Electrical isolation problems when routing between pads of SMT resistors/caps











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












According to answers to this previous question, routing traces between the pads of SMD caps/resistors, as shown in the picture, is not dangerous as long as trace to pad clearances are obeyed and the possibility of crosstalk is accounted for.



enter image description here



That being said, this type of answer sounds incomplete to me: while the clearance between trace and pads may be ok, the via under the SMT component and bottom of the SMT component are separated only by a thin layer of solder mask, and it seems unsafe to rely on that kind of insulation. This source seems to agree (about solder mask being bad at insulating, not about the trace between pads question), and IPC-2221 also states something to that effect: "Complete reliance on coatings to maintain high surface resistance between conductors shall be avoided."



So, shouldn't one also consider the possibility of this insulation failing? Wouldn't that make this kind of design choice bad? Could I estimate how much voltage a SMT component can handle between its bottom and a trace underneath it?










share|improve this question


























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    According to answers to this previous question, routing traces between the pads of SMD caps/resistors, as shown in the picture, is not dangerous as long as trace to pad clearances are obeyed and the possibility of crosstalk is accounted for.



    enter image description here



    That being said, this type of answer sounds incomplete to me: while the clearance between trace and pads may be ok, the via under the SMT component and bottom of the SMT component are separated only by a thin layer of solder mask, and it seems unsafe to rely on that kind of insulation. This source seems to agree (about solder mask being bad at insulating, not about the trace between pads question), and IPC-2221 also states something to that effect: "Complete reliance on coatings to maintain high surface resistance between conductors shall be avoided."



    So, shouldn't one also consider the possibility of this insulation failing? Wouldn't that make this kind of design choice bad? Could I estimate how much voltage a SMT component can handle between its bottom and a trace underneath it?










    share|improve this question
























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      According to answers to this previous question, routing traces between the pads of SMD caps/resistors, as shown in the picture, is not dangerous as long as trace to pad clearances are obeyed and the possibility of crosstalk is accounted for.



      enter image description here



      That being said, this type of answer sounds incomplete to me: while the clearance between trace and pads may be ok, the via under the SMT component and bottom of the SMT component are separated only by a thin layer of solder mask, and it seems unsafe to rely on that kind of insulation. This source seems to agree (about solder mask being bad at insulating, not about the trace between pads question), and IPC-2221 also states something to that effect: "Complete reliance on coatings to maintain high surface resistance between conductors shall be avoided."



      So, shouldn't one also consider the possibility of this insulation failing? Wouldn't that make this kind of design choice bad? Could I estimate how much voltage a SMT component can handle between its bottom and a trace underneath it?










      share|improve this question













      According to answers to this previous question, routing traces between the pads of SMD caps/resistors, as shown in the picture, is not dangerous as long as trace to pad clearances are obeyed and the possibility of crosstalk is accounted for.



      enter image description here



      That being said, this type of answer sounds incomplete to me: while the clearance between trace and pads may be ok, the via under the SMT component and bottom of the SMT component are separated only by a thin layer of solder mask, and it seems unsafe to rely on that kind of insulation. This source seems to agree (about solder mask being bad at insulating, not about the trace between pads question), and IPC-2221 also states something to that effect: "Complete reliance on coatings to maintain high surface resistance between conductors shall be avoided."



      So, shouldn't one also consider the possibility of this insulation failing? Wouldn't that make this kind of design choice bad? Could I estimate how much voltage a SMT component can handle between its bottom and a trace underneath it?







      surface-mount routing insulation clearance






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 26 at 0:51









      FrancoVS

      782516




      782516






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          Most, not all, SMT components have insulator on the bottom, between the end caps, so the solder mask is not actually acting as a critical insulator and even if it wasn't there the trace would not contact any conductor.



          Of course, for manufacturability, it's generally better to have large clearances where possible, but there's nothing inherently wrong with running traces under parts so long as the design rules are satisfied.






          share|improve this answer




























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            As with anything in engineering, it depends on your design parameters.



            Ignoring the fact that most SMD components have insulation covering them, and that just 0.4mm of solid insulation are needed to sustain a field in excess of 1kV.



            If that component is meant to straddle an isolation barrier (e.g., a 3kV Ethernet common-mode capacitor) then that would be a big no-no. It would definitively reduce the creepage distance, increasing risks, and fail some certifications. In some cases you would even go as far as routing the PCB under the component to increase creepage distances.



            If that’s a component in a low-voltage PCB (<10V) for most designs this will not be an issue, particularly for digital designs.



            If this is a component in an analog design, crosstalk and leakage considerations enter into play.



            My company once designed a board for a full-custom multi-channel, high-impedance, low-noise analog ASIC. We sent a small 5-board batch for assembly, and expedited 2 for testing. The test boards worked perfectly, the remaining 3 all failed.



            After researching the issue we found out that the 2 boards had been washed immediately after soldering (for flux removal) while the remaining 3 were left unwashed for 3 days. The leakage due to the flux residue was enough to cause a 3-fold noise increase, and this was just between the pins of a BGA package.



            Routing like that, does not work for this design.






            share|improve this answer




























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              I think clearance would depend on the part. Many passive Rs, Cs, etc. have thin metal bands for the end caps that would also tend to raise the body of the device away from the board, thus the design is not relying solely on the solder mask for isolation. I think you should review the parts on a case by case basis.






              share|improve this answer





















                Your Answer





                StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
                return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
                StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
                StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
                });
                });
                }, "mathjax-editing");

                StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
                return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
                StackExchange.schematics.init();
                });
                }, "cicuitlab");

                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "135"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                convertImagesToLinks: false,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: null,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });














                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f408829%2felectrical-isolation-problems-when-routing-between-pads-of-smt-resistors-caps%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes








                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes








                up vote
                3
                down vote













                Most, not all, SMT components have insulator on the bottom, between the end caps, so the solder mask is not actually acting as a critical insulator and even if it wasn't there the trace would not contact any conductor.



                Of course, for manufacturability, it's generally better to have large clearances where possible, but there's nothing inherently wrong with running traces under parts so long as the design rules are satisfied.






                share|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote













                  Most, not all, SMT components have insulator on the bottom, between the end caps, so the solder mask is not actually acting as a critical insulator and even if it wasn't there the trace would not contact any conductor.



                  Of course, for manufacturability, it's generally better to have large clearances where possible, but there's nothing inherently wrong with running traces under parts so long as the design rules are satisfied.






                  share|improve this answer























                    up vote
                    3
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    3
                    down vote









                    Most, not all, SMT components have insulator on the bottom, between the end caps, so the solder mask is not actually acting as a critical insulator and even if it wasn't there the trace would not contact any conductor.



                    Of course, for manufacturability, it's generally better to have large clearances where possible, but there's nothing inherently wrong with running traces under parts so long as the design rules are satisfied.






                    share|improve this answer












                    Most, not all, SMT components have insulator on the bottom, between the end caps, so the solder mask is not actually acting as a critical insulator and even if it wasn't there the trace would not contact any conductor.



                    Of course, for manufacturability, it's generally better to have large clearances where possible, but there's nothing inherently wrong with running traces under parts so long as the design rules are satisfied.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Nov 26 at 1:24









                    Spehro Pefhany

                    201k4146401




                    201k4146401
























                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        As with anything in engineering, it depends on your design parameters.



                        Ignoring the fact that most SMD components have insulation covering them, and that just 0.4mm of solid insulation are needed to sustain a field in excess of 1kV.



                        If that component is meant to straddle an isolation barrier (e.g., a 3kV Ethernet common-mode capacitor) then that would be a big no-no. It would definitively reduce the creepage distance, increasing risks, and fail some certifications. In some cases you would even go as far as routing the PCB under the component to increase creepage distances.



                        If that’s a component in a low-voltage PCB (<10V) for most designs this will not be an issue, particularly for digital designs.



                        If this is a component in an analog design, crosstalk and leakage considerations enter into play.



                        My company once designed a board for a full-custom multi-channel, high-impedance, low-noise analog ASIC. We sent a small 5-board batch for assembly, and expedited 2 for testing. The test boards worked perfectly, the remaining 3 all failed.



                        After researching the issue we found out that the 2 boards had been washed immediately after soldering (for flux removal) while the remaining 3 were left unwashed for 3 days. The leakage due to the flux residue was enough to cause a 3-fold noise increase, and this was just between the pins of a BGA package.



                        Routing like that, does not work for this design.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          As with anything in engineering, it depends on your design parameters.



                          Ignoring the fact that most SMD components have insulation covering them, and that just 0.4mm of solid insulation are needed to sustain a field in excess of 1kV.



                          If that component is meant to straddle an isolation barrier (e.g., a 3kV Ethernet common-mode capacitor) then that would be a big no-no. It would definitively reduce the creepage distance, increasing risks, and fail some certifications. In some cases you would even go as far as routing the PCB under the component to increase creepage distances.



                          If that’s a component in a low-voltage PCB (<10V) for most designs this will not be an issue, particularly for digital designs.



                          If this is a component in an analog design, crosstalk and leakage considerations enter into play.



                          My company once designed a board for a full-custom multi-channel, high-impedance, low-noise analog ASIC. We sent a small 5-board batch for assembly, and expedited 2 for testing. The test boards worked perfectly, the remaining 3 all failed.



                          After researching the issue we found out that the 2 boards had been washed immediately after soldering (for flux removal) while the remaining 3 were left unwashed for 3 days. The leakage due to the flux residue was enough to cause a 3-fold noise increase, and this was just between the pins of a BGA package.



                          Routing like that, does not work for this design.






                          share|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote









                            As with anything in engineering, it depends on your design parameters.



                            Ignoring the fact that most SMD components have insulation covering them, and that just 0.4mm of solid insulation are needed to sustain a field in excess of 1kV.



                            If that component is meant to straddle an isolation barrier (e.g., a 3kV Ethernet common-mode capacitor) then that would be a big no-no. It would definitively reduce the creepage distance, increasing risks, and fail some certifications. In some cases you would even go as far as routing the PCB under the component to increase creepage distances.



                            If that’s a component in a low-voltage PCB (<10V) for most designs this will not be an issue, particularly for digital designs.



                            If this is a component in an analog design, crosstalk and leakage considerations enter into play.



                            My company once designed a board for a full-custom multi-channel, high-impedance, low-noise analog ASIC. We sent a small 5-board batch for assembly, and expedited 2 for testing. The test boards worked perfectly, the remaining 3 all failed.



                            After researching the issue we found out that the 2 boards had been washed immediately after soldering (for flux removal) while the remaining 3 were left unwashed for 3 days. The leakage due to the flux residue was enough to cause a 3-fold noise increase, and this was just between the pins of a BGA package.



                            Routing like that, does not work for this design.






                            share|improve this answer












                            As with anything in engineering, it depends on your design parameters.



                            Ignoring the fact that most SMD components have insulation covering them, and that just 0.4mm of solid insulation are needed to sustain a field in excess of 1kV.



                            If that component is meant to straddle an isolation barrier (e.g., a 3kV Ethernet common-mode capacitor) then that would be a big no-no. It would definitively reduce the creepage distance, increasing risks, and fail some certifications. In some cases you would even go as far as routing the PCB under the component to increase creepage distances.



                            If that’s a component in a low-voltage PCB (<10V) for most designs this will not be an issue, particularly for digital designs.



                            If this is a component in an analog design, crosstalk and leakage considerations enter into play.



                            My company once designed a board for a full-custom multi-channel, high-impedance, low-noise analog ASIC. We sent a small 5-board batch for assembly, and expedited 2 for testing. The test boards worked perfectly, the remaining 3 all failed.



                            After researching the issue we found out that the 2 boards had been washed immediately after soldering (for flux removal) while the remaining 3 were left unwashed for 3 days. The leakage due to the flux residue was enough to cause a 3-fold noise increase, and this was just between the pins of a BGA package.



                            Routing like that, does not work for this design.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Nov 26 at 4:12









                            Edgar Brown

                            2,805422




                            2,805422






















                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote













                                I think clearance would depend on the part. Many passive Rs, Cs, etc. have thin metal bands for the end caps that would also tend to raise the body of the device away from the board, thus the design is not relying solely on the solder mask for isolation. I think you should review the parts on a case by case basis.






                                share|improve this answer

























                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote













                                  I think clearance would depend on the part. Many passive Rs, Cs, etc. have thin metal bands for the end caps that would also tend to raise the body of the device away from the board, thus the design is not relying solely on the solder mask for isolation. I think you should review the parts on a case by case basis.






                                  share|improve this answer























                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote










                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote









                                    I think clearance would depend on the part. Many passive Rs, Cs, etc. have thin metal bands for the end caps that would also tend to raise the body of the device away from the board, thus the design is not relying solely on the solder mask for isolation. I think you should review the parts on a case by case basis.






                                    share|improve this answer












                                    I think clearance would depend on the part. Many passive Rs, Cs, etc. have thin metal bands for the end caps that would also tend to raise the body of the device away from the board, thus the design is not relying solely on the solder mask for isolation. I think you should review the parts on a case by case basis.







                                    share|improve this answer












                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer










                                    answered Nov 26 at 1:45









                                    CrossRoads

                                    1,0187




                                    1,0187






























                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded




















































                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                        Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                        Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f408829%2felectrical-isolation-problems-when-routing-between-pads-of-smt-resistors-caps%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        Plaza Victoria

                                        Puebla de Zaragoza

                                        Musa