0
\$\begingroup\$

If I were to make a make a footprint, even for a simple component like a 0603 cap, and the manufacturers recommendation differs from IPC-7351, would it be recommended to start with the manufacturers footprint or the IPC footprint? A very specific example is the TDK C1608X5R1A475K080AE where TDK would have me make a pad that is 0.6~0.8 mm wide and IPC-7351 would have me make a pad that is 1.0 mm wide, with differing lengths as well.

In the end, I would think that a lot of influence for this decision would come from the CM (contract manufacturer) that is holding the ball with respect to assembly reliability but without CM input, what is the general thinking on a good starting point.

Bias: Sometimes I wonder what good IPC is as I interpret it as simply collecting and dissemination information about existing practices and by definition, always behind the curve on assembly techniques. None the less, I am still looking for a comment or opinion on my question.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

IPC is a "generic" standard, so it is specified to work with all products that fit in the relevant category. An engineer, having designed a device and knowing its properties can make a specific plan that is adequate to the product in question.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks, but what I was really hoping for was to hear from someone that had a specific experience that clearly drove the decision of footprint choice in one direction or another. An example might be how a a problem like cracking or solder adhesion was fixed or made worse by a particular choice. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ken
    Jan 29 at 15:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Or, to put it another way, when does IPC-7351 fail and when does IPC-7351 really shine. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ken
    Jan 29 at 17:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.