1
\$\begingroup\$

Is it possible to get KiCad to represent and then enforce (via design rules) the inclusion of copper pours? Something like this:-

fill

I know it can be done manually at the layout stage, but can it be incorporated into Eeschema and the layout editor? If you have several pours/planes it all gets complicated. I can't find any suitable component in the schematic library, and clearly you can't have a predefined footprint. So there appears to be no way to capture a pour on the schematic, other than in my (unchecked) graphical manner. Is there a cheat?


Idea (feature request): Not great, but Eeschema could include a pour component like it has an oscilloscope component. And then the layout editor could enforce that the pour component has been at least associated with a copper pour (notwithstanding it's geometry).

\$\endgroup\$
9
  • \$\begingroup\$ In the schematic, it's just a node in the netlist. You could label the node to give it a name that's easier to read than the autogenerated name. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the intention, but if you wanted two copper pours that are DC shorted to be different nodes (to help routing) then in principle would have to connect them with a 0 ohm resistance. Maybe this is possible with a dummy footprint but I believe they would look like they're shorted (which they are) to the layout module, which would normally be a bad layout... \$\endgroup\$
    – Pete W
    Mar 3, 2021 at 16:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ ...in that situation (not what you have drawn), perhaps you could add a 0 ohm resistor in the schematic to make the pours distinct modes, do the routing, then remove the 0 ohm and tie them together in layout \$\endgroup\$
    – Pete W
    Mar 3, 2021 at 16:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you want to just enforce the existence of a pour, I don't believe the KiCad schematic module has any awareness of a pour being different from a trace. Maybe a dummy footprint with just one pad? (but then it would add an unwanted line item on the BOM etc...) \$\endgroup\$
    – Pete W
    Mar 3, 2021 at 16:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PeteW Re.BOM: It could be labelled "POUR" or "FILL" to clarify. \$\endgroup\$
    – Paul Uszak
    Mar 3, 2021 at 17:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ Maybe. My feeling is anything on a BOM that is unusual in the slightest way will create a request for clarification sooner or later. (maybe from a vendor, maybe from another engineer in the future saying "what is this, why is it DNP, can we remove it etc"). But I haven't really tried and don't know KiCad super well so take all this with a grain of salt... \$\endgroup\$
    – Pete W
    Mar 3, 2021 at 18:01

3 Answers 3

3
\$\begingroup\$

No.

How would such a feature work anyway? What would be the boundaries of pour1 and pour2? You could perhaps envision a pour outline as a part of a footprint, but that is also not possible (and would still create all sorts of issues during layout).

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well, not great, but Eeschema could include a pour component like it has an oscilloscope component. And then the layout editor could enforce that the pour component has been at least associated with a copper pour (notwithstanding it's geometry). \$\endgroup\$
    – Paul Uszak
    Mar 3, 2021 at 17:17
1
\$\begingroup\$

Another place where you could ask this question is kicad.info. They've helped me out in the past. (it's a little slower pace than here, so give them a couple days).

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

That's why you do design reviews and have quality checklist before boards are released

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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