Substrate Resistance Modeling by Combination of BEM and FEM Methodologies

  • E. Schrik
  • N. P. van der Meijs
Conference paper
Part of the Mathematics in Industry book series (MATHINDUSTRY, volume 4)


In present-day IC’s, substrate noise can have a significant impact on performance. Thus, modeling the noise-propagation characteristics of the substrate is becoming ever more important. Two ways of obtaining such a model are the Finite Element Method (FEM) and the Boundary Element Method (BEM). The FEM makes a full 3D discretization of the entire substrate and is very accurate and flexible, but, in general, it is also slow. The BEM only discretizes contact areas on the substrate-boundary, and is usually faster, but less flexible, because it assumes the substrate to consist of uniform layers. Sometimes, layout-dependent doping patterns near the top of the substrate may also play a significant role in noise-propagation. The FEM would easily be able to model such patterns, but it can often be too slow. The BEM, on the other hand, might not always be accurate enough. This paper describes a combination between BEM and FEM, which results in a method that is faster than FEM but more accurate than BEM. Through a number of experiments, the method is validated and successfully verified against 2 commercially available tools.


Boundary Element Method Voronoi Polygon Finite Element Meet Method Interface Mesh Impose Dirichlet Boundary Condition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    N.K. Verghese, T. Schmerbeck, and D.J. Allstot. Simulation Techniques and Solutions for Mixed-Signal Coupling in ICs. Kluwer, Boston, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    X. Aragones, J.L. Gonzalez, and A. Rubio. Analysis and Solutions for Switching Noise Coupling in Mixed-Signal ICs. Kluwer, Boston, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Smedes, N. P. van der Meijs, and A.J. van Genderen. Extraction of Circuit Models for Substrate Cross-Talk. In Proceedings ICCAD, pages 199–206, San Jose, California, November 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Strang and G.J. Fix. An Analysis of the Finite Element Method. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1973.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C.A. Brebbia. The Boundary Element Method for Engineers. Pentech Press, Plymouth, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Schrik and N.P. van der Meijs. Combined BEM/FEM Substrate Resistance Modeling. In Proceedings 39th DAC, pages 771–776, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.M. Dewilde and E. B. Nowacka. Circuit Models for the Hybrid Element Method. In Proceedings ISCAS, pages IV 616–619, Atlanta, Georgia, May 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Beeftink, A.J. van Genderen, N.P. van der Meijs, and J. Poltz. Deep-Submicron ULSI Parasitics Extraction Using Space. In Design Automation and Test in Europe, Designer Track, pages 81–86, February 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.F. Harrington. Field Computation by Moment Methods. Macmillan, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Schrik, P.M. Dewilde, and N.P. van der Meijs. Theoretical and Practical Validation of Combined BEM/FEM Substrate Resistance Modeling. In Proceedings ICCAD, pages 10–15, San Jose, California, November 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Schrik
    • 1
  • N. P. van der Meijs
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of Technology / DIMESDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations