Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 90 subscribers
  • Views 2251 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

How to make a component keepout that allows tracks?

bigbaldjohn

Hi,

I'm using CS 1.5.2.

I'm designing a PCB for a housing that has support pillars placed all over the PCB and need to be sure I don't place components in these areas. Tracks are OK.

If I put the contact areas onto the keep-out layer I can't put tracks there, which is not what I want.

I've tried putting a Fill onto Mechanical 15 layer (Courtyard Top), which is OK for eyeballing but I don't get a clearance violation in DRC.

I've added the following Clearance rule but it didn't help:

SELECTION=FALSE|LAYER=TOP|LOCKED=FALSE|POLYGONOUTLINE=FALSE|USERROUTED=TRUE|UNIONINDEX=0|UNIQUEID=RIRCENJA|

RULEKIND=ComponentClearance|NETSCOPE=AnyNet|LAYERKIND=SameLayer|

SCOPE1EXPRESSION=(OnLayer('Mechanical 15') OR OnLayer('Courtyard Top'))|

SCOPE2EXPRESSION=All|

NAME=ComponentClearance_Courtyard|

ENABLED=TRUE|PRIORITY=2|COMMENT= |DEFINEDBYLOGICALDOCUMENT=FALSE|

GAP=0mil|

COLLISIONCHECKMODE=3|VERTICALGAP=0mil|SHOWDISTANCES=FALSE¶

(all one line in the .RUL file)

 

What am I doing wrong please?

 

Cheers

John

Parents
  • 0

    An alternative approach, which I've used to good effect, is to create a step file representing the pillars and use it to create a component that can then be placed on the PCB.  I don't know whether that will do exactly what you want, but it will give a design rule error if any components collide with the pillars.  This has the potential advantage that it works in 3D rather than assuming that obstacles are projections of 2D shapes.

  • 0 in reply to frog

    Yes, that is what I was trying to say but perhaps unclearly.  What I was suggesting further is that the pillar component could be put into a newly added component class and then a separate clearance rule can be based on the pillar's component class.  This would allow some expanded clearance to account for mechanical alignments.  Another way would be to make the shape of the step model slightly larger than the actual pillar diameter so as to account for the extra space that might be needed when fitting the PCB to the pillars.  The amount of extra room needed might perhaps depend on whether there is fastening screw, expansion/contraction, mechanical tolerance on the parts, etc. 

  • 0 in reply to tarribred61

    Or perhaps entirely clearly - it was late last night and I may not have given your response the attentiveness that it deserves :-)

Reply Children
No Data