没有合适的资源?快使用搜索试试~ 我知道了~
资源推荐
资源详情
资源评论
Copyright © LAMSIM Enterprises Inc.
Guard Traces
White Paper-Issue 02
Lambert Simonovich
5/28/2012
Abstract:
To guard or not to guard? That is the question often asked by digital hardware design engineers. As bit
rates continue to climb, there is increased debate on whether to use guard traces to control crosstalk in
high-speed digital signaling. By doing so, it is believed the guard trace will act as a shield between the
aggressor and victim traces. On the other hand, the argument is that merely separating the victim trace to
at least three times the line width from the aggressor is good enough. This paper studies the application
of guard traces and quantifies the results against non guarded scenarios.
©LAMSIM Enterprises Inc.
2
Record of Release:
1. Issue Draft: May 21, 2012; Initial draft release.
2. Issue 01: May 24, 2012 Final Release.
3. Issue 02: May 28, 2012 Follow-up studying effect of dielectric height in Microstrip geometry.
©LAMSIM Enterprises Inc.
3
GUARD TRACES
Introduction:
As bit rates continue to climb, there is increased debate on whether to use guard traces to control crosstalk
in high-speed digital signaling. By definition, a guard trace is a trace routed coplanar between an
aggressor line and a victim line. Often the guard trace is terminated at each end in its characteristic
impedance or shorted to ground. To be most effective, the guard trace should be shorted to ground at
regular intervals along its length using stitching vias spaced at 1/10th of a wavelength of the highest
frequency component of the aggressor’s signal. By doing so, it is believed the guard trace will act as a
shield between the aggressor and victim traces.
On the other side of the debate, the argument is that merely separating the victim trace to at least three
times the line width from the aggressor is good enough. The reasoning here is that crosstalk falls off
rapidly with increased spacing anyways, and by adding a guard trace, you will already have at least three
times the trace separation to fit it in. Furthermore, the added ground stitching will severely restrict routing
of other signals on the board. Of course the only way to settle these kinds of debates is to put in the
numbers.
In order to answer the question, “To guard or not to guard?”, this white paper studies the effect of
applying guard traces, and quantifies the results against the non guarded scenario.
Discussion
When two coplanar parallel traces running in close proximity, as shown in Figure 1, there are two types of
crosstalk generated; Near-End (NEXT), or backwards crosstalk, and Far-End (FEXT), or forward
crosstalk.
Figure 1 Illustration of NEXT and FEXT. As the aggressor signal propagates from port 3 to port 4, Near-End XTalk
appears on port 1 and Far-End XTalk appears on port 2 after one Time Delay (TD) of the interconnect.
NEXT voltage is correlated to the coupled current through a terminating resistor (not shown) at port 1.
The backward crosstalk coefficient, Kb, is equal to the ratio of Vb/Va, as defined by Equation 1; where Vb
is the voltage at port 1; and Va is the peak voltage of the aggressor at port 3.
3
1
2
4
Mode of Propagation
Victim
NEXT FEXT
Aggressor
3
1
2
4
Mode of Propagation
Victim
NEXT FEXT
Aggressor
©LAMSIM Enterprises Inc.
4
Equation 1
The general signature of the NEXT waveform, for a linear ramp aggressor, is shown in Figure 2. Vb,
shown in blue, is the backward crosstalk voltage, while Va, shown in red, is the aggressor voltage. The
backward crosstalk voltage continues to increase in response to the rising edge of the aggressor until it
saturates after the aggressor’s rise-time. The duration of NEXT waveform lasts for twice the time delay,
TD of the topology.
Figure 2 NEXT voltage signature, Vb (blue), is backward crosstalk voltage in response to a linear step aggressor voltage,
Va (red). TDx2 is twice the time delay. Simulated with Agilent ADS
The magnitude of the NEXT voltage is a function of the coupled spacing between the two traces. As the
two traces are brought closer together, the mutual capacitance and inductance increases and thus the
NEXT voltage, Vb, will increase as defined by Equation 2 [1]:
Equation 2
Where:
0.5 1.0 1.50.0 2.0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.04
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.6
time, nsec
Vb
Readout
TDx2
Va
©LAMSIM Enterprises Inc.
5
Vb = NEXT voltage – V.
Va = Aggressor voltage – V.
Kb = NEXT coefficient.
Cm = Mutual capacitance per unit length in pF/inch.
Lm = Mutual inductance per unit length in nH/inch.
Co = Trace capacitance per unit length in pF/inch.
Lo = Trace inductance per unit length in nH/inch.
The only practical way to calculate Kb is to use a 2D field solver to get the inductive and capacitance
matrix elements. Alternatively, if the field solver provides the coupled odd and even mode impedances,
Zodd and Zev, then Kb can be calculated using Equation 3.
Equation 3
FEXT voltage is correlated to the coupled current through a terminating resistor (not shown) at port 2 of
Figure 1. The forward crosstalk coefficient, Kf, is equal to the ratio of Vf/Va, as defined by Equation 4;
where Vf is the voltage at port 1; and Va is the peak voltage of the aggressor.
Equation 4
The general signature of the FEXT waveform, for a linear ramp aggressor, is shown in Figure 3. Vf,
shown in blue, is the forward crosstalk voltage at port 2; while Va , shown in red, is the aggressor voltage
appearing at the far end port 4. FEXT voltage differs from NEXT in that it only appears as a pulse at TD
after the signal is launched. In this example, the negative going FEXT pulse is the derivative of the
aggressor’s rising edge at TD. The opposite is true on the falling edge of an aggressor.
剩余31页未读,继续阅读
资源评论
DavidWangYang
- 粉丝: 2414
- 资源: 341
上传资源 快速赚钱
- 我的内容管理 展开
- 我的资源 快来上传第一个资源
- 我的收益 登录查看自己的收益
- 我的积分 登录查看自己的积分
- 我的C币 登录后查看C币余额
- 我的收藏
- 我的下载
- 下载帮助
最新资源
资源上传下载、课程学习等过程中有任何疑问或建议,欢迎提出宝贵意见哦~我们会及时处理!
点击此处反馈
安全验证
文档复制为VIP权益,开通VIP直接复制
信息提交成功