DAC2009 - User - Track - Session - 1.1 - STMicroelectronics - 0
DAC2009 - User - Track - Session - 1.1 - STMicroelectronics - 0
Automotive Microcontroller
• Conclusions
2
EMC for Automotive
Interfere with
Mobile
0.9,1.8,1.9GHz
3
Electronics in Automotive is Everywhere
Car Radio
Cluster / Body Entertainment
Suspensions - ABS
GPS
Airbag
(safety in general)
Engine Mngt Transmission - Gear
4
Electronics in Automotive is Increasing
More More
devices functions
More
More bus mounting
communication locations
Increase of complexity
Increase
Increase of quantity
of EMI
5
EMC Automotive System Overview
6
IC/Component Selection for EMC
Cost
Optimization capabilities
DESIGN FABRICATION
Architectural
Architectural
Design
Design
Version
Version n°
n°
Floorplan
Floorplan
Synthesis
Synthesis
Place&Route
Place&Route EMC Measurements
Verification
Verification Compliance?
NO YES
t
t hhss
o
o nn $$
n mm $$ $$$$
++ n $$$$$$ Done
++ $$
8
Our Vision: EMC-aware Design
DESIGN
EMC
EMC Tools
Tools EMC
EMC Training
Training
Architectural
Architectural
Design
Design EMC
EMC Design
Design
Guidelines
Guidelines
Floorplan
Floorplan
Synthesis
Synthesis and
and Place&Route
Place&Route
Verification
Verification
EMC Simulations
EMC Models Compliance? FABRICATION
NO
NO
YES
YES EMC
EMC compliant
compliant
9
Low-EMI Design
• To reduced power rail noise on-chip decaps (i.e., fillercap cells) are
used
– How many? Where?
• Important to know their frequency behaviour
• Important to place them close to the hot spots to maximize their
damping effect on power rail noise
• Design methodology for decap insertion is necessary for efficient and
cost-effective low-EMI design
• On-chip decaps are usually built with MOS transistors with long and
wide channels to get a sufficiently large capacitance
– Standard practice uses these decap cell topologies VDD
VDD
GND
GND
MOS cell Tie-off cell
10
Fillercap Characterization: Frequency Behavior
2.2GHz
10GHz
110GHz
11
Fillercap Frequency Behavior Trend
72.55MHz
327.3MHz
143.8GHz
12
Test Case: STXX
13
Power Supply Waveforms Gate-level Simulations
14
Power Supply Waveforms Gate-level Simulations
2nd Harmonic
2nd Harmonic
I/O PAD Reduction
Reduction (%)
(dBμV)
22nd
nd harmonic
harmonic (@48MHz)
(@48MHz)
Amplitude
Amplitude reduction
reduction (dbμV)
(dbμV)
15
System Power Distribution Network Model
Capacitor
Package
I(t)
Characterization
Macroblock Characterization
IO Ring Characterization
Chip Model
Board Model
Power rail noise analysis Power rail noise analysis Noise characterization for
needs a specific needs a specific the IO subsystem
characterization to characterization to
generate the current profile generate the current profile
for each standard cell for each macroblock
(SRAMs, ROMs,
eFLASHs, eEEPROMs,
ADCs, etc.)
20
EMI Simulation Framework: Modeling
Apache Sentinel-PI
IC-PKG-PCB co-analysis
platform for system-level
power integrity
21
Apache’s Compact Power Model (CPM)
p1 p2
Icursig1 p1 p2 pwl(
+ 0.00ps 0.00066
+ 100.00ps 0.00263
CPM extracted from STXX + 200.00ps 0.00399
+ 300.00ps 0.00534
...
+)
0
22
CPM: Validation
23
Chip, Package, and Board System
Voltage
Board Package Chip
Regulator
Model Model Model
Model
* P. Crovetti and F. Fiori, “A Linear Voltage Regulator Model for EMC Analisys,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 22, pp. 2282-2292, Nov. 2007
** STXX Design Objective Specification, System to Silicon, S2SDL01110 Rev. 3.0, Mar. 2007
25
Board Modeling
26
Probe/TEM Cell Modeling
51Ω
27
Conducted Emissions at PCB J3 Test Pin
J3
BOARD
STXX TQFP80
VDD
IO5
5V
28
J3 Test Pin SMA Waveform Simulation
29
J3 Test Pin SMA Waveform Simulation
2nd Harmonic
2nd Harmonic
PCB Test Pin Reduction
Reduction (%)
(dBμV)
J3 -9.0 -9.7
22nd
nd harmonic
harmonic (@48MHz)
(@48MHz)
Amplitude
Amplitude reduction
reduction (dbμV)
(dbμV)
30
J3 Test Pin Spectrum: Simulation vs. Measurement
J3 Voltage [dBμV]
Frequency [Hz] 31
System Model for Radiated Emission Simulations
CPM model
PCB model
PKG model
32
Radiated Emission Measured
Voltage [dBμV]
Frequency [Hz]
33
Radiated Emission Measured vs. Simulated
Voltage [dBμV]
Max
Max Radiated
Radiated Emission:
Emission:
measured
measured vs.
vs. simulated
simulated
difference:
difference: 0.4
0.4 dBμV
dBμV
Frequency [Hz]
34
Conclusions
• We proposed an EMC-aware design methodology
– A significant on-chip EMI reduction was achieved!
• The simulated emissions of the entire system were compared with the
available measurements