TECHNET Archives

April 2019

TechNet@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:
HEAD James <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, HEAD James <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:47:07 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
I've often had to implement specific creepage requirements on Inch 1206, Metric 3212 chip resistors for IECEx and ATEX requirements.

As you already say, first you have to ensure that the creepage requirement is met between the terminals of the chip resistor.

Generally my first preference is to use a custom footprint where the creepage requirement is met, and if appropriate have extra copper land on the other sides if necessary. Otherwise it's a case of going up to either Inch 2010, Metric 5025 or Inch 2512, Metric 6332 in chip resistor size. For ATEX and IECEx they  require an "infallible" connection with a pad width of 2 mm  or greater for a safety-critical component as well.

Also, but not preferable, sometimes a small slot can be routed or peck drilled between the copper lands, where the clearance requirement can be met rather than creepage. This can add in other potential problems though that could cause poor assembly so is best avoided if you can.

Regards,

James

ATOM RSS1 RSS2