1
\$\begingroup\$

I'm intending to use the following vertical USB C connector because the long board overhang fits requirements, but the footprint causes some concern, not least because it seems to violate JLCPCB design rules and I wonder if assembly would be tricky.

The 0.4mm wide pins are 1mm apart and the datasheet suggests a 0.6mm hole. The default footprint has a 0.7mm hole, which I notice is suggested for a very similar part from the same manufacturer, so I adjusted to 0.6mm. The annular rings of 0.2mm were too close for a 0.7mm hole, but for a 0.6mm hole they will be 0.2mm apart and pass DRC. JLC have said that should be fine, although they specify a minimum of 0.3mm for an anular ring with pth, and if upping the size to that the pads would again be too close. I've opted for 0.81mm pad size currently.

Layout would be as in the image (GND not shown), though I might route VBUS on the other side. Current should be less than 1A. Does this look to be too risky a part to use, with just 0.21mm ring and 0.18mm pad spacing and considering the current, or should assembly be fine? I couldn't deduce a pin length from the datasheet. (https://datasheet.lcsc.com/lcsc/2305041445_Jing-Extension-of-the-Electronic-Co--918-518K2023D50001_C399934.pdf)

USB C connector footprint

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Just a sanity-check - but you're not trying to use that for standard USB communication are you? You're just using it for charging? \$\endgroup\$
    – brhans
    Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 2:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ Correct, and I also re-edited the title because the query just relates to spacing with pads, the ability for assembly and potentially current, not because the connector is vertical (vertical connectors come in various forms). It's just for power and PSU capability checking, hence using CC. \$\endgroup\$
    – Nick
    Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 9:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Most modern designs with USB-C use 4-layer PCB. They are not that expensive, but do solve a lot of headaches of this kind, and vastly improve signal integrity and susceptibility of a design. Consider a 4-layer PCB. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 19, 2023 at 3:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Ale..chenski I had considered that from a current perspective, although I'm not sure it would help as I feel tolerances around the holes could still be an issue. For example, JLC have +0.13/-0.08 on holes, so a 0.6mm hole could be 0.73mm, making the anular 0.07 if the pad is 0.8, which is too small based on their capabilities. For now I've decided to go for an SMD part instead and make the inlet in the case large enough to take the plug itself, which will be inserted about 4mm and should still allow a grip on the plug to remove if desired. Plus side is less plug sticking out. \$\endgroup\$
    – Nick
    Commented Oct 19, 2023 at 22:49

0

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.