Longer digital trace further from analog vs shorter digital trace closer to analogHow serial resistors actually reduce EMI?VCC trace routing on a two-layer board with TQFP chipPCB routing: EMI and signal integrity, return current questionsPower origin and power planes placement on PCB50MHz SPI PCB routing, use vias or resistors?PCB layout: am I doing local power nets correctly?PCB layout for SOIC packaged op ampOptimize signal return path with decoupling capacitors in a two layer boardMulti-layer layout and return currents of high-speed signalsReal current return pathAsynchronous SRAM routing crosstalk concerns

How to load files as a quickfix window at start-up

How would a disabled person earn their living in a medieval-type town?

Is Borg adaptation only temporary?

Can a human variant take proficiency in initiative?

How smart contract transactions work?

How to save money by shopping at a variety of grocery stores?

In Toy Story, are toys the only inanimate objects that become alive? And if so, why?

Can authors email you PDFs of their textbook for free?

Can you use Apple Care+ without any checks (bringing just MacBook)?

I failed to respond to a potential advisor

Cheap oscilloscope showing 16 MHz square wave

In what language did Túrin converse with Mím?

Deck of Many Things. What happens if you don't declare any number of cards and just start drawing?

Sum and average calculator

Break down the phrase "shitsurei shinakereba naranaindesu"

how can reincarnation magic be limited to prevent overuse?

How to investigate an unknown 1.5GB file named "sudo" in my Linux home directory?

When you have to wait for a short time

Given a specific computer system, is it possible to estimate the actual precise run time of a piece of Assembly code

German equivalent to "going down the rabbit hole"

My colleague treats me like he's my boss, yet we're on the same level

Could a simple hospital oxygen mask protect from aerosol poison?

Is there anything in the universe that cannot be compressed?

How do I get my neighbour to stop disturbing with loud music?



Longer digital trace further from analog vs shorter digital trace closer to analog


How serial resistors actually reduce EMI?VCC trace routing on a two-layer board with TQFP chipPCB routing: EMI and signal integrity, return current questionsPower origin and power planes placement on PCB50MHz SPI PCB routing, use vias or resistors?PCB layout: am I doing local power nets correctly?PCB layout for SOIC packaged op ampOptimize signal return path with decoupling capacitors in a two layer boardMulti-layer layout and return currents of high-speed signalsReal current return pathAsynchronous SRAM routing crosstalk concerns






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








1












$begingroup$


In the 4 layer PCB below (top layer) what is better in terms of interference with the analog circuitry on the lower left (current sense amp and buffer op-amp) trace 1 or 2?



The FPGA does have bypass capacitors on the bottom side.
The stackup that I'm currently planning to use is 0.8 mm/4 layer (0.035-0.2-0.0175-0.265-0.0175-0.2-0.035)



The traces are from an ADC to an FPGA, the clock frequency is 50MHz.
My understanding is that having ground and power planes underneath the traces would make the high frequency component of the signals return under the traces.
So placing the traces further away from the analog seems like it might reduce the interference, on the other hand a longer trace is a bigger loop area.



4 layer PCB - top layer - digital trace placement alternatives










share|improve this question









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    keep them far apart
    $endgroup$
    – analogsystemsrf
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @analogsystemsrf, you mean #1 on the screenshot?
    $endgroup$
    – axk
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you add a series termination resistor near the driver then that should help regardless of whether you use approach #1 or #2.
    $endgroup$
    – Mr. Snrub
    7 hours ago

















1












$begingroup$


In the 4 layer PCB below (top layer) what is better in terms of interference with the analog circuitry on the lower left (current sense amp and buffer op-amp) trace 1 or 2?



The FPGA does have bypass capacitors on the bottom side.
The stackup that I'm currently planning to use is 0.8 mm/4 layer (0.035-0.2-0.0175-0.265-0.0175-0.2-0.035)



The traces are from an ADC to an FPGA, the clock frequency is 50MHz.
My understanding is that having ground and power planes underneath the traces would make the high frequency component of the signals return under the traces.
So placing the traces further away from the analog seems like it might reduce the interference, on the other hand a longer trace is a bigger loop area.



4 layer PCB - top layer - digital trace placement alternatives










share|improve this question









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    keep them far apart
    $endgroup$
    – analogsystemsrf
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @analogsystemsrf, you mean #1 on the screenshot?
    $endgroup$
    – axk
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you add a series termination resistor near the driver then that should help regardless of whether you use approach #1 or #2.
    $endgroup$
    – Mr. Snrub
    7 hours ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$


In the 4 layer PCB below (top layer) what is better in terms of interference with the analog circuitry on the lower left (current sense amp and buffer op-amp) trace 1 or 2?



The FPGA does have bypass capacitors on the bottom side.
The stackup that I'm currently planning to use is 0.8 mm/4 layer (0.035-0.2-0.0175-0.265-0.0175-0.2-0.035)



The traces are from an ADC to an FPGA, the clock frequency is 50MHz.
My understanding is that having ground and power planes underneath the traces would make the high frequency component of the signals return under the traces.
So placing the traces further away from the analog seems like it might reduce the interference, on the other hand a longer trace is a bigger loop area.



4 layer PCB - top layer - digital trace placement alternatives










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




In the 4 layer PCB below (top layer) what is better in terms of interference with the analog circuitry on the lower left (current sense amp and buffer op-amp) trace 1 or 2?



The FPGA does have bypass capacitors on the bottom side.
The stackup that I'm currently planning to use is 0.8 mm/4 layer (0.035-0.2-0.0175-0.265-0.0175-0.2-0.035)



The traces are from an ADC to an FPGA, the clock frequency is 50MHz.
My understanding is that having ground and power planes underneath the traces would make the high frequency component of the signals return under the traces.
So placing the traces further away from the analog seems like it might reduce the interference, on the other hand a longer trace is a bigger loop area.



4 layer PCB - top layer - digital trace placement alternatives







pcb-design high-speed






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 9 hours ago









axkaxk

4184 silver badges16 bronze badges




4184 silver badges16 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    keep them far apart
    $endgroup$
    – analogsystemsrf
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @analogsystemsrf, you mean #1 on the screenshot?
    $endgroup$
    – axk
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you add a series termination resistor near the driver then that should help regardless of whether you use approach #1 or #2.
    $endgroup$
    – Mr. Snrub
    7 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    keep them far apart
    $endgroup$
    – analogsystemsrf
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @analogsystemsrf, you mean #1 on the screenshot?
    $endgroup$
    – axk
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you add a series termination resistor near the driver then that should help regardless of whether you use approach #1 or #2.
    $endgroup$
    – Mr. Snrub
    7 hours ago















$begingroup$
keep them far apart
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
keep them far apart
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
@analogsystemsrf, you mean #1 on the screenshot?
$endgroup$
– axk
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
@analogsystemsrf, you mean #1 on the screenshot?
$endgroup$
– axk
8 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
If you add a series termination resistor near the driver then that should help regardless of whether you use approach #1 or #2.
$endgroup$
– Mr. Snrub
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
If you add a series termination resistor near the driver then that should help regardless of whether you use approach #1 or #2.
$endgroup$
– Mr. Snrub
7 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2













$begingroup$


placing the traces further away from the analog seems like it might
reduce the interference, on the other hand a longer trace is a bigger
loop area




You have not shown the power and ground plane. I assume it to be solid underneath the traces as I don't see any other components or via in the region.



  • If there are no more traces to be drawn, go for the one with the least trace length. If hte matching is well done, the interference will be really less.

  • There will be no big loop area even if you go for lengthier trace. Almost all the high-speed currents will be just below the trace. Only disadvantage is that the signal is close to the edge which might be susceptible to external noise.





share|improve this answer









$endgroup$






















    1













    $begingroup$

    Coupling field strength generally falls off at distance squared. If you can make the parasitic loop length increase by less than distance squared (e.g. not a big circle, but linear), then, first order, moving the undesired coupling loop farther away is likely to be a win.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$






















      0













      $begingroup$

      The return current does spread out on the ground plane beneath the trace, so keeping the traces apart reduces how much of the return currents from both traces overlap each other on the ground plane.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        Your Answer






        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
        return StackExchange.using("schematics", function ()
        StackExchange.schematics.init();
        );
        , "cicuitlab");

        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "135"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f455552%2flonger-digital-trace-further-from-analog-vs-shorter-digital-trace-closer-to-anal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        2













        $begingroup$


        placing the traces further away from the analog seems like it might
        reduce the interference, on the other hand a longer trace is a bigger
        loop area




        You have not shown the power and ground plane. I assume it to be solid underneath the traces as I don't see any other components or via in the region.



        • If there are no more traces to be drawn, go for the one with the least trace length. If hte matching is well done, the interference will be really less.

        • There will be no big loop area even if you go for lengthier trace. Almost all the high-speed currents will be just below the trace. Only disadvantage is that the signal is close to the edge which might be susceptible to external noise.





        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



















          2













          $begingroup$


          placing the traces further away from the analog seems like it might
          reduce the interference, on the other hand a longer trace is a bigger
          loop area




          You have not shown the power and ground plane. I assume it to be solid underneath the traces as I don't see any other components or via in the region.



          • If there are no more traces to be drawn, go for the one with the least trace length. If hte matching is well done, the interference will be really less.

          • There will be no big loop area even if you go for lengthier trace. Almost all the high-speed currents will be just below the trace. Only disadvantage is that the signal is close to the edge which might be susceptible to external noise.





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$

















            2














            2










            2







            $begingroup$


            placing the traces further away from the analog seems like it might
            reduce the interference, on the other hand a longer trace is a bigger
            loop area




            You have not shown the power and ground plane. I assume it to be solid underneath the traces as I don't see any other components or via in the region.



            • If there are no more traces to be drawn, go for the one with the least trace length. If hte matching is well done, the interference will be really less.

            • There will be no big loop area even if you go for lengthier trace. Almost all the high-speed currents will be just below the trace. Only disadvantage is that the signal is close to the edge which might be susceptible to external noise.





            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$




            placing the traces further away from the analog seems like it might
            reduce the interference, on the other hand a longer trace is a bigger
            loop area




            You have not shown the power and ground plane. I assume it to be solid underneath the traces as I don't see any other components or via in the region.



            • If there are no more traces to be drawn, go for the one with the least trace length. If hte matching is well done, the interference will be really less.

            • There will be no big loop area even if you go for lengthier trace. Almost all the high-speed currents will be just below the trace. Only disadvantage is that the signal is close to the edge which might be susceptible to external noise.






            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 8 hours ago









            UmarUmar

            5,1863 gold badges12 silver badges36 bronze badges




            5,1863 gold badges12 silver badges36 bronze badges


























                1













                $begingroup$

                Coupling field strength generally falls off at distance squared. If you can make the parasitic loop length increase by less than distance squared (e.g. not a big circle, but linear), then, first order, moving the undesired coupling loop farther away is likely to be a win.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



















                  1













                  $begingroup$

                  Coupling field strength generally falls off at distance squared. If you can make the parasitic loop length increase by less than distance squared (e.g. not a big circle, but linear), then, first order, moving the undesired coupling loop farther away is likely to be a win.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$

















                    1














                    1










                    1







                    $begingroup$

                    Coupling field strength generally falls off at distance squared. If you can make the parasitic loop length increase by less than distance squared (e.g. not a big circle, but linear), then, first order, moving the undesired coupling loop farther away is likely to be a win.






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    Coupling field strength generally falls off at distance squared. If you can make the parasitic loop length increase by less than distance squared (e.g. not a big circle, but linear), then, first order, moving the undesired coupling loop farther away is likely to be a win.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 8 hours ago









                    hotpaw2hotpaw2

                    1,5652 gold badges20 silver badges30 bronze badges




                    1,5652 gold badges20 silver badges30 bronze badges
























                        0













                        $begingroup$

                        The return current does spread out on the ground plane beneath the trace, so keeping the traces apart reduces how much of the return currents from both traces overlap each other on the ground plane.






                        share|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$



















                          0













                          $begingroup$

                          The return current does spread out on the ground plane beneath the trace, so keeping the traces apart reduces how much of the return currents from both traces overlap each other on the ground plane.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$

















                            0














                            0










                            0







                            $begingroup$

                            The return current does spread out on the ground plane beneath the trace, so keeping the traces apart reduces how much of the return currents from both traces overlap each other on the ground plane.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            The return current does spread out on the ground plane beneath the trace, so keeping the traces apart reduces how much of the return currents from both traces overlap each other on the ground plane.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 7 hours ago









                            DKNguyenDKNguyen

                            6,6231 gold badge7 silver badges28 bronze badges




                            6,6231 gold badge7 silver badges28 bronze badges






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f455552%2flonger-digital-trace-further-from-analog-vs-shorter-digital-trace-closer-to-anal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                ParseJSON using SSJSUsing AMPscript with SSJS ActivitiesHow to resubscribe a user in Marketing cloud using SSJS?Pulling Subscriber Status from Lists using SSJSRetrieving Emails using SSJSProblem in updating DE using SSJSUsing SSJS to send single email in Marketing CloudError adding EmailSendDefinition using SSJS

                                Кампала Садржај Географија Географија Историја Становништво Привреда Партнерски градови Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију0°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.340°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.34МедијиПодациЗванични веб-сајту

                                19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу