Crosstalk

05535241.pdf

Design guidelines for shielding in the presence of power/ground (P/G) noise

Summarize

In global integrated circuits, shielding is mostly designed to minimized crosstalk between

linked lines. There were two types of shielding methods to summarize. There are passive shielding, and
active shielding. In general the passive shielding, be the shield lines between crucial interconnect to
reduce the noise coupled from an aggressor to a victim line. For active shielding it dedicated shield
lines with switching signals. Although active shielding outperforms passive shielding in terms of
lowering crosstalk noise voltage, active shielding takes more space and requires more power. To be
clear the the shield line will give more noise on the victim line than the crosstalk noise coupled from
the aggressor to the victim. It is cause by the distance between the shield and victim lines is smaller
than the distance between the aggressor and victim lines. The physical spacing and shield insertion
techniques are explained here. There have some criteria in choosing between spacing or shielding
techniques.

Start with shielding techniques. Shield insertion naturally minimize capacitive coupling for
both the aggressor and victim lines. It is because capacitive coupling is a short range that will consider
to be decreased in non-adjacent lines. Moreover, it reduces the mutual inductance due to the current
return path produced by the inserted shield line for the aggressor and victim lines. Another shielding
technique is active shielding. The two consequences of active shielding will be the increased power
consumption and greater area of the logic circuitry managing the active shield lines. Despite that,
process and environmental changes may alter signal arrival timings in unanticipated ways, reducing the
effectiveness of active shielding. Another crosstalk noise that will explained is the sizing the buffer
driving the aggressor and victim lines. By increasing the conductance of the driver, a bigger driver may
be utilized to keep the victim line at a constant voltage. Because the signal transition is delayed owing
to the greater time constant on the aggressor line, employing a smaller driver reduces crosstalk noise.
In conclusion the crosstalk noise can be reduced by properly sizing the driver on the aggressor and
victim lines.

The comparison the efficacy of shield insertion with physical spacing, the distance between
the aggressor and victim lines is extended to match the same area limitations for both shielding and
spacing techniques. To preserve the same area limitations, when the distance between the aggressor
and victim lines is boost using the spacing technique, the distance between the shield line and the
aggressor and victim lines is likewise hike using the shield insertion method. Next is about the line
length effect on the crosstalk noise. With the advancement of technology, the length of the global
connection generally rises, resulting in increased signal noise.

As knowledgeable the interconnect can be more than 4 mm. The different interconnect lengths
and driver resistances, the coupling noise voltage at the sense node is compared to shield insertion and
physical spacing. With increasing connection length, crosstalk noise at the sensor node with physical
spacing reduces monotonically. In conclusion, shield insertion is suitable for shorter lines and spacing
is suitable for longer lines. Shield insertion become effective when both the aggressor and victim lines
are driven by a large driver. As the shield line width increases, shield insertion will effective low. The
distance between the aggressor and victim lines maintain for both the physical spacing and shield
insertion methods. Despite the fact that increasing the width reduces coupling from the aggressor to the
sense node, the power/ground noise coupling to the sense node rises owing to lower shield line
resistance and greater mutual inductance.

The ratio for line resistance to the driver resistance also effect in crosstalk noise. In raising the driver
resistance, physical spacing will more efficient than shield insertion since coupling from the shield line
is greater than coupling from the aggressor. When deciding between spacing and shielding techniques
in a noisy environment, the length of the connection has a major impact on the speed, power, and area
characteristics. As a result, Shield insertion will described as more efficient for shorter and narrower
lines while additional space is desirable for longer and thicker lines. The effect of the driver resistance
of the victim and aggressor lines on the crosstalk noise has also been explained. When deciding
between shield insertion and physical spacing, the length of the interconnect line and the size of the
transistors controlling the aggressor and victim lines should be consider.