Design for manufacturing (DFM) is crucial for ensuring smooth PCB fabrication and assembly, but it comes with its own set of challenges. Whether it’s balancing design constraints with manufacturing capabilities, managing tight tolerances, or dealing with last-minute changes, every designer faces roadblocks.
What do you find most challenging about DFM? Share your experiences, insights, and questions with the community!
Join the conversation below! 
In my experience, one of the most challenging aspects of DFM is managing the delicate balance between high-speed design requirements and manufacturing limitations. This becomes particularly critical when dealing with impedance-controlled traces.
A specific challenge I often encounter is accommodating both controlled impedance requirements and via placement constraints. For example, maintaining proper trace width and spacing for differential pairs while also ensuring sufficient clearance for via pads and anti-pads can be tricky, especially in dense layouts. This often requires careful coordination with the PCB fabricator to understand their specific manufacturing capabilities and limitations.
I’ve encountered challenges with annular ring requirements in PCB design, especially in high-density boards. While it might seem straightforward in theory, achieving consistent annular rings across a complex PCB design can be surprisingly challenging.
EDA tools may show perfect via placement, real-world manufacturing tolerances require accounting for drill wandering. Using a minimum 7 mil pad diameter for inner layers and 6 mil for outer layers helps maintain at least a 1 mil annular ring, which is crucial for reliable production.
This becomes more complex with high-density areas where space is limited, boards with microvias and sequential lamination, signal integrity requirements that limit pad size options.
Working closely with fabricators early in the design process to understand their drill accuracy capabilities has significantly reduced manufacturing holds and revision cycles.
A critical DFM challenge involves via design constraints and their manufacturing implications. Here are some issues:
A major DFM challenge in rigid-flex designs is managing the transition between the rigid and flexible sections. This junction often becomes a stress concentration point due to the differing material properties between the rigid and flex portions. Specifically, controlling the depth of the scoring or routing that defines the flex area, ensuring proper adhesion between the layers at the transition, and maintaining the required bend radius without causing stress fractures are all tricky. To mitigate these challenges, it’s essential to precisely specify these parameters in the fabrication drawings and establish clear communication with the flex PCB manufacturer from the outset.
One often overlooked DFM challenge is the way SMD pad connections can complicate testing and inspection. Direct connections between SMD pads, particularly under components, may appear optimal in the design phase but can cause significant issues during Automated Optical Inspection (AOI). When pads are directly connected, AOI systems may have difficulty distinguishing intentional connections from unintended solder bridges, leading to potential false positives. Maintaining clear separation between SMD pads and using proper trace routing instead of direct connections can significantly improve testing reliability and reduce inspection errors. This approach underscores that DFM is not only about manufacturability but also about ensuring effective testability and verification.
Managing thermal requirements is a significant DFM challenge. Designing proper thermal relief patterns for power planes is crucial, as errors can lead to poor solder joints or even delamination during reflow, particularly with high-power components.
Additionally, the placement and sizing of thermal vias are key factors. Although increasing the number of thermal vias can improve heat dissipation, it may also complicate the manufacturing process by causing uneven copper distribution and potential board warpage during reflow.
Balancing thermal performance with manufacturability often requires collaboration with both the assembly house and thermal engineering teams. Incorporating thermal simulations early helps identify potential hotspots and informs decisions regarding copper weight, via patterns, and component placement, ensuring better yield and reliability.
One DFM challenge I’ve encountered, particularly with high-density designs, is managing component placement for automated assembly. It’s not just about whether the parts fit on the board, but also how easily they can be placed by pick-and-place machines. When components, particularly small passives near larger parts, are placed too closely together, shadowing can occur, leading to misplacements, tombstoning, or even parts being dislodged during handling. Additionally, components located near the board edge may require special tooling or process adjustments to ensure proper placement. Early consideration of “pick-and-place” efficiency, along with collaboration with the assembly house to review placement files, can greatly improve assembly yields and reduce the risk of costly rework.
What do you mean by direct connection? A copper pour that includes both of them? A regular trace that happens to go under the chip instead of around it?
By “direct connection,” the reference is to an explicit trace that physically links two SMD pads a continuous conductive path between them. Such a connection can sometimes resemble an unintended solder bridge after assembly, which may confuse AOI systems and result in false positives during inspection.
Am I understanding correctly that: (1) the one on the left looks like a solder bridge (and the AOI may not have/interpret the gerbers well enough to say otherwise) (2) but the one on the right is OK, and won’t be misinterpreted?
Yes. The left image looks like a potential solder bridge that could confuse AOI systems, while the right image shows a clearer, more distinguishable connection that won’t be misinterpreted as a manufacturing defect.
