Thanks for the clarification, when you mentioned length , width I was surprised if you were referring to any of the values. I was a little bit in shock!! hahahahaha

Thanks and regards,

david

It looks OK with a 0.10 mm corner radius. 

 

Watch out for excessive package tolerances. 

This package is 1.00 L x 0.50 W x 0.55 H with a 0.10 tolerance on all dimensions. 

Many thanks for your fast response. 

Does it mean that we should apply the same rule of thumb to 0402 case components or even 0603 components? I am thinking on resistors ...

Thanks for spreading your knowledge :)

david

You can use the 'SMD Pad Stack Rules' in the side panel of the calculator to change the corner radius. 

Or you can move the calculator footprint to FP Designer to permanently save the 0.05 mm corner radius to FPX library format. But we recommend that you first setup everything in the calculator before moving to FP Designer so you won't have to edit the pad stack in FP Designer. 

FP Designer saves all your settings to the FPX library. You can rename the Footprint Name in the Library Editor. 

I created my first 0201 capacitor and I feel that using a Corner Radius Size Limit parameter= 0.10 mm could be "risky" (I used Fab Tol= 0, Placement Tol=0).

I know that some manufacturers use 0.05 mm.

My component is GRM033R61C104KE14D from Murata

Which is your recommendation for this tiny component sizes?

Waiting for your comments.

David

The Square End Cap solder joint goals need to have unique Toe values for every chip size. 

 

The Gullwing terminal lead needs a different toe goal for every pin pitch. 

 

SOP/QFP Table:

 

IPC-7352 introduced Through-hole technology, but most of the information was extracted from IPC-2221 & IPC-2222. The main thing that was added was the Through-hole land pattern naming convention which we created in 2008 but shelved until 2023.

The IPC-735x series misses the mark in several areas.

- Solder joint goals 'one size fits all' doesn't produce the best assembly attachment and it doesn't adhere to IPC J-STD-001. Also, the values between density levels is too robust. Most is too Most and Least is too Least.

- The naming convention puts the 'pin qty' at the end of the footprint name. This was changed in the IPC-7351C standard that was unanimously approved by the land pattern committee but never got released. 

- The Zero Component Rotation differs from the standard they replaced - IPC-SM-782

Related posts:

Hello, my team recently purchased the IPC-7352 released in 2023 and I am currently in the process of studying it to decide whether we should make it our new standard for footprints creation or not.

For the moment I must admit that I am not thrilled by what I have read.

Some exemples : 

My question : what do you all think about 7352 ?

I would be very interested in your opinion specifically, Tom H, as I know you are very much involved in the IPC talks (thanks for all your work on that by the way). Is it a good upgrade to 7351B ? Honestly I was hoping for more.

But maybe I am a bit to difficult...

Sorry if my English is not perfect, as it is not my primary language.