dead short. The risetime was ~50pS (a TEK TDR), and I even slowed the risetime down to 400pS, no change. I'm pretty sure rise-time is not a factor. =20 FURTHER INVESTIGATION (in case you're interested): I wondered if, by definition of this symmetrical stripline, there isn't enough capacitance between the planes that the return current has a low impedance path to the reference plane. I.E., TDR'ing between the 2 planes shows a dead short - no need for external caps (or a shorting bar, in my case). This worked until I thought of the case of asymmetrical stripline - would the impedance measured depend on which plane you were referenced to? So, I built myself some crude asymmetric stripline (using a TDR characterization board from TEK as a starting point). I took a microstrip trace and added a layer of Kapton tape over it, with a sheet of copper over that. This turned the microstrip into a stripline, with the 2nd plane floating. I TDR'ed the trace relative to Gnd, then relative to the floating plane, and with the planes shorted together at the source (again, relative to Gnd and the floating plane). I then added another layer of Kapton tape between the trace and the floating plane, and repeated the measurements. I did this until I had 8 layers of Kapton tape between the trace and the floating plane. Granted, this was a pretty crude experiment and there were clearly some measurement errors, but some things were pretty obvious. Findings: 1) Regardless of the Kapton thickness, the lower impedance measured (referenced to Gnd or the floating plane) was approximately the same as that as when the planes were shorted together. 2) With thin dielectrics (in the range that we typically use, < 7mils), the impedance was approximately the same regardless of which plane was used as a reference, and whether they were shorted together at the source. Conclusions: 1) When TDR'ing stripline, it probably won't matter which plane we use as reference. If in doubt, I would TDR relative to whichever plane was closest to the trace. If still not convinced, I would short the 2 planes together at the source. 2) I would ensure that, when using stripline with both power and ground planes, the trace is closer to ground than power. This is assuming the signal is routed relative to ground elsewhere. 3) I believe that a correct model for what I'm seeing is - it's the parallel combination of Trace-to-Plane1, Trace-to-Plane1, and Plane-to-Plane impedances that makes up the final impedance for a trace, relative to either Plane1 or Plane2. Jeff Loyer -----Original Message----- From: Ege Engin [mailto:engin@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:19 AM To: jeff.w.loyer@xxxxxxxxx; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] Re: reference plane Jeff, If the stripline has an equal distance from the power and ground planes, then logically the measurements with respect to ground or power would be the same. But your measurements also show that, a stripline between two ground planes (i.e., the two planes are shorted at measurement ports) would give the same results. Please correct me, if I misunderstood you. Is this amount of AC decoupling achievable solely through the interplane capacitance? Regards, Ege "Loyer, Jeff W" schrieb: > A few thoughts, extracted from my response to a similar question... > > The original question from last October: > An internal signal layer in a multi-layer stackup is situated between ground > and a power plane. If the power plane splits into two islands is the effect > significant on the signal layer? (Dielectric thickness between layers =3D 8 > mil.) > > My response: > Assuming your planes are very wide, and since the space between the planes > is kept small, there shouldn't be any significant effect to Z0 at these > geometries. > > I had the opportunity to measure impedances of stripline traces which run > between ground and power planes. I found that the TDR was identical > regardless of which plane I measured relative to. After some investigation, > I concluded that for the geometries involved (only 14mils between planes), > the coupling between the planes was strong enough that, AC-wise, they were > one and the same. > > The identical situation should hold true for your configuration, if your > planes are wide enough to have strong coupling between them and ground, and > the space between the 2 planes isn't wide enough to cause a discontinuity. > > In summary, > If there is strong coupling between the ground and power planes, they are > essentially the same for high-speed reference. If they aren't strongly > coupled, there will definitely be a difference between which is the > reference. People have used "stitching caps." (capacitors between the two > planes at the location where the signal transitions from one reference to > another) to remedy the problem, but I'm skeptical of the value of these. > For the rise-times we're at today, I believe those caps. would have little > real value (the parasitics would be too great). I.E., a TDR done without > the caps. populated would look the same as one done with the caps. in place. > > I believe the best approach is to either keep referenced to the same plane > throughout the entire topology (and most chips reference signals to ground), > or only transition between planes which are strongly coupled. > > My 2 cents. > > Jeff Loyer > > -----Original Message----- > From: evillaf@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:evillaf@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 10:36 AM > To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [SI-LIST] reference plane > > Can anyone explain the advantages and disadvantages of > using a power plane for a reference plane instead of a > ground plane? I have always used both as a DC reference > in the past. Now I am beginning to hear arguments that > only GND planes should be used for critical signals. > This becomes somewhat impractical for some boards. > > Thanks in advance. > Ellis > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 archives are viewable at: =20 //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list or at our remote archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages=20 Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu =20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 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