Design for Profitability: Avoiding Fabrication Issues and Minimizing Costly Revisions


Reading time ( words)

Note that I use the term “design for profitability,” or DFP, as opposed to any of the other acronyms such as DFM (design for manufacturability), DFT (design for test), or DFA (design for assembly). I’m taking this approach because it really all comes down to profit, doesn’t it?

Designers have the power to design profit into the board, or, conversely, inadvertently increase costs and remove profit from the PCB. In this article I am going to go over just a few of the challenges that fabricators routinely face and some typical solutions, especially solutions that can affect your bottom line.

I will start with DFM. Generally, this is the first stage for prototyping and DFM depends greatly on the capabilities of your chosen fab shop. Some designs are finished with autorouters after the critical traces have been hand-placed. It is at this point that unintended issues can arise between design and fab.

An example of this is same net-spacing violations where a track may “double back” near a surface mounted component, creating same-net spacing violations (Figure 1). Whereas the software does not see these as legit violations because they are same net, a fabricator knows that any features creating spaces below 0.003” can easily flake off at the image stage and create havoc elsewhere in the form of shorts. Edit time must be taken at the fab stage when these same-net spacing violations occur and the slivers eliminated. Some CAM software packages have a sliver fill option, but again this requires additional edit time at CAM.

Read the full article here.


Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the March 2013 issue of The PCB Design Magazine.

Share

Print


Suggested Items

Just Ask Heidi Barnes: The Exclusive Compilation

01/15/2021 | I-Connect007 Editorial Team
We asked for your questions for Keysight Technologies' Heidi Barnes, and you took us up on it! We know you all enjoyed reading these questions and answers, so we’ve compiled all of them into one article for easy reference. We hope you enjoy having another bite at the apple.

TTM’s Approach to Stackup Design: Train the Customer

01/12/2021 | I-Connect007 Editorial Team
In this interview with the I-Connect007 Editorial Team, TTM’s Julie Ellis and Richard Dang drill down into stackup design, detailing some of the common stackup challenges that their customers face when designing for both prototype and volume levels, and offering advice to designers or engineers who are struggling with stackup issues. They also discuss why having too many different prepregs in a stackup can be asking for trouble, and how proper stackup design can optimize both the fabrication and assembly processes.

Cutting Respins: Journey to the Single-spin PCB

01/07/2021 | Chris Young, The Goebel Company
PCB design is more than a short sprint to the finish line; it is a journey best suited for the prepared adventurer. According to a study by Lifecycle Insights, the average PCB design project requires 2.9 respins. These respins can cost anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of dollars—each! As an engineer/business owner, I find respins frustrating because I would rather spend my time and money applying scientific principles inventing, improving technology, and solving problems. I am not an advocate for perfectionism, but rather I focus on becoming a better adventurer. Sometimes I get to taste the sweet wine that is a single spin PCB. As fellow adventurers, let’s discuss some topics that influence unnecessary return trips on our PCB design journey: simulation, technical reviews, and interest in PCB design.



Copyright © 2021 I-Connect007. All rights reserved.