DESIGNERCOUNCIL Archives

July 2000

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:
"Olson, Jack" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
DesignerCouncil E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:40:29 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (10 lines)
Ok you guys, I need a quick survey here....

I seem to have gotten myself into a big raging discussion here about whether library footprints should be created (and placed) using the nominal dimensions or the maximum dimensions.
Most companies have some kind of placement standard that says something like "don't place discretes closer than 30mils to each other" and similar guidelines for different types of parts. I would think the 30 mils is for the pick-n-place machine to have a little room to work, save some space in case the part needs to be reworked manually, and take into account any variations in component size.

For example, if I make an 0603 footprint, I make it assuming the part is 60mils by 30mils, which is the nominal size. If a part comes in at 61x31 we have already allowed a 30mil gap to the next part, so it shouldn't matter. We use this 60x30 rectangle for DRC checking, back and forth to mech department, etc.

Now some are saying we should be using the MAXIMUM size, which I don't think buys too much and creates other headaches (different vendors list different tolerances, etc) so I would like to know how YOUR library is created.
NOMINAL or MAXIMUM?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2