Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. INTRODUCTION
The semiconductor technology keep evolving along the dual
paths of Moores law and more than Moore [1]. For a
successful design of high-speed electronic circuits and
systems, one needs to ensure signal and power integrity and
electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). Modeling as well as
simulation plays an ever-increasing role at the pre-layout
exploration and post-layout verification stage of a design.
Continuous increase in operating speed coupled with decrease
in supply voltage poses many challenges both to the design
and the modeling and simulation of high-speed systems.
Innovative methodologies for electrical modeling and design
are highly demanded to resolve both silicon complexity and
system complexity of sub-nanometer integrated circuits,
electronic packages and electronic systems.
Though high-speed electronic packages and multilayer
PCBs are usually far from being electrically large, they are
enormously complicated. Field or circuit method alone often
can neither deal with the humongous system-level simulation
properly, nor complete within a reasonable simulation time
and moderate memory usage. A plethora of computational
methodologies have been proposed to tackle the challenges
facing system-level modeling of packages and boards. Those
methods can be classified in many ways: hybrid, field, and
circuit approaches; numerical, semi-analytical, and analytical
approaches; frequency domain and time domain approaches;
and full-wave, quasi-static, and static methods. A review of
those different methods can be found in several reference,
such as [1].
Among all the modeling technologies, the 2.5
dimensional (2.5D) modeling methodology has evolved into
801
shapes.
Over the years, researchers have developed a wide range of
2D methodologies including the 2D finite difference time
domain method (2D FDTD), 2D finite different frequency
domain method (2D FDFD), 2D finite element method (2D
FEM), contour integral (2D integral) method, and the recent
developed 2D discontinuous Galerkin method (2D DGTD).
The 2D DGTD method will be elaborated in the next Section.
The 2D FDTD method resolves the transverse magnetic
(TMz) modes in a plate pair by the following equations [8, 9]:
wEz
wt
wH x
wt
1 wH y wH x
Jz
wy
H wx
1 wEz
,
P0 wy
wH y
1 wEz
wt
P0 wx
(1)
(2)
jZP H xy and xy u H z
( jZH V d )E z (3)
V r
Fig. 1
The 2.5D method based on modal decomposition domain
decomposition with is illustrated by using a multilayer PCB board as
an example [6]: (a) a representative multilayer PCB board, (b) a
typical plate pair comprise conductive plates, striplines and vias, (c)
parallel-plate modes, transmission-line modes, and cylindrical modes
corresponding with structures in (b).
k
2j
R n cH1 2 kR V r c
jK dH 0 2 kR J n r c dl c
C
R
(4)
where H 0 is the second type of Hankel function of zero
2
Fig. 2
(a) a stripline in cross-section view, and (b) it is split into
two transmission lines (microstrip lines) [1].
802
Fig. 3
Via, stripline and plate pair models are linked together in a
five-port network.
Fig. 4
Cascading individual network for each parallel plate
domain into a full network representing the original package or PCB
board.
B. Trace
803
wE z ( t )
wt
D x H y (t ) D y H x (t ) V E z (t ) M 1 NF
E z ( t ), (5)
P0
P0
wH x ( t )
wt
wH y (t )
wt
D y E z (t ) M 1 NF
H x ( t ),
(6)
D x Ez (t ) M 1 NF
H y (t ),
(7)
, where
the ordinary differential equation is
(i )
k
vn ,
Fig. 6 (a) A board with a 0.5 mm wide slot; (b) comparison of |S11|.
p (i 1) bi k (i )
, (8)
p (5) ,
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 7
A multilayer board consisting of eight conductive plates,
four striplines, and two through-hole vias: (a) top view, (b) crosssection view; and (c) 3D view. (Unit: mm)
804
assumed to be solid PEC. The results for those two cases have
some difference, because the array of via fences is
approaching the case of solid PEC walls, but not exactly the
same because of the little gaps between the neighboring PEC
vias. Fig. 8a seems to suggest that the S11 by the 2.5D
(Cavity) method are better than those by the full-wave
method. The actual reason is that the fabricated structure in
Fig. 7 has two rows of conductor via fences along certain
regions of the periphery of the PCB. Because of lacking
available details, the full-wave simulation is not able to
replicate exactly the shorted vias of the PCB as manufactured
in [13]. Note that the 2.5D method based on 2D-FEM
implemented in the SIwave 3.5 software (an early version of
SIwave, denoted as 2.5D (2D-FEM*) in Fig. 8, yields
inaccurate results for this study case, where the reason is
probably that the early versions of SIwave did not do the
plate-trace-via model properly or cannot handle the PEC via
boundary in this study case.
simulation speed and memory usage and are suitable for whatif studies of complex electronic packages and PCBs to achieve
signal and power integrity. Real-world high-speed PCB
boards and electronic packages are complicated and keep
evolving with technology advancement. Therefore, the 2.5D
methods need to be further developed to keep up with the
continuous advancement of high-speed electronic packages
and PCBs, such as new structures, new materials, new designs
and new technologies.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
(a)
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
(b)
Fig. 8
Scattering parameter results by domain decomposition
methods, measurement and the full-wave FEM method.
[13]
VII. SUMMARY
The underlying principle and details of 2.5D methods are
elaborated and the latest development of a 2D field solver
based on 2D DGTD method is also presented. The natural
domain decomposition reveals intuitively the physical
phenomena happening in multilayer packages and boards. The
2.5D methods win over full-wave methods in terms of
[14]
[15]
805