Component Selection for Easier Design and Manufacture of Electronics


Reading time ( words)

“Simplify, simplify, simplify.”

                      —Henry David Thoreau 

Thoreau penned his simple lifestyle mantra more than 150 years ago and it still as valid today as it was when he first captured and recorded his thoughts on paper. He was not the first to extoll the importance of simplicity, but he said it in a memorable way.

Achieving simplicity has been deemed a worthy objective by many philosophers over centuries, and people often profess to seek simplicity in their lives. In the world of high tech, simplicity is arguably one of the foundational objectives of most of the technologies that surround us today. Certainly this is true in terms of how product designers are trying to create interfaces that allow even the most nontechnical users to get what they need from electronic products with a minimum of hassle.

However, that interface simplicity is undergirded by a massively complex electromechanical substructure of circuits, sensors and components. Pop open any high-end electronic device and you will be met by an impressive mass of densely packed components and circuits. Presently, those components are available in a wide array of formats, with a number of different lead shapes and forms along with the device’s mechanical outline. Presently, there are J-leads, I-leads, gull-wing leads, posts, balls and no leads at all. Mechanical outlines are generally square and rectangular, but the bodies can have a wide range of dimensions in X, Y and Z. While area array technology has helped to make things smaller, it has also upped the complexity factor from a design perspective by mixing grids and land shapes and sizes.

Why so many options? It is because there is not, nor has there ever been, a truly coherent approach to the process of selecting package structures for ICs or any other components for that matter. Yes, a roadmap for electronic component lead pitch was introduced with the advent of SMT, and that roadmap said that every next-generation lead pitch should be 80% of the size of the previous generation lead pitch.

Read the full article here.


Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the November 2014 issue of The PCB Design Magazine.

Share


Suggested Items

PCB Cooling Strategies, Part 1

01/17/2018 | Bin Zhou, EDADOC
With the development of communication and IT industries and the ever-increasing demand for information analysis, many chip makers have racked their brains trying to provide customers with better technology, such as increased computing power and storage capacity of chips as well as diversifying their product offerings.

Streamlining Thermal Design of PCBs

01/10/2018 | Dr. John Parry, CEng, Mentor
When designing a PCB, thermal issues are often locked in at the point of selecting and laying out the chip package for the board. After that, only remedial actions are possible if the components are running too hot. Assumptions made about the uniformity of the airflow in these early design stages can mean a disaster for the commercial viability of a PCB if those assumptions are incorrect. A different approach is needed to improve reliability and to optimize board performance. Dr. John Parry of Mentor explains.

Mike Jouppi Discusses his Drive for Better Thermal Data

01/12/2018 | Andy Shaughnessy, PCB Design007
If you mention thermal management in a group of PCB designers and design engineers, Mike Jouppi’s name usually pops up. Mike is an engineer and founder of the Thermal Management LLC consulting firm. He spent years updating IPC’s charts on current-carrying capacity, which had been unchanged since the 1950s. I recently caught up with Mike and asked him to give us his views on the state of thermal management, as well as the tools and standards related to thermal design.



Copyright © 2018 I-Connect007. All rights reserved.