• Skip to main content
  • Skip to search
  • Skip to footer
Cadence Home
  • This search text may be transcribed, used, stored, or accessed by our third-party service providers per our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

  1. Community Forums
  2. PCB Design
  3. IPC-7351 Level C

Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3
  • Subscribers 165
  • Views 14682
  • Members are here 0
More Content
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

IPC-7351 Level C

C Shiva
C Shiva over 12 years ago

Hi all,

Has anyone experienced on using of IPC-7351 level C footprints? Presently I'm using it in one of our project which is a very dense and space constraint board. My concern is,

  1. Is there anything issues we have to take a special care, as to avoid any DFA/DFM?
  2. What is the minimum space we have to keep for two level C footprints (major's and passive's) to avoid any assembly and manufacturing issues?

Any input will be appreciated.

Thanks,

Shiva.

  • Cancel
  • Robert Finley
    Robert Finley over 12 years ago

    SMT machines(particularly Fuji) have been able to place anything we come up with for the past 20 years.  Solder bridging and being able to rework a single part without affecting other parts have been factors.

    You need to get project management involved with assembly engineering. 

    A dumb test board to find out assembly issues in your factory might pay off if you are working on a high-volume design.

    Assembly will want a low-risk/easy board to build.  But, marketing is going to push beyond that.

    Have fun.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • redwire
    redwire over 12 years ago

     My experience has been similar to what Robert posted above.  We place at minimum feature separation (3 to 5 mils) and the boards are fine.  Yes, the assembly houses, especially the poor ones, will cry and complain but the good ones build with no issue.  Rework as he says can be problematic but that is a trade-off necessary to acheive the part density that we are at.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • C Shiva
    C Shiva over 12 years ago

     Thanks all for your kind reply. It will be really helpfull.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
Cadence Guidelines

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.

© 2025 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Cookie Policy
  • US Trademarks
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information