• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 48 subscribers
  • Views 45 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

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.

INA4230: 0.25mm pad vs 0.18mm

TISL
Expert 4345 points
Part Number: INA4230

Tool/software:

Dear e2e Support,

In order to comply to my customer industrialisation constraints, we are wondering if a 0.25mm is acceptable, vs the 0.18mm recommended; at least for the Alert, EN, A0 and A1 pins which require via-in-pads.

Is there any risk to avoid?

Regards,

  • +1
    TI__Expert 3495 points

    Hi,

    Here are my responses to your questions:

    TISL said:
    In order to comply to my customer industrialisation constraints, we are wondering if a 0.25mm is acceptable, vs the 0.18mm recommended;

    This isn't an ideal solution, our EVM has 6mil vias with 1 mil (0.0254) solder extension to give a total of 8mil (0.2032mm) pads on the Alert, EN, A0 and A1 pins. The others have the recommended 0.18mm solder extensions. 
    A 0.25mm spacing will but the Alert, EN, A0 and A1 pins close to the bus pins, this may or may not work depending on the customer's voltage thresholds and interreference tolerance. 
    I wouldn't recommend a 0.25mm solder extension, the maximum I'd suggest is 0.2mm.

    Best,
    Mallika Senthil