Screaming Circuits: Parts Form-factors

Push-me Pull-you LEDs

I may never get tired of talking about LED and diode polarities. It's so much fun. Not long ago, I wrote about two LEDs from the same manufacturer, marked with opposite polarities. I recently ran into another one, but at least this one tells you on the same datasheet. This image is an actual unmodified clip from the datasheet.

LED confusing polarityI can't for the life of me understand why this would be done on purpose. I could maybe understand if one was designed in a different building, but it couldn't have been too hard for someone to say: "Hey - wait a minute..." before sending these things off to manufacturing.

Of course, maybe they built a million before noticing and then just decided it would be easier to change the datasheet. Regardless, it's kind of nuts in my opinion.

The other thing here is that, while you can generally get away with the indicators "+/-" on an LED, you can't with all diodes. Thin Zener and TVS.

Duane Benson
Matter + antimatter makes what?
Does it really matter?
Does anybody really know what time it is?

Will a Via Fit Between?

I don't know that it would be accurate to say that BGA's have ever been easy, but with 0.4mm pitch being common and 0.3mm pitch showing up, some of the older size, like a WHOLE millimeter pitch seem 0.5mm pitch padspositively spacious. With 1mm and larger ball pitch, putting a via between the pads (not in the pads) is a no-brainer.

IPC-7095B classifies 0.8mm and smaller pitch as fine-pitch. It really starts to get complicated at around that point. For example, take a 0.5mm pitch BGA. Since we're looking to put a via between the pads, the diagonal pitch is the critical measurement. In this case, it's 0.71mm (17 mil). It might immediately seem like that's plenty of room for a 6 mil via, but upon closer examination, not so much.

0.5mm pitch pads viasIPC states that a 0.5mm pitch BGA will have a nominal pad diameter of 0.3 mm. It should be a non-soldermask defined pad, which will add about 0.07 mm to the pad diameter. That gives 0.44 mm total pad diameter. The radius is 0.22 mm (8 mil). Take that out of the 0.35 mm (14 mil) you have to work with and you're not left with much space.

If your fab house can do 3 mil trace and space, you will end up with enough room for a 0.06mm (5 mil) via, including annular ring. That's not much space. Most designers, at that point, will seriously consider putting the via in the land pad and having it filled and plated over. You can't leave the via open or un plated.

Duane Benson
All was in chaos, 'till Euclid arose and made order


More cautionary tails

I recently wrote about the horrors of LED marking variations. Unfortunately, LEDs aren't the only place to find inconsistencies in our world. Another part to keep a close eye on is the ubiquitous three-terminal voltage regulator. For just short of a million years, pretty much all three-terminal voltage regulators followed the 78XX convention. Lm7805 convention
It is not completely universal though. Is saying "completely universal" repetitive and redundant? There are some regulators that divert from convention in thru-hole and in SMT form-factors. Despite the overwhelming prevalence of the 74XX pin-out, you may find some parts that dispense with convention and can bite.

Take the LM1085, low drop out (LDO) regulator, for example. It looks, for all intents and purposes, to be a standard TO-220 or TO-263 three-pin regulator. You'd look at it and assume that it's a direct replacement for any old 75XX series. But, rather than In-Ground-Out, it's pinned as Ground-Out-In. The LM1117T is the same.

Mismatched SOT-223You might think: "Of course, it's different, the part numbering doesn't follow the 74XX number scheme." That sounds logical until you look at the LM2940. It follows the 74XX pin convention, as does the MIC39100. It's not the LDO specification that justifies change the pin-out either. The LM2940 is also an LDO.

Unlike the LED polarity issue, this one isn't as likely to bite you during assembly. The SMT regulators can only go onto the board one way. If your CAD library footprint is correct, it will be assembled correctly. The thru-hole can be easily reversed though if your silk-screen isn't clear. Marking pin 1 on the board (and checking the CAD footprint) is the recommended approach.

Duane Benson
In the land of the insane, only the sane are crazy.

How NOT to mark a diode

A while back, I wrote about ambiguity in the markings on electrolytic capacitors. In doing that, I cobbled together a little image to illustrate how surface mount electrolytics are marked. Take a look at the image below:


Note how I have illustrations showing how tantalum and metal can electrolytic capacitors are marked. Further note, that I have the capacitor schematic symbol there too. Finally, note that all three are oriented in the same direction. I have the plus side on the left and the negative side on the right.

Now for comparison, I have two nearly but not quite identical 0805 SMT LEDs in the following photo. Look at the photo of the two LEDs below. I did not alter this image in any way. The mark on the LED image could be interpreted either way. The bump could be seen as pointing toward the cathode, since it is the cathode mark. Or, The line could be on the side of the cathode. That would make sense because the line on the schematic symbol represents the cathode.

There's one final thing to look at - wait for the punchline:

Backwards markings

The punchline is that the  cathode is on the left on both of these LEDs in the photo. I have empirically determined that to be the case, both by putting them on a board and by subjecting them to a diode checker. Punchline number two is that both are correct according to their respective datasheets. The following excerpts from their respective data sheets shows the problem.Reverse marked LEDs

And, drum-roll please ... The third punchline is that both of these parts are from the same manufacturer!

If your board uses SMT LEDs, send the datasheet with your assembly order. Include it as a PDF in your files set. It would also behoove you to double check your CAD library footprint against your specific part number datasheet. IPC says the cathode is pin-one and pin-one zero degree orientation is with pin-one to the left.

Duane Benson

Forward, the LED pick and place
Was there a machine dismayed?
Not tho' the engineers knew
Someone had blundered
Cathodes to right of them
Cathodes to left of them
Cathodes behind them
And I cannot reason why

More Beagle CAD Paws

Continuing on from my last post...

As I said, I do everything I can to avoid re-using the package footprint when adding the the parts library in Eagle CAD. The schematic symbol can be a different story though. It still takes a lot of caution, but it's less risky (in my opinion) than reusing the package footprint.

Eagle version 6 made some improvements in the way copy and paste works. It's still a little different from your typical word processor, but it's not that difficult.

Eagle footprint menu bar 3 buttonsBut before I get to that, I want to mention one item that caused me a fair amount of confusion early on. And that's the way all of this fits together. There are three buttons you will need to worry about. From left to right in the green oval are; the device, the package footprint, and the schematic symbol. In my last post, I pointed out the package footprint and today I'm talking about the schematic symbol.

Really, you only build the footprint and the schematic symbol. Then you connect the two up to create the devices. And, you can build the footprint or schematic symbol in either order, but you have to have them both before the last step (the icon in the green oval with four little AND gates).

If you're using a chip that comes in a couple of different packages (e.g. DIP28, SOIC28, TSSOP28) you most likely only need to make one schematic symbol. You can make the multiple footprints and connect them up in the device section as different variants of the same part.

There are a few exceptions though. Sometimes QFN, QFP or BGA parts will have a few extra pins. In those cases, it may be better to create a different schematic symbol.

Duane Benson
This solder paste stencil glows blue when goblins are around

Beagle CAD paw prints

Unfortunately, I can't generically hand out Eagle CAD QFN footprints without knowing the specific part, but I can illustrate the areas I initially had difficulty with. All of the traps that used to get me seem blindingly obvious now, but they weren't when I first tried to make my own library parts.

The very first thing I would recommend is to make your own library file. When I started in with my own parts, I would just add them to an existing library. For example, I'd put a new Microchip PIC processor into the "microchip.lbr" library. It seemed the logical choice because there are other similar parts to start with. But, when it's time to upgrade, migration of those custom parts becomes a nightmare. So, now all of my custom parts go into "dfb-parts.lbr."

Eagle footprint menu barSpeaking of modifying existing parts, another recommendation I have is, except for parts where the package footprint is EXACTLY the same, start from scratch with the package footprint.

The schematic symbol is easier to reuse - just make sure you have the right pins in the right place - but subtle differences in the copper footprint can have a big difference at the assembly stage.

Datasheet footprint page land patternI also don't try to hand size and hand position the pads on the silk screen. Start by just putting a pad in the footprint area. The use the Properties/Info button (the big "i") and use the dimensions given in the data sheet to enter the size and position by number.

Look for the "recommended land pattern" or similar diagram toward the end of the component datasheet. Entering the numbers in the Properties/Info box will bypass any position precision issues. Just make sure that you use the right units (i.e. metric to metric).

Stay tuned for the next installment.

Duane Benson
World to end at 9:30. Details at 11:00

Let's Get Small, as in 0.3mm

Not long ago, I wrote about a 0.3mm pitch wafer scale BGA we received and were asked to place. The gist of that article was that those parts are very small and we d0n't yet have a process that we feel will give the quality, reliability and consistency that we want to deliver. That means officially, we don't, at the moment, support that form-factor.

However, as it turned out, we went ahead and built it and the x-rays all said it looked good. Whew! We still don't officially support it, but we're working on it. If you have one of these things, you can always give us a call and see if it's something our manufacturing engineers are comfortable with. If they say "sure, send it in", It will be a non-standard, essentially, experimental, operation so our normal guarantees won't apply. It will be "we'll do our best."

But that's not the point. The point is that there are still a number of unanswered questions with 0.4mm pitch, and now we have a smaller one??!!

I've only seen 0.3mm pitch in two places: some data from Amkor, and the data sheet for this part.The part in questions is a Maxim MAX98304 Mono 3.2 Watt Class D amplifier. The entire package is just 1mm x 1mm.

There is still a lot of difference of opinion on solder mask defined (SMD) vs. non solder mask defined (NSMD) at super small pitch like this. For BGAs 0.5mm and lager, the general consensus and IPC recommendation is NSMD. At 0.4mm, the Beabgleboard folks at Ti recommend SMD to reduce bridging. But I've had other folks say they get good results with NSMD. For 0.4mm, we've had best results with SMD. It's more than just that though, you also need to religiously follow the manufacturer's recommended pad sizes and such.

Shrinking BGA pitchFor this part, the datasheet shows the pad size (0.18mm), but doesn't cover the SMD vs. NSMD question. Instead, it refers to a Maxim app note (#1891) for that bit of information.

Of course, this is where it gets sticky. That app note, as of this writing, shows 0.5mm and 0.4mm, but no 0.3mm. It does reference IPC-7351, which is a very good thing, but I don't think IPC-7351 has 0.3mm pitch covered yet. Ugh. The 0.3mm part we placed used SMD pads.

Duane Benson
It's not just Facebook where you can designate something: "It's complicated."


It (.3 mm) Finally Happened

Back in January of 2012, I wrote about the possibility of 0.3 mm pitch BGAs being used here and there. I predicted that in a year, we'd see some 0.3 mm pitch BGAs showing up. I was about three month's off. Almost to the day.

I delivered a session at PCBWest last month and asked if anyone had used a part with that pitch yet. One hand went up. That actually surprised me. What surprised me even more was when one of them (a .3mm pitch BGA, not a hand) arrived on our shipping dock in a parts kit earlier this week.

0.3mm pitch trimFor comparison, the land pattern for an 0402 passive component is about one millimeter long. This specific part is just shy of a millimeter square. Even as small as it is, this part can supply 750 mA continuous. The olden days are so very long gone.

We do many, many complex parts and PCBs. We've put 5,000 parts on a single PC board. We've built boards to be shot up in rockets and dunked way down in the ocean. Some very crazy stuff has come though our shop, but we don't do everything. We don't do 01005 passive components at the moment. Our machines have the technical capability, but we don't rework them, which has to go along with the assembly capability, so we don't support that form factor for now. 0.3mm pitch components pretty much fall into that camp. Our machines can physically pick up and place the component, but until we've developed to process to assemble those parts with the quality people expect from us, we won't be supporting them.

I expect we'll be getting more and more requests for the form factor, so we'll be looking at it. Keep checking back. One of these days, we'll have the process down and reliable.

Duane Benson
It's (Huey mm, Dewey mm, and Louie mm)/10

Connectors Kill

Lot's of types of components can cause footprint woes. QFNs have their center pad issues. BGAs have escape via issues. But the most common footprint issues seem to be with connectors. At least with chips Connector footprint 2smand discrete silicon and passive components most manufacturers pretty much follow IPC standard footprints. Sometimes they'll create new ones for smaller parts, but generally they still stay reasonably close to in line.

Connector footprint 1smConnectors are another story though. I'm not sure any manufacturer follows anything close to a standard. This pair of ethernet jacks is a good example. Often the actual pin layout will match, but the mounting will vary widely. I've seen it on ethernet, mini-USB, micro-USB and even the old, old RS232 connector.

It gets more frustrating when they're almost the same. We see that a lot; the layout will almost, but not quite match a footprint in the library. The bottom line is never take a connector footprint for granted. Always double check before getting your boards fabbed.

Duane Benson
Carburetors man. That's what life is all about.

"Shrinky Dink"

I had some "Shrinky Dinks" when I was a kid. Amazingly you can still buy them. You can also use that concept in your prototyping. I did that recently. I have a robot board design that I'd like to shrink about in half and add in a LiPoly charger chip. Most of the design came from something I had built previously, but the charger chip was new to me as was the compression needed to meet my size goals. Sadly, you can't just put your PCB in the oven and have it shrink like a Shrinky Dink. Maybe if you could put stretchy copper traces on it so they wouldn't peel of while the substrate shrinks...

The charger comes in both DFN-10 and MSOP-10 packages and the MCU comes in SOIC and QFN packages. The QFN is the 44 pin version while the SOIC is the 28 pin version of the chip. Same core. Just more I/O.

LBDC Li LBDCmini pRather than test my ability to shrink and the use of the LiPoly charger at the same time, I added it into the original design without changing the size. There's much more room for probing or even for adding test points if I needed them. Once that design checked out okay (which it did), I just went into the schematic editor, changed the SOIC to the QFN package, the MSOP to the DFN and most of the passives to 0402 packages. I really didn't have to make any changes to the schematic.

That almost worked perfectly. The 28 pin MCU doesn't come in a variant with a QFN package, so I couldn't just change the package type in the schematic editor. I had to delete the SOIC version, place and wire in the 44 pin QFN variant. I made a few other changes too. I added in a QFN packaged RS232 driver and a hard power switch. In the original, I had envisioned a soft power switch but I changed my mind. I also had to modify the library parts to make sure that the solder paste layer on the QFN and DFN parts fit our guidelines. Lastly, I removed some LEDs that I only had on the board for debugging purposes.

The most important two considerations were watching out for physical part interference and getting the paste layer correct on the QFN/DFN parts.

Duane Benson
It's the size of a small walnut