Challenges in verifying an integrated 3D design

Yip,; Hung, Jui-Chung; Iyengar,

doi:10.1109/date.2012.6176454

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

) Drc1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2014

Publication Types

Select...

Other1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With automatic footprint generation (for the interposer) such mistakes can be avoided. Another typical example is alignment drift, which can be caused by cumulative errors in the coordinates (e.g., different rounding of numbers in different tools) [12]. If the distance between dies and interposer are further reduced, interactions between neighboring structures (e.g., parallel transmission lines) need to be considered as well.…”

Section: ) Drcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design rule check and layout versus schematic for 3D integration and advanced packaging

Fischbach

Heinig

Schneider

2014

2014 International 3D Systems Integration Conference (3DIC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we will present a solution for automatic design rule checking (DRC) and layout versus schematic comparison (LVS) of 2.5D/3D systems, which enables an early check of subcomponents as well as whole system checks. The advantage of our approach is the unique data handling for different DRC and LVS runs, which allows the automatic derivation of partial design data from one single data base. Such an approach is essential for industrial driven designs of 2.5/3D systems. Otherwise, there is a high risk of mistakes related to data conversion and versioning problems. Such data handling issues can result in erroneous designs and cost extensive redesigns

show abstract

Section: ) Drcmentioning

confidence: 99%