CLASSIFICATION OF COST EFFECTIVE

PCB TYPES SOLUTIONS

FOR

J e r r y T. H a r v e l Markrevel, Incorporated San D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a

15TH DESIGN AUTOMATION June 19-21, 1978, Las Abstract CONFERENCE Vegas, Nevada components; 2. Digital - b o a r d s populated p r i m a r i l y with logic devices; 3. Mixed analog with digital; 4. Boards with special mechanical considerations. Although the titles strongly imply classification, t h e r e a r e more p a r a m e t e r s about the designs which need to be a s c e r t a i n e d before technique determination. Assuming we have an analog board, additional information can f u r t h e r define the best approach. I. How many different types or styles of components a r e involved. 2. Are t h e r e c r i t i c a l c i r c u i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which must be monitored by a senior designer or EE. 3. How many different board configurations or types of boards a r e involved. The a n s w e r s to the above questions can s t e e r us on a path of optimum cost, schedule and performance. If t h e r e a r e a l a r g e number of unique components, p a r t i c u l a r l y if no l i b r a r y exists, design automation is probably not the way to go. Why? Due to the time involved in setting up unique p a r t s in the l i b r a r y . If t h e r e a r e c r i t i c a l circuit c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s involved, this is another s t r i k e against D.A. Some D.A. s y s tems offer i n t e r a c t i v e placement and routing capability which allows complete o p e r a t o r control over component placement and conductor routing via a graphics CRT. This s a t i s f i e s the above r e q u i r e m e n t s alright, but why a r e we using the computer? Is this a situation where we a r e forcing the i s s u e to use the computer as a tool simply because it can be made to do the job? Could manual design and digitizing produce the same r e s u l t s more efficiently? I think so. In the case of digital b o a r d s , we need to ask: 1. Approximate number of components? 2. Number of designs to be done: 3. Approximate density of component population? 4. Special c i r c u i t r e q u i r e m e n t s ? 5. Are the design r e q u i r e m e n t s compatible with available D.A. s y s t e m s ? If the number of digital components on a design is g r e a t e r than sixty devices, or if t h e r e a r e a number of boards in a s y s t e m (five or more), D.A. will almost always win out in time to completion. F u r t h e r more, if given an honest evaluation including all additional benefits, D.A. will most likely be the lower cost of the methods under consideration. If the device count is very high, say g r e a t e r than 150, then D.A. becomes a n e c e s s i t y if any r e a s o n a b l e development schedule is to be met. If t h e r e is a considerable numb e r of different designs to be accomplished in a r e l a tively s h o r t period of time, say 20 b o a r d s in one month, then D.A. will be the obvious choice unless you have 20 P . C . d e s i g n e r s available to begin your task. If i t ' s beginning to sound like D.A. is going to win all contests in the digital c l a s s , read on. D.A. s y s t e m s typically do a more organized, methodical design than manual d e s i g n e r s , but any P . C . designer worth his salt can still design a board to more difficult specifications. By this, I mean more dense and with more insight into special circuit r e q u i r e m e n t s . The m o r e detail n e c e s s a r y for compliance with a design specification, the l e s s a t t r a c t i v e D.A. becomes. I f a design is known to r e q u i r e the opinion of an EE or senior designer in every instance of placement or conduct o r routing, why fool yourself? Let the EE or Senior
444

P r i n t e d C i r c u i t B o a r d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n has b e e n d e s c r i b e d as the m o s t e x p e n s i v e and t i m e c o n s u m i n g e f f o r t in the p r o d u c t d e s i g n c y c l e . E x p e r i e n c e has p r o v e n m o d e r n d e s i g n a u t o m a t i o n s y s t e m s a r e c a p a b l e of s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n s in d e s i g n t i m e . T h i s d o e s not s a y that a ll P C B d e s i g n should be done on d e s i g n a u t o m a t i o n s y s t e m s .

This paper addresses three classes of PCB's, and describes proven techniques for methods of classification and cost effective solutions. The oral presentation will be accompanied by visual aids (slides) of actual designs in each classification. HISTORY Since the miniaturization of electronics equipment has been a major design goal in almost every project in modern-day history, the p r e s s u r e to inc r e a s e packaging density has been steadily applied. State of the a r t technologies and techniques have been approved for use on p r o g r a m s almost as fast as they have been introduced. The computer industry has been the m a j o r driving force behind new printed circuit techniques during r e c e n t y e a r s . Undaunted by m i l - s p e c procedures, they adopted t h e i r own r e l i a b i l i t y and testing methods and standards. Riding the leading edge of technology in technique, tooling and production, the computer industry has produced b o a r d s of such complexity and density that manually generated artwork is no longer feasible. F u r t h e r , more emphasis is being placed upon " t i m e to m a r k e t " for a new idea or system. This is the area where Design Automation has been called upon far more than ever before. Given this brief history, we shall assume the following conditions: a. Computer controlled artwork generators are necessary to consistantly produce the artwork and tooling required to manufacture today's complex designs. b. The three generally accepted practices for creating data for an artwork generator are: I. Batch or Non-lnteractive Design Automation (D.A.) Programs; 2. Interactive Design Automation Programs; 3o Digitizing from a manually prepared layout. With the above set of conditions agreed upon as the tried and proven techniques available to the industry today, we can begin to address the main topic of this paper. BOARD CLASSIFICATION

Assuming the program manager has all three avenues of board development available to him, either in-house or through a service organization, how should he proceed? This is the big question which prompted the idea that board classification need be considered prior to selection of the technique to be used. Printed circuit boards can generally be classified into four basic categories: i. Analog - boards populated primarily with discrete

Designer (or both) lay it out to their satisfaction. Otherwise, the results will probably be modified to the point of uselessness. A D.A. system with an interactive graphics display can be utilized in this case with some advantage. The Senior Designer or EE can readily see and control the results of placement and routing. Now the only remaining question, and it's a big one: Did we need a computer to accomplish this task? Did the use of a computer save us time? Money? Were any real benefits derived from this technique? Or was it just an exercise in "Gee whiz -- look what the computer can do" ? I would venture to say D.A. programs today can adequately accomplish most digital designs faster and more cost effectively than any other method. That's a pretty bold statement I admit, so let me temper it a bit if I may. Typically your goals are to achieve a board design within a specified time and budget. If this be your case, don't start trying to develop a program within the same time and budget' You won't make it, I guarantee' You may give D.A. a black eye by trying, so please -- don't' If a demonstrable system performs within the parameters of your design requirements -- use it, and it will perform for you as I have stated. If it doesn't, I strongly suggest you look elsewhere. The successful D.A. programs in use today have been around for a decade or more. You will not duplicate them or extensively modify them during the product design cycle of your next product. I have heard more stories than I care to recall about D.A. systems "failing to perform" under an impossible set of circumstances. If the program doesn't fit the application, the results will be something less than optimum. This brings us to the case of mixed analog with digital. Generally, this is a situation where manual design and digitizing is preferred. D.A. systems have been successfully utilized to satisfactorily accomplish this task, providing the analog and digital components may be separated or grouped on the board. Here, interactive graphics of some sort is necessary. The analog portion is designed manually or interactively using the judgement of the operator. Once completed, the locations of the interconnecting circuits between the analog and digital sections are identified to the D.A. system. The D.A. system is then allowed to begin placement and routing with the designers knowledge of the analog section. The final category of design to be discussed here is the type of board which has special mechanical considerations. D.A. systems excel in following the rules. If your mechanical constraints are well defined, you should have no problem using D.A. If they are not, and the P.C. design is being done concurrently with the mechanical structure of which it is a part, you will be better off using another approach. Otherwise, the P.C. design will probably be completed prior to the mechanical design -- severaltimes. DESIGN AUTOMATION TECHNIQUE

does not influence the decision to attempt a better solution. One possible problem with this technique is that too m u c h experimentation can greatly affect cost, schedule, and overall system thruput.
SUMMARY Most designs can be accomplished by Design Automation, although analog boards are less cost effective. Board classification prior to processing is a key step in determining which process should be selected for a specific board or group of boards. There are boards which should not be attempted on Design Automation systems. Board classification will generally preclude attempts to design boards with parameters not suited for the Design Automation systembeing utilized. Biography Jerry T. Harvel has been Vice President of Markrevel, Incorporated, in San Diego, California, since January of 1973. His prior experience was with Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical Company in San Diego, and Lockheed Georgia Company, Marietta, Georgia. He studied aeronautical administration at Auburn University, where he participated in a work-study program with NASA at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. He holds a degree in Aeronautics from Mesa College in San Diego. Mro Harvel has eleven years of experience directly associated with design automation. He has been responsible for the selection and implementation of two computer aided design systems, one computer aided manufacturing installation, and one design automation system. His experience includes training and supervision of engineering, design, and programming personnel. Previous papers and seminars include: ASME Design Dallas, Texas Automation Conference November 1976

Automated Production, Storage, Retrieval and Display of Digitized Engineering Data Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California January 1977
National West Anaheim, Electronics California Packaging March Conference 1977

Chairman, National Electronics Packaging Conference East Philadelphia, Pennsylvania M a y 1977

With board classification done, and a decision to do your P.C. designs on a D.A. system, are there any techniques which will render a better design? In my experience, there is definitely processing techniques which favor unique boards within a classification. The more experienced operator will recognize the proper programs to invoke for special situations, and see what results. Here is another situation where some type of interactive graphics ability greatly enhances system performance. If this capability exists, you can do several iterations of a placement or route, or both, and compare one technique against the other on a specific problem. The other factor here is that the D.A. system being utilized must be affordable to the point that cost 445