Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
I agree with you, besides these two vias unnecessarily close together, having so much space available, there are significant other flagrant inconsistencies that would not be expected from a usual layout design.
I'm missing a complete design parameter description, in commonly understood terms.
Descriptions like "track between via to via" are at least ambiguous. I think an annotated drawing would be much clearer. Furthermore, drill diameter can't be chosen without considering aspect ratio, in other words specifying the board thickness.
As a general suggestion, contact manufacturers who are qualified for HDI (high density interconnect) PCB, get their design rules.
0.075mm is currently probably the smallest trace width (by the way metric is the std units lest use them, try reading the IPC-7351 stuff, mainly relating to the grid sizes (0.05mm basic), most modern components are metric, as is everything else, lets bring PCB design into the 21st century please.) that can be easily manufactured, often seen now on impedance matched boards, 0.1mm track and gap is pretty common and has been for over a decade with BGA designs.
Via sizes depend on number of layers you are going through, had drilled down to 0.2mm finish.
Hi Kethness,
Common fabrication houses have limited competency to produce 2mil pad ring. Consult with your workshop if they can do it.
Your board cost will increase as you go lower on trace width and gap. Widely used trace width and gap is 6 mils and via pad ring is 10 mils.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.