AWR

AXIEM White Paper

INTRODUCTION
Misunderstanding how ground is implemented in circuit simulation is one of the most common misuses of electromagnetic (EM) simulators and their results. This white paper discusses the denition of ground in EM simulators and how to correctly choose among various grounding options, a topic of special importance to designers using the results in a circuit simulator. Many modern simulators now support the notion of local grounding, where different ports can use different ground denitions. New features in AWRs AXIEM 2009 3D planar EM simulator offer extensive sources/ports and de-embedding options, including internal edge, nite difference/gap and extraction ports, and per-port, coupled line and mutual group de-embedding. Before it can be understood how ground is used in EM simulators, it is rst necessary to understand how it works in circuit simulation. The major portion of the discussion involves examining where ground is dened in EM simulators and how this is a function of the solver and port types. The paper demonstrates how this exibility in selecting ground can help the engineer characterize board, package, and interconnect performance. Several specic examples at the board, package, and chip level are discussed. The paper concludes with circuit tricks that can be used to aid in ground studies. So, ground is a concept that, while perhaps a bit elusive, forms an important basis for how transmission lines are modeled and simulated. Just as the notion of what is ground and where is it changes as the underlying physics are probed, so too when real circuits are being analyzed. AXIEM is a superb tool in this instance as it has been engineered with this sort of exibility in mind. AXIEM enables the designer to specify where the ground reference is in the design. When adding a port, its just a single mouse-click on any port to reference that port to the particular layer in the geometry that the designer wishes to treat as ground. In more complex situations, for instance, with coplanar waveguide, designers can even set up a system of ports to accurately represent how the wave propagates and how the current returns in the structure through the use of port groups. In addition, AXIEM has tremendous exibility in how ports are de-embedded so that designers have the highest level of assurance that they are measuring their structure with the ground where they intend it to be, and not artifacts of the ports or the geometry setup required by the EM solver. AXIEM is an excellent choice for EM wherever ground may be.

Understanding Grounding Concepts in EM Simulators

Dr. John M. Dunn AWR Corporation

jdunn@awrcorp.com BIO:
John Dunn is a senior engineering consultant at AWR, where he is in charge of training and university program development. His areas of expertise include electromagnetic modeling and simulation for high speed circuit applications. Dr. Dunn past experience includes both the worlds of industry and academia. Prior to joining AWR, he was head of the interconnect modeling group at Tektronix, Beaverton, Oregon, for four years. Before entering industry, Dr. Dunn was a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Colorado, Boulder, for fteen years, from 1986 to 2001, where he lead a research group in the areas of electromagnetic simulation and modeling. Dr. Dunn received his Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in Applied Physics from Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and his B.A. in Physics from Carleton College, Northeld, MN. He is a senior member of IEEE.

AWR
AXIEM White Paper

GROUND IN CIRCUIT SIMULATION

Ground is probably one of the rst concepts that the electrical engineering student learns about. They learn that the two fundamental concepts they need are current and voltage. They are then given Kirchoffs two laws as facts: current (with sign convention) summed up at any node is 0, and the sum of voltages around a loop is zero. Since the sum of voltages around a loop is what matters, i.e., differences in voltage, there might as well be one point in a circuit at 0 volts, which is ground. It also is commonly called node 0 in circuit simulators. Students then spend most of a semester solving Kirchoffs laws with circuits of varying degrees of difculty. It is interesting to note in the standard circuit class there is very little discussion of what a physical ground is, and why it is good to be well grounded.

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC DEFINITION OF GROUND

The electromagnetic basis of electrical engineering says that Kirchoffs laws derive from Maxwells equations. Indeed, if one takes Amperes law and Gausss law for electric elds, one obtains the equation for conservation of charge, which states:

I = jQ,
i

where the summation is the net current coming into the node and Q is the charge buildup on that node. In normal circuit theory, there is only one place where charge can occur, and that is a capacitor. Therefore, there are two conclusions: at any node the sum of currents must be zero, and at a capacitor:

Q = CV.
Notice that the notion of voltage has been used in the capacitor equation. Voltage is not part of Maxwells equations, and is what is called a derived quantity. Maxwells equations only have a notion of electric and magnetic elds, current density, and charge density. Certain other physical quantities can be consistently derived from Maxwells equations. For example, power density, and electric and magnetic eld energy can be dened in a way that is consistent with the denition of energy from mechanics. Voltage is dened to be the integral of the electric eld along a path (actually the tangential part of the electric eld to the path). The immediate question is why is this important? The reason is Faradays law, which states that the electric eld around any closed path is equal to the change in time of the magnetic ux through that loop (with a minus sign):

Ed =

d , dt

where E is the electric eld, is the total ux of the magnetic eld density, B, of the loop. So, the immediate conclusion is that the change in voltage around a loop is equal to the change in time of the magnetic ux through the loop (with a minus sign). Circuit theory makes the assumption that the changing magnetic ux through the loop is small enough that we can assume it is zero. And if its zero, it means that the electric eld around any loop, i.e. the voltage around any loop, is zero, which is Kirchoffs voltage law.

AWR
AXIEM White Paper

There is of course one place where the magnetic ux change is large enough that it cant be neglected at an inductor. This is the denition of inductance:

= LI,
where the ux is produced by the current I. To nish up the derivation of circuit equations, notice that Kirchoffs laws have fallen out of Maxwells equations, as have the notion of a capacitor and inductor. There also is an assumption that the capacitor and inductor are electrically small enough that an idealized, perfect circuit capacitor and inductor can be talked about. To conclude, since the voltage around any loop is zero, which in turn means the voltage is path independent, one point in the circuit can be chosen and called 0 volts. The voltage at any point in the circuit can just be given a number, and designers do not have to worry about with respect to what? It is with respect to ground.

CIRCUIT SIMULATORS, S-PARAMETERS, AND THE NOTION OF GROUND

Circuit simulators work by solving Kirchoffs laws. More specically they solve a matrix equation to determine the voltages and currents at all nodes in the circuit. Modern circuit simulators set the matrix equation up by using modied nodal analysis [1]. In this technique, equations are written for every node based on Kirchoffs laws, and the resulting matrix is then solved using standard techniques. Circuit simulators use Y matrices to describe how sub-networks work. A network is viewed as a collection of exterior nodes that are related to each other. RF and microwave engineers often prefer to work with S-parameter matrices, as opposed to Y matrices, which presents a problem. The circuit simulator has been given an S matrix, for example from an EM simulator. Yet, it must work with Y matrices. Therefore, it needs to convert the S matrix, which means it must work with currents and voltages. In order to do this, it must know the characteristic impedances of the ports. S-parameters, in their truest sense, are ratios of powers. If the characteristic impedances of the ports are a known complex quantity, it can convert this notion of power into current and voltage and therefore a Y matrix. The actual equation to do this is:
1 Y = (I + S )1 Zg (I S ),

where S is the S matrix, I is the identity matrix, and Zg is a diagonal matrix whose elements are characteristic impedances for each portwhich can be complex numbers.

PORTS IN EM SIMULATORS
It is important to understand how S-parameters are generated in EM simulators. All EM simulators need ports to derive the S-parameters. The ports inject energy into the system (incident wave) and look at the reected power back into the port and the transmitted power going into the other ports. The ratio of the reected or transmitted power to the incident power is the denition of the S-parameter. It is assumed that all ports are perfectly matched so that any wave going into the port is not re-reected back into the system. EM simulators differ in how they carry out the details of this procedure. The various types of ports used in EM simulators will now be examined, with an eye toward how ground is dened for these ports. As previously argued, every S-parameter le imported from an EM simulator into a circuit simulator makes the assumption that the ground is the same for all the ports. Therefore, it is important to know what each port is assuming for the ground it uses.

AWR
AXIEM White Paper

THE WORLD OF EM SIMULATORS

EM simulators solve Maxwells equations numerically. There are a wide variety of simulators available, with widely differing features. It is necessary to understand the different types of simulators available, so that it can be better understood how they dene ports and their associated grounds. There are many ways of classifying EM simulators; for example, one may look at the mathematical techniques used, the generality of the problems they solve, simulation speed, and of course features and user interface. For purposes of this discussion, EM simulators will be classied according to Figure 1. The horizontal axis roughly equates to the generality of problems the EM simulator covers. The various categories will be explained shortly. The vertical axis is the computational complexity. The most general type of EM simulator is described here as three-dimensional (3D), and is the most computationally intensive. The class of solvers described as 2D solvers or cross sectional solvers are used for getting transmission line parameters per unit length of a transmission line system. For example, the solver will solve for the resistance, capacitance, inductance, and conductance per unit length of a microstrip line. Once the electrical properties of the transmission lines per unit length is known, it is a simple matter to multiply by the length and get the transmission line parameters. A distributed line model can then be used in the circuit simulator. These types of simulators are commonly built into the circuit simulator, and run the EM simulation behind the scenes. For example, in AWRs Microwave Ofce software, a variety of these models are available. They can be grouped into two general classes: moment method techniques and nite element techniques. The moment method models are shown in Figure 2. The technique solves for the currents and charges on the surfaces of the conductors using MoM, which is explained below. Once determined, the charge gives the capacitance per unit length, and the current the inductance per unit length. The resistance per unit length can also be determined. The model only calculates the values at one frequency. The capacitance per unit length is assumed not to change in frequency, and the resistance and inductance per unit length are assumed to be changing with the square root of frequency, as in the standard skin depth approximation. This approximation assumes that the conductors are thick enough that they are several skin depths thick. The skin depth of copper at 1 GHz is approximately 1 micron. Therefore, the approximation is certainly valid for copper lines on boards, where the thickness of the lines is 10s of microns thick. As a matter of fact, the skin depth of a ounce copper line is not one skin depth thick until a frequency of 10 KHz or lower. Where is the ground for this type of simulation? The moment method simulator typically puts a ground plane at the bottom of the structure for microstrip lines, and a ground plane on the top and bottom of the cross section for a stripline simulation. Later on this paper will discuss how the method-of-moments does this. The other type of cross sectional solver used in AWRs Microwave Ofce is a nite element method (FEM) solver. This is shown In Figure 3.
Figure 3. FEM cross sectional solve for determining line parameters. Figure 2. 2D method-of-moments (MoM) EM simulators for determining line parameters. Figure 1. Classications of EM simulators.

AWR
AXIEM White Paper

This type of simulation also gets the transmission line properties per unit length. The FEM meshes the cross section in triangles and solves for the electric eld on each of the meshes. The advantage of this technique is that can account for the loss and internal inductance in the transmission lines without making the assumption of skin depth. This is important for silicon chips, where the skin depth region is not clearly established. For example, with aluminum lines, the skin depth at 1 GHz is about 1.5 micron, and with a 2 micron thick line, the skin depth approximation is not satised. In addition, the silicon substrate is meshed up, as silicon substrates cannot be assumed to be good conductors. Typically, the bulk conductivity is between 0.01 and 10 S/m depending on the doping of the layer. The skin depth approximation would lead to serious errors. The grounding for this type of simulation is the bottom conductor of the silicon, and the side walls at the edge of the nite element space. Grounding straps can be placed from the sides to close proximity of the line if desired. Of course, care must be taken that these agree with the actual physical geometry, for example, in the case of a coplanar line, where the side grounds would represent the grounds of the coplanar line. The next class of EM simulators shown in Figure 1 is 3D planar simulators, which are sometimes called 2 D simulators. These simulators use MoM, which will be explained below. In this method, the currents are solved on the conductors by meshing up the lines into a series of triangles and rectangles. A matrix equation is solved to get the current on each mesh. The currents are excited by attaching ports, and the S-parameters can then be calculated. The method solves for horizontal currents (the planar or 2 part) and vertical currents for vias or thick metal lines (the full or part). There are geometry restrictions. The structure consists of planar, homogenous, dielectric layers, with an optional ground plane at the bottom of the geometry, and an optional top conductor. Fortunately, this type of restriction is not a serious problem for many geometries of interest in the world of boards, packages, and chips. The structure can either be in a rectangular conducting box or not in a box, depending on the implementation of the code. As is shown in Figure 1, theses simulators have been used successfully for interconnect simulation, planar antennas, spiral inductors, and other structures of interest to the signal integrity engineer. The third class of EM simulators is described in Figure 1 as the 3D simulators. These simulators can simulate the most general structures, as they mesh up all the space of interest using small elements. Typically the elements are either 3D triangular pyramids, usually called tetrahedral, or rectangular bricks. The two most popular methods for solving for the elds are the FEM, which solves in frequency domain, and the nite difference time-domain (FDTD), which solves in time domain. It should be mentioned that the nomenclature for these methods varies. For example, an FDTD is really an FEM in the sense that nite elements are used. There are FEM methods in the time domain. Since this discussion focuses on how grounds are dened for the ports in these methods, it is not necessary to delve into the subtle and technical distinctions between the methods in this article. Finally, it should be mentioned that there are other methods for solving for 3D problems. For example, the boundary element method (BEM) is popular in Europe. In this method, the boundary on each object is meshed, and ctitious electric and magnetic currents are inserted. This method will be discussed later in this article. The 3D solvers are more general than the 3D planar solvers. They typically are computationally more intensive, and there is therefore a tradeoff between simulators. There is no one best simulator for all applications.

AWR
AXIEM White Paper

3D SIMULATORS AND PORTS

3D simulators solve for the electric elds in a region of space bounded by the edges of the simulation space. The space is meshed up in simple, small shapes, typically either tetrahedral or parallelepipeds. The electric eld has a simple, approximate form for each region, for example linear variation in all three spatial directions. The electric elds are excited by means of a port, which is the focus of this chapter. The elds are solved so that they satisfy Maxwells equations with the port excitations and the correct boundary conditions on the edges of the structure. The details of how this is carried out are not relevant to this discussion. The interested reader can look at nite element methods in the literature [4]. The discussion of ports in 3D simulators begins by considering the analogy to the network analyzer in a laboratory. The network analyzer works by launching a wave out of a port, and down a transmission medium. Typically, this is a coaxial cable, or possibly a waveguide for millimeter wave applications. The incident wave hits the device under test (DUT). The power in the wave eventually either reects, giving S11, or transmits to the other port, S21, or is dissipated. Dissipation of energy can occur by absorption or radiation in the DUT, or by being absorbed at other ports that have been terminated in matched loads (loads equal to the waves characteristic impedance). The equivalent of a numerical network analyzer will be made for this EM simulator. Therefore, a wave port will be created. A simple example is shown in Figure 4. Think of the port as the end face of a waveguide, the other end of which is the network analyzer. The network analyzer is perfectly matched to the waveguide. Waves coming down a waveguide are described in modes. For example, in the case of a transmission line, for example a coaxial line, the dominant mode of transmission is the transverse electric-magnetic (TEM) mode. Higher order modes are possible, although at normal operating frequencies they are cutoff. See standard electromagnetic texts for an explanation of waveguide modal theory [5]. Now, modes can be characterized by three features: their eld pattern, their characteristic impedance, and their propagation constant. Details on each of these three features follows. The eld pattern of the mode is determined by Maxwells equations. The port will be used to launch the wave on the signal line. Notice the wave port has an outer boundary, and it is certainly a reasonable question if this matters. The answer is that yes, in principle it changes the answer. For example, the microstrip line in gure 4 works in a quasi-TEM mode. (The quasi is because it is not a true TEM mode. There are small components of electric and magnetic elds in the direction of propagation because of the dielectric/air interface.) The current ows down the microstrip line, and returns on the ground return beneath it. If the side walls and top of the wave port are far enough way, the current will predominantly still return underneath the microstrip line and a microstrip mode will be the result. However, is the wave port walls are too close, serious discrepancies between the actual mode and the microstrip mode will occur. There will therefore be a reection when the wave leaves the wave port due to the mismatch. On the other hand, if the wave port walls are too far away, computational resources are wasted, and numerical errors can occur. Reasonable rules of thumb are to make the side walls three substrate heights away, and the top of the port three heights substrates above the line.
Figure 4. Meshed wave port at the end of a microstrip line.

AWR
AXIEM White Paper

How are the S-parameters at these ports determined? The simulator rst of all calculates all the necessary modes. Normally, the user must tell the software how many modes to calculate. The modes are determined by solving Maxwells equations across the wave port numerically, by meshing it up and performing a nite element solution. Technically speaking, the solver determines the eigenmodes and eigenvalues of the system. An eigenmode is a natural state of solution for a system. For example, when you hit the surface of a drum, it vibrates in the natural eigenmodes of the drum head. When you send power into a waveguide, the wave travels in the natural eigenmodes of the system. The eigenvalues are the wavenumbers, of the modes:

= + j.
The is the phase constant = . The is the decay constant in Np/m. A non-zero

means that the wave is decaying as it goes down the guide. Normally, the mode of most interest is the one with the largest and the smallest .. This is the mode that is closest to TEM, and has the least decay, and is called mode 1. The software determines the various modes requested, getting for each the eld pattern, and propagation constant. At this point, the S-parameters can be determined. Power is injected into the mode(s), Maxwells equations are solved, and the power distribution at all the ports in all the modes is determined. An S-parameter is the ratio of two powers. For example, S11 is the ratio of the power coming back into the rst port, divided by the power incident from the port. Notice that the power in which mode must be specied when this calculation is carried out. Now the question, where is the ground for this type of port? can be answered. The answer is that one really isnt used! The modal distributions and powers are being addressed, and these are electromagnetic concepts, so there is no need to discuss ground. The need for ground occurs when trying to get the characteristic impedance for the mode. Recall that impedance is necessary if the S-parameter le is going to be used in a circuit simulator. For a general waveguide mode, there is no unique denition of impedance. Now this discussion will look at a number of these denitions and see how ground is used. It has already been stated that the power going down the waveguide is known. This can be uniquely determined by the electric and magnetic elds across the waveguide. The current on the conductors is also known. The current on any of the conductors can be found by realizing it is related to the tangential magnetic eld next to the conductor (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. The current in the conductor is found by using the tangential magnetic eld on the conductors.

One reasonable denition of impedance uses the ratio of total current going down the waveguide to power:

ZP V =

V2 . 2P

AWR
AXIEM White Paper

Notice that the net power going down the waveguide must be zero; i.e., there has to be power owing back down the guide equal and opposite to the current, I, given in the equation for modal impedance. Why? The reason is shown in Figure 6. The magnetic and electric elds in the outer conductors are zero (as they are perfect conductors). Therefore, the integral of the magnetic eld around the outer conducting loop is zero. But Amperes law then says that the net current enclosed by the loop (which is the waveguide) is zero. In the case of the microstrip line, for example, the return current is on the outside conductor of the waveguide. And this is what is assumed is ground, because the S-parameter port has the return current come back on its ground. Furthermore, the current I in the equation for impedance is the net current going down the guide on the interior conductors. Unfortunately, there are two problems with this denition. First, it is not unique as will be seen in a moment. Second, it is not always useful. Take the case of a differential pair working in the differential mode, as shown in Figure 7. The current in the two lines are equal and opposite. Therefore, the current I is 0, and the impedance of the mode is innite! This is certainly not a very useful denition of impedance. Normally the differential pair example would be thought of in terms of the voltage across the lines. Indeed, if the voltage between the signal line and ground impedance could be dened as:
Figure 6. The net current owing down the wave port is zero.

ZP I =

2P . I2

How is the voltage obtained? Voltage is the integral of the electric eld along a path. Make the two end points of the path the ground conductor and the signal conductor. Of course, it is also necessary to specify what path is wanted. Remember that there will be a different answer for different paths, unless there is a TEM mode. This denition of impedance solves the problem of the differential pair. The voltage calibration line could be drawn from the side of the waveguide to the positive signal line, as shown in Figure 7. This denition would give the odd impedance. Alternatively, the line could be drawn between the two signal lines giving the differential mode impedance, also shown in Figure 7. There are other impedance denitions possible. For example the impedance as some combination of the voltage and current denitions could be dened. The geometric mean of the current and voltage impedance denitions could be taken as the new denition of ground. The philosophy used here is that some combination of our previous denitions gives a better average of the other grounds. Which denition to use? There is no one right answer. For example, the voltage denition for microstrip lines, with the voltage line drawn from the signal line to the bottom of the waveguide might t better into our intuition of what impedance should be. However it is chosen, the impedance of the mode must be determined if the S-parameters are to be put into a circuit simulator. There are other ports that can be used in a 3D simulator. These types of ports are more closely related to the types of ports used in moment method simulators.
Figure 7. Odd and differential voltage, calibration lines for impedance.

AWR
AXIEM White Paper

MOMENT METHOD SIMULATORS AND PORTS

As has already been mentioned, moment methods work by solving for currents on the conducting lines. The port is used to excite the currents, and to determine the resulting S-parameters. The discussion begins by understanding the basic way in which moment methods work. Figure 8 shows a microstrip bend. The conductor is meshed into a series of rectangles. Triangles could also be used. Triangles have the advantage of being able to go around curved lines better. On each mesh, the current is approximated by a simple basis function. Typically, the current is assumed to vary linearly from one end of the rectangle to the other. Two rectangles together make a so called rooftop basis function. The currents are changing spatially. Conservation of charge (as required by Maxwells equations) says that current varying with distance requires there to be a charge on the line. As the user goes down the line, there are alternating positive and negative charges so that the total charge on the line is zero, as is true for the real line. The charges and currents interact with each other. For example, two charges have a capacitance between them. Two currents have a mutual inductance between them. Furthermore, each current has a self inductance between itself and ground, and each capacitance has a self capacitance to ground. In this case the ground is the bottom plane beneath the microstrip line. Now the discussion will turn to how ports are used in a moment method simulator. The port injects current into the EM simulator. This can be carried out in a variety of ways. For example, Figure 9 pictures what is known as an edge port, because it is at the end of the line. These ports can be viewed as a voltage source in series with an impedance that injects current into the line. The meshing for this example is also shown. Note the narrow mesh along the edge of the line, called edge meshing. This type of mesh has proven over the years to be accurate and efcient when modeling lines, as the current tends to concentrate at the edges of the line. The ground for the port can be seen in the equivalent circuit in Figure 9 for the edge port. The question is, where is this in the EM simulator? It depends on the details of the port. Consider a few different cases. The rst case is for MoM simulators in a box, for example EMSight or Sonnet [6]. Figure 10 shows an edge port, which has been calibrated. (Calibration is discussed below.) The port has been deembedded into the box, as shown by the arrow from the port. The reference plane for the port (phase of the incident wave is 0 degrees here) is at the end of arrow. The voltage source is applied across a small gap with the sidewall of the box, which is a perfect conductor. Current is injected into the line. The current comes from the sidewall, which is the ground reference of the port.
Figure 10. An edge port in a boxed simulator. Figure 9. Edge port and the equivalend circuit in a MoM simulator. edge meshing is shown. Figure 8. Moment methods mesh up the current as rooftop basis functions.

AWR
AXIEM White Paper

The second situation is a simulator with no box, for example AXIEM, Momentum [7], or IE3D [8]. It is not nearly as obvious where the ground is for this port. The answer depends on the how the port is implemented in the vendors software. In AXIEM, the ground can be dened in a variety of ways. If implicit grounding is used, the ground is actually at innity. At rst this does not sound like a useful denition. However, recall that if the ground plane is a perfect conductor extending to innity, it also will be at ground, as there is no voltage difference between it and the point at innity. It is also possible to have the edge port connected by means of a vertical current sheet to the metal above or below it. Figure 11 shows the edge port with the current sheet inserted to make connection to the bottom ground. In this situation, the bottom ground plane is the denition of ground; it is where the current is coming from. Note that the box is for graphing purposes only. AXIEM is not in a box. In conclusion, MoM simulators support a variety of ports. Each of them has its own ground denition. The easiest way to think of the ground is to appreciate that the current going out of the port into the circuit is coming from the ports ground.
Figure 11. The port is specically attached by a current sheet to the bottom conductor (ground).

DIFFERENTIAL AND COPLANAR PORTS

Signal integrity engineers are often interested in differential signals. Recall that the ground for the two ports is at innity (with implicit grounding). In differential operation, positive current goes into the rst port, and comes out the second port. The rst edge port has current coming in from innity. The second edge port has current going out to innity. The two currents going to innity are spatially distributed on the ground plane almost identically once they are away from the lines. They therefore will almost cancel perfectly, and the grounding at innity will not lead to much error. Differential lines are used in systems to reduce noise due to imperfections in the interconnect. The idea is that is whatever happens in one line, also happens in the other. Essentially, the line carries it own ground return with it; i.e. the other line. The differential mode is excited in the circuit simulators by exciting the two ports with opposite polarities. This is shown in Figure 12, using an MMCONV element, which is an easy way of generating a differential signal. Coplanar lines have a signal line with two grounds, one on each side of the line. Figure 13 shows the EM structure with six edge ports. Again, the implicit ground for all ports is at innity. This particular geometry does not have a ground plane underneath. The current at innity appears to have no way to return to the port, unlike the case of the microstrip line with a well dened ground plane. However, when the ports are excited properly in the schematic, it is possible to excite the coplanar modes, as well as the unwanted odd modes and radiation modes. The coplanar mode current contributions at innity again cancel, leading to reasonable results, without the need of an explicit ground plane underneath. This would not be possible if the implicit edge port were forced to have its ground on a ground plane beneath it.

Figure 12. Edge port and the equivalend circuit in a MoM simulator. edge meshing is shown.

Figure 13. A coplanar line. The six ports are combined in the schematic to get the coplanar modes.

AWR
AXIEM White Paper

CONCLUSION
It is important that the designer using S-parameters from an EM simulator understand where the ground is in the EM simulator, because ground is an important framework for how transmission lines are modeled and simulated. S-parameters assume there is a common ground between the ports, at least if they are to be used in a circuit simulator. This paper has discussed how circuit simulators work with S-parameters, including the tricks of balanced ports and exposed ground nodes. In order to understand grounding assumptions of the EM simulator, one must start by looking at the ports. All ports have some kind of grounding assumption. A good way to investigate this problem is to understand where the current going into the port is coming from. 3D simulators use this notion when they calculate the impedance of the port. Moment method simulators excite ports by a delta voltage source, which must be connected to ground. AWRs unique AXIEM tool is an exceptional choice for these types of applications because it provides true exibility that enbles the designer to specify where the ground reference is in the design.
Figure 14. A board to package transition with bond wires. The local ground is carried to the package.

REFERENCES
[1] Computer Methods for Circuit Analysis and Design, J. Vlach and K. Singhai, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 2003. [2] A general waveguide circuit theory, R.B. Marks and D.F. Williams, NIST Journal of Research, 97(5), pp. 533 562, 1992. [3] Microwave Engineering, Third Edition, David Pozar, John Wiley and Sons, NY, NY, 2005. [4] The Finite Element Method in Electromagnetics, Second Edition, Jianming Jin, John Wiley and Sons, NY, NY, 2002. [5] Field Theory of Guided Waves, Second Edition, Robert E. Collin, IEEE Press, NY, NY, 1999. [6] Sonnet Software, Syracuse, NY, www.sonnetsoftware.com [7] Momentum EM Simulator, Agilent Technologies, Santa Rosa, CA, eesof.tm.agilent.com. [8] IE3D EM Simulator, Zeland Software, Inc., www.zeland.com [9] De-embedding the effect of a local ground plane in electromagnetic analysis, James Rautio, Microwave Theory and Techniques, 53(2), pp. 770-776.

AWR, 1960 East Grand Avenue, Suite 430, El Segundo, CA 90245, USA Tel: +1 (310) 726-3000 Fax: +1 (310) 726-3005 www.awrcorp.com
Copyright 2010 AWR Corporation. All rights reserved. AWR and the AWR logo, and Microwave Ofce are registered trademarks and AXIEM, and EM Sight are trademarks of AWR Corporation. All others are property of their respective holders.