I am curious to know more about the use of teardrops in PCB designs. Do you incorporate teardrops in your designs? Are there any potential drawbacks or considerations to be aware of, provided they adhere to DRC clearance rules?
Teardrops are useful, especially for narrow track widths (typically 5 mils or less), where they enhance mechanical strength and reduce stress at trace-to-pad junctions. For wider tracks, the benefits are generally less significant, and their use may not be necessary.
The process of adding and removing teardrops can vary depending on the design tool. In some cases, if teardrops are managed as a secondary step, issues can arise, such as leftover teardrop regions when traces are removed or modified. This can lead to additional cleanup work unless addressed promptly.
For designs with narrow tracks or in situations where added robustness is required, teardrops are worth considering. Ultimately, the decision depends on the specific design requirements and how well your design tool integrates teardrop functionality
1 Like
For designs with adequate annular ring sizes, teardrops may not always be necessary. Large annular rings, particularly those sized to prevent breakout, can mitigate many of the mechanical reliability issues that teardrops are intended to address.
For track widths of 10 mils or greater, and with annular rings of similar dimensions, the need for teardrops is significantly reduced, as these features already provide sufficient mechanical strength and stress relief. However, for narrower tracks, such as those below 6 mils, teardrops may still offer an added layer of reliability.
While reliability concerns related to breakout and stress at junctions are often cited, these have not posed significant issues in many designs with wider tracks and large annular rings. Ultimately, the decision to use teardrops should consider the specific track dimensions, the annular ring size, and the overall mechanical requirements of the PCB.
1 Like