More Beagle CAD Paws

Continuing on from my last post

As I said, I do everything I can to avoid reusing 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 v.  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’s generally better to create a different schematic symbol.

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

Connectors Kill

Lots 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.

How to Build a Footprint

Well, not really how to build one in a technical sense, but some thoughts on how to better ensure that you get it right. In theory, it shouldn’t be that difficult. You download the datasheet and build the land pattern based on the information in the datasheet. That usually works, but not always.

I had a through-hole battery holder that didn’t match up with any of the land patterns in my library, so I modified one that was close. That worked mostly okay, but there was one measurement in the data sheet that was a little ambiguous. I ended up with the mounting holes being off by a millimeter or so. Not too much, but enough to make the fit difficult.

I went in and shifted the leads over by the same amount, used it again, got another PCB fabbed and discovered that I had shifted the pins the wrong way! Then it hit me. In the first application, I had the battery holder on the bottom side of the PCB but I had looked at it through the mounting holes from the top side of the PCB. D’oh! One reason why I’m not a professional designer.

The other part was a little tiny SMT trim pot. Since there are pretty close to a million different little trim pots, the likelihood of me finding an exact match in my CAD library was precisely zero. I didn’t want to Gieger VR mistake close re-invent the little zig zag resistor symbol, so I just found a part that looked the same. Well, it was almost the same. The footprint I found is for a 4 x 4mm part and the part I ordered is 3 x 3mm. That’s a tiny trim pot. Somehow, when looking at the datasheet, I got the measurements wrong. Once the part came in the mail, it was quite obviously too small.

The pad pretty much ends right at the edge of the trim pot. We won’t be able to reflow that part. No solder paste would be touching the pads on the trim pot. I’ll see if our guys on the floor can figure out how to get the thing soldered on there. If they can’t, I’ll need to look for a larger part to put in it’s place.

Fortunately, I physically looked at the part and the PCB before assembly. Unfortunately, I got the measurements wrong. If at all possible, get some sample parts before you order your PCBs. Then you can print out a 1:1 image of your PCB and lay the parts out on it. That would have saved me in both of the above cases.

Duane Benson
Is it “datasheets” or “data sheets”?