46 The PCB Design Magazine • May 2015
International , vol., no., pp.407,409, 28-30 May
1980 doi: 10.1109/MWSYM.1980.1124303.
[3] S. Hall, H. Heck, "Advanced Signal Integ-
rity for High-Speed Digital Design," John Wiley
& Sons.
[4] Huray, P. G. (2009) "The Foundations of
Signal Integrity," John Wiley & Sons.
[5] Y. Shlepnev, "PCB and package design up
to 50 GHz: Identifying dielectric and conductor
roughness models," The PCB Design Magazine,
February 2014, p. 12-28.
[6] Y. Shlepnev, "Sink or swim at 28 Gbps,"
The PCB Design Magazine, October 2014, p.
12–23.
[7] E. Bogatin, D. DeGroot , P. G. Huray,
Y. Shlepnev , "Which one is better? Compar-
ing Options to Describe Frequency Dependent
Losses," DesignCon2013 Proceedings, Santa
Clara, CA, 2013.
[8] Wikipedia, "Close-packing of equal
spheres."
[9] Simberian Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada.
CANNONBALL STACk FOR CONDuCTOR ROuGHNESS MODELING continues
article
Figure 12: Cannonball model (left) vs hammerstad-Jensen model (right).
Figure 13: Close-packing of equal sphere model variations. hexagonal close-packing of equal spheres,
hCPes (left) as described in DesignCon 2015 paper
[1]
; square close-packing of equal spheres, sCPes
(center); and triangular close-packing of equal spheres, TCPes (right).
