This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TCAN3414: Feasibility of multiple CAN transceivers coexisting on the same main board

Part Number: TCAN3414

Tool/software:

Dear IT Technical Team,

I am an R&D technician at GTG Ingenieros, based in Spain. We are currently working on modifying the design of an electronic system consisting of a main board (motherboard) that serves as a platform to interconnect three cape boards via mini-PCIe connectors.

Our goal is to provide CAN connectivity to each of the three cape boards. To achieve this, we have selected the TCAN3414DR CAN transceiver. Please find attached a file that graphically outlines our proposed concept.

As I have limited experience in CAN network design, I have referred to the document SLLA270: Controller Area Network Physical Layer Requirements, as recommended in the transceiver’s datasheet.

In this document, I found the following diagram, which illustrates the minimum distance between nodes on the same CAN bus:

I appreciate your support in helping me make the best design decisions before proceeding with schematic changes and PCB routing modifications:

1).- I would like to better understand how this requirement affects the feasibility of implementing multiple CAN transceivers on the same main board. Specifically, I am concerned about the practical implications of this minimum separation when all nodes (transceivers) are located very close to each other, as is typical in a compact PCB design.

2).- Could you please advise whether the close proximity of the CAN transceivers could lead to signal integrity issues or violate any of the physical layer requirements outlined in the SLLA270 document?.

Looking forward to receiving a prompt reply. I welcome your comments.

Have a nice day.

Yours sincerely,
JuanD


minimum device spacing on a CAN bus.pdf

  • Hi Juan,

    Thanks for reaching out and glad to help. 
    You have no concerns as you are well within the data sheet’s recommendation of 8.2.2 for <0.3 m between each node and would recommend to ensure R termination is present at both ends similar to figure 8-3 of the datasheet, thanks. 


    Best Regards,

    Michael