The Designer's Guide Community Forum
https://designers-guide.org/forum/YaBB.pl Design >> Mixed-Signal Design >> Substrate Modeling Methodology https://designers-guide.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1150048153 Message started by Marc Murphy on Jun 11th, 2006, 10:49am |
Title: Substrate Modeling Methodology Post by Marc Murphy on Jun 11th, 2006, 10:49am This is in reference to the paper from this site. First, is this modeling used to get a handle on substrate signals prior to layout? Is approach necessary once layout is extracted? In Section 2, the claim is made that 50 um separation between substrate contacts is not large because the substrate is 300 um thick. I'm not clear on the relation between the horizontal and vertical dimensions. I mean, why would 50 um be considered large in the case when the substrate was thinner...say 100 um thick? At the end of Sec. 2, when it says if the guard rings are closely spaced, relative to... does that mean if the guard rings from the aggressor is closely spaced to the guard ring from the victim??? Perhaps this last sec. 2 paragraph could be explained and illustrated in more depth...I'm dense. ;) In Fig. 6, I'm not clear on how one would get the R values. You can get the Ohms/square from the design rules, so do you just calculate the R values based on the geometry. Anyhow, if that's how you do it, I'm not clear on why the substrate contacts to ground are 60 Ohms while the guard rings to ground are 400 Ohms. Thanks, Marc |
Title: Re: Substrate Modeling Methodology Post by gmurata on Jun 12th, 2006, 9:12am Hi Marc, I've been trying to make substrate analysis a standard part of my design process and considered early when it can make the most difference so this is a work in progress to this end. Now, the approach that was laid out is to help handle floor planning and isolation before layout is done. Once layout is done there are tools available to help do a more accurate extraction of your substrate. This analysis might not be necessary after layout and extraction but because the extraction tools make a large simulation problem even larger the ideas may be needed to help reduce the coupling problem to an understandable level. It is often beneficial and/or necessary to reduce the extracted network and simulation down to the critical elements and I hope the analysis approach helps to highlight the critical areas and elements to consider. In regard to the 50um separation compared to the 300um thickness, I am referring to the likely direction and strength of the electrical fields. If the substrate was thin and backside grounded then we would expect a large amount of the fields to go to the backside ground. This would be good since most of our aggressor signal would terminate to the back side ground before traveling far horizontally to another circuit. Thinning the die down is an option to improve isolation with some assembly and manufacturing limitations. If the substrate is thick and a surface ground contact is relatively close to the signal generator then we'd see strong fields flowing to the surface ground which is what I assume. The surface current assumption helps to simplify the coupling behavior for our analysis. There is a loss in accuracy so the post-layout substrate extract is needed for accuracy but this simplification allows us to do some analysis early. When it discussed "closely spaced guardrings" it is simply referring to spacing between any other guardring. This assumption is again focusing on fields coupling to the next nearest conductor. If electrical fields tend to flow to the next nearest surface conductor and that the edges of the guardring are wide compared to the separation then the fields will largely be contained between two near edges. This allows us to focus on one edge at a time. This also allows us to place a single resistance to model this coupling between any two adjacent edges. For a rectangular guardring surrounded on all four sides by other guardrings we would place one resistor per side to model the coupling between each side to the next adjacent guardring. In this way we can build up a network of conducting rings with resistors between the edges of adjacent rings. I have run EM simulations of various ring widths and separations and compared with a single wire with the length equal to the ring edge width being considered and the coupling was <2dB different, meaning that the simplification of handling each edge by itself is <2dB different than considering the whole ring. The R values are the next part of the analysis and the real missing piece of early substrate modeling. I hope to publish my results later but for now I'll explain what I have done to determine these R values. Again we are relying on EM simulation or other substrate tool to determine our coupling but with some of the previous observations we can extract out lumped element models from the simulation results. I've taken two guardrings placed adjacent to each other with a spacing (S) and edge width (W) and then surrounded all other edges of both guardings by ground planes also separated by spacing (S). The adjacent edges of the guardring are made into Port1 and Port2 and simulated to generate the two-port S-parameters. This can be analyzed and a pi network can be extracted with resistance down to the backside ground and resistance between the ports. If we consider the whole circuit area to be a sea of substrate contacts then we can model this as a single large parallel plate over the backside ground and it has a low resistance to ground. The guardring shows higher resistance to the backside ground and less resistance to the adjacent guardring because it doesn't have much surface area and is far from the backside ground but the adjacent ring is close in comparison. From various (S) and (W) value simulations I've extracted out a scalable resistance value for my process for edge-to-edge resistance and a plate resistance for (WxW) to backside ground. The scalable resistance allows us to make early assumptions about (S) and a nominal (W) and circuit/chip designers can include this in their design flow without having to spend time doing layout and extraction just to get an estimate. I hope this helps to explain the process and I hope to publish how to extract out resistance parameters sometime soon. Best regards, - Glenn Murata |
Title: Re: Substrate Modeling Methodology Post by Marc Murphy on Jun 12th, 2006, 10:03am Thanks for the answers! Much appreciated! I know from my own experiences that when you know a subject well you can tend to make a statement that may be obvious but leaves the less-knowledgeable reader wondering 'why is that true?'. I'll continue to keep an eye out for new versions, and if my naive questions are of value, I'm sure I can think up some more! :) Thanks, Marc |
Title: Re: Substrate Modeling Methodology Post by Marc Murphy on Jun 12th, 2006, 1:24pm Is substrate current caused primarily by impact ionization (for NMOS, e-h pairs get created and holes enter the substrate)? Then there is also the p-n junction reverse current, right? Are those the only 2 important sources of substrate current? Thanks, Marc |
Title: Re: Substrate Modeling Methodology Post by mikki33 on Jun 13th, 2006, 4:38am No. The primary source of substrate noise is potential difference at different substrate points (which generally corresponds to differents supplies IOVSS, DVSS, AVSS etc.) Every one of these power domains have its own taps to the substrate, and via the taps the noise of local voltage variations is injected into the substrate. If in the digital domain you have 200 FF, and they are simultaneously clocked, you are getting very high current spike, which creates voltage drop on R-L supply net. If you are considering L of bond wire too you are getting so called ground bounce, which make situation even worse. The potential difference between different substrate points may exceed 100 mV (for 1.2 V process). In this case we get high frequency currents in the substrate from one VSS supply to another. So, the other VSS variates too. For analog this is not healthy. If analog circuits are not designed to have enough PSRR, or immunity to the bulk effect variation... How to simulate it? Who knows. The processes now are EPI (last time I worked with non-EPI one was about 10 years ago), so, spacing between agressor and victim will not improve the noise figures. 50 um or 300 um space does make a difference, but 2 mm or 10 mm doesn't. Take care, Michael |
Title: Re: Substrate Modeling Methodology Post by Marc Murphy on Jun 13th, 2006, 4:42am Ah yes, I was aware of this but it slipped my mind when posing the question...was thinking about the device physics! ;D While I'm here, I want to check my understanding. So, you are talking about IR drop through the metal which causes a difference in voltage between substrate contacts. Let's say I have substrate contacts on opposite sides of the chip both connected by a metal1 line to ground. If current through metal1 is low such that there is not much of an IR drop. there should be no difference in voltage and thus no substrate current, right? However, if I had a MOSFET in the center of the chip, it would still be injecting substrate current due to impact ionization and reverse leakage, right? This current would have to find it's way to the substrate contact via the substrate and thus encounter a lot of substrate resistance, right? Because the current flows through a large resistance, there is enough of a voltage drop to activate the parasitic BJTs and cause latch up, right? In this situation, to fix the problem, I would have to put a substrate contact (connected to ground and the other substrate contacts via metal1) in the center of the chip next to the MOSFET. This contact would give the substrate current a path to get to ground via the metal1 line and thus avoid causing a voltage drop in the substrate, right? In the case where I have a high IR drop on the metal1 line, does adding more substrate contacts help? There would still be a voltage drop between the contacts and thus substrate current flow would occur. It seems like making the metal1 wider would be the solution. Also, I've heard of soft contacts before. You put in substrate contacts but they aren't connected via metal. They make their contact via the substrate. Sounds like a bad idea because you encourage the current to flow through the substrate. It would seem like the 2 basic rules are: 1) put substrate contacts next to devices to provide a non-substrate path for substrate current 2) use wide lines to avoid IR drop, which keeps the voltage difference between substrate contacts to a minimum (thus reducing substrate current flow) And, I believe that using a capacitor between Vdd and Gnd (bypass cap) to supply charge during large transients will prevent excessive current from being drawn from the supplies at any one time (thus avoiding IR drop on the supply lines). Thanks! Marc |
The Designer's Guide Community Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.2.2! YaBB © 2000-2008. All Rights Reserved. |