DESIGNERCOUNCIL Archives

February 2007

DesignerCouncil@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Denis Lefebvre <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
(Designers Council Forum)
Date:
Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:48:16 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (76 lines)
No, you won't find it documented anywhere, "Thou Shalt Not" run a trace
under a 1005. BUT.. You should not need a standard to justify "good and
acceptable design practice" 

How about this:

To route a trace under a 1005 resistor or cap falls in a category called
"Design to Fail". 

1) there is scarcely enough clearance to run even a really small trace
under a 1005. If your land patterns are built to IPC-7351, you've only
got about 0.25 mm or less between the lands. There is no room for a
reasonable clearance.

2) IF you could fit the trace, it's likely that the solder mask oversize
around the lands will expose the trace resulting in a very high
probability of solder bridging in a location that is hidden from view.

3) Consider the profile... Land area = base Cu + additive Cu + finish.
Trace = base Cu + additive Cu + Solder Mask. The solder mask coating is
MUCH thicker than the surface finish on the land area. This sets up a
HIGH spot between the lands, an excellent fulcrum on which the part can
teeter. This dramatically increases the likelihood of tomb stoning.

So, bottom line is; If it is your heart's desire for the board to be a
top candidate for failure, go ahead - run a trace under your 1005's. 
On the other hand, if you want the circuit to actually work... Do not
run traces under your 1005's.


Denis Lefebvre, CID+
Sr. PCB Designer
Finisar Corporation
(408)542-3832

-----Original Message-----
From: DesignerCouncil [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Tempea, Ioan
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DC] Traces between 0402 pads

> Dear colleagues,
> 
> is there any standard saying that traces should not be routed between
0402 pads, i.e. under the component? I have a serious discussion and
really need to back it up with a formal document.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ioan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using
LISTSERV 1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF
DesignerCouncil.
To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET
DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL) Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org >
On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives Please visit IPC web
site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100
ext.2815
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2