Skip to content
DenseChip
Learn
PracticeCode labInterview

DenseChip

Navigate

Menu

LearnPracticeCode labInterview

Tools

All toolsSV editorCode repoResume
DenseChip

Practice, courses, and chip-design tools in one focused workspace.

LearnPracticeCode labInterviewToolsLearning paths

© 2026 DenseChip

AboutContactPrivacyTerms
Skip to lesson

Course contents

  • How to Use This Course
  • Reading Path
  • STA Glossary
  • STA Metrics Reference
  • STA Mastery Cheatsheet
  • Timing Paths and Checks16
  • Constraints & SDC Fundamentals20
  • Delay Graph & Path Analysis16
  • Beyond Setup and Hold16
  • Multi-Corner Multi-Mode Signoff16
  • OCV, AOCV, POCV and Variation16
  • Crosstalk and Noise16
    • Delta Delay Mechanism
    • Noise and Glitch Analysis
    • SI ECO Fix Order
      • Fix Order
      • Spacing and Shielding
      • Victim and Aggressor Changes
      • Verifying SI Fixes
    • SI Signoff Reports
  • ECO and Closure16
  • STA Debug Playbook16
  • STA Interview Prep26
  • Capstone Timing Signoff Lab4
Loading lesson

‹SI ECO Fix Order
  1. Topics
  2. Static Timing Analysis
  3. Crosstalk and Noise
  4. SI ECO Fix Order
  5. Spacing and Shielding

Part 7 · Crosstalk and Noise · All levels

Spacing and Shielding

Spacing reduces coupling capacitance roughly in inverse proportion; shielding turns coupling into ground capacitance, removing the variation without raising nominal delay in this model, at the cost of tracks.

On this page

    Why it matters

    Spacing and shielding are the physical fixes. They cost routing resources, so it is worth knowing what they deliver. A first-order estimate shows both the gain and the price.

    Worked example

    example.py
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    R, Cg, Cc0 = 2000.0, 8.0, 6.0
    def d(c):                                         # lumped delay in ps
        return 0.69 * R * c / 1000.0
    rows = {}
    for label, spacing in (("minimum", 1.0), ("1.5x", 1.5), ("2x", 2.0)):
        cc = Cc0 / spacing                            # first order: coupling falls as spacing grows
        worst, quiet = d(Cg + 2 * cc), d(Cg + cc)
        rows[label] = (round(worst, 2), round(worst - quiet, 2))
    assert rows == {"minimum": (27.6, 8.28), "1.5x": (22.08, 5.52), "2x": (19.32, 4.14)}
    shield_delay = d(Cg + Cc0)                        # coupling becomes ground capacitance: k = 1 whatever the aggressor does
    assert round(shield_delay, 2) == 19.32
    print("PASS: (worst delay, delta) by spacing", rows, "; shielded delay", round(shield_delay, 2), "with delta 0")

    Option

    Worst-case delay (ps)

    Delta vs quiet (ps)

    Minimum spacing

    27.60

    8.28

    1.5x spacing

    22.08

    5.52

    2x spacing

    19.32

    4.14

    Shielded (modelled as all coupling to ground)

    19.32

    0

    Doubling the spacing halves the coupling and cuts the worst-case delay from 27.60 to 19.32 ps while keeping a delta of 4.14 ps. Shielding gives the same worst-case delay in this model but with no variation at all: the shielded delay of 19.32 ps equals the quiet nominal of 19.32 ps, so shielding does not raise nominal delay here. What it does is lower the worst case (27.6 to 19.32 ps) and give up the best-case speed-up (11.04 ps). Nominal delay rises only if the shield adds ground capacitance beyond the coupling it replaces, and shielding costs tracks. The inverse proportionality is a rough rule; real coupling depends on layer, height and the other neighbours, and spacing a wire away from one aggressor can move it closer to another.

    What the review looks for

    • Spacing and shielding changes are checked against routing capacity: an ECO that cannot be routed has no value.

    • Shielded nets have their nominal delay re-checked, since the ground capacitance is now always present.

    • Spacing changes are re-extracted: the new parasitics, not the estimate, decide the result.

    Common pitfall

    Counting the shield as free. It removes the variation but costs tracks, and the net gives up its best-case speed-up (11.04 ps becomes 19.32 ps here); wherever the shield adds ground capacitance beyond the coupling it replaces, nominal delay rises too.

    Interview

    Say what shielding does to delta (removes it) and to nominal delay (unchanged in this model: worst case falls to nominal, best-case speed-up is given up, tracks are spent).

    Check yourself Why does the worst-case delay at 2x spacing equal the shielded delay in this model?

    At 2x spacing the coupling is 3 fF, so the worst case is 8 + 2×3 = 14 fF; shielding makes the effective load 8 + 6 = 14 fF. Both give 14 fF, so 19.32 ps; the model is simple, and in practice the two would differ.

    Related topics

    • Fix Order

    • Next: Victim and Aggressor Changes

    Previous

    115 / 183

    Next: Victim and Aggressor Changes

    Up next

    Up nextVictim and Aggressor Changes

    Sign in to save progress

    Practice this lessonReport an error

    See also

    • Verifying SI Fixes