Electronics > Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff

PCB layout and stackup for space application

(1/2) > >>

I've been tasked with the design of a PCB for a CubeSat project in my university and I'm trying to figure out exactly how the layout and stackup of my board should be done.

The board I have to design is for power distribution, this means that on the board there will be mainly DC DC converters and an IC for battery management. I forsee that 4 layers will be needed.

For the design I must take into account the ECSS guidelines (European Cooperation for Space Standardization) and I've been studying the relevant standard (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwimyPfI88r1AhXRR_EDHbduCWcQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fescies.org%2Fdownload%2FwebDocumentFile%3Fid%3D62466&usg=AOvVaw3rpnrTAX8y84w2E_JSMVfm&cshid=1643045117480261). I'm extremely confused by few of the rules listed on the document, for example:

7.4.3 point e) Tracks should not be routed on external layers. point b) In case critical tracks are routed on external layers, they shall not be routed under components.
I guess this is to improve EMI and radiations immunity but it means that the stackup of the board can't be like the "standard" stackup (signals on external layers and internal GND/power planes) but must be something like GND on top and bottom layers and signals&power in the inner layers.

I understand the upsides of this stackup (two ground planes can be stitched together around the periphery of the board to enclose all the signal traces in a faraday cage, signals and reference plane very close to each other etc.) however I can't really imagine to place a via for each signal coming from every smd pad: it looks like a routing and signal integrity nightmare to me.

For example the feedback loop of a DC/DC converter must be routed as short as possible and going from the top layer to the middle one and coming back to the top layer doesn't sound very wise to me.

Also so many vias means many via stubs acting like antennas. Probably an hybrid stackup would be better (signals and ground on top layer) but then why not going with the "classic" stackup. point a)Solder mask shall not be used.
7.6 point a)Copper planes should have additional openings in a grid format.
Since outgassing it's a big issue in space applications, they forbid the use of soldermask and suggest to apply a layer of conformal coating after the assembly. Also they suggest hatched polygons in order to allow humidity to get out of the board easily.

These points puzzle me a lot since all the boards we're buying from the industries, rated for space, come with solder mask, no conformal coating and full polygons. Also I'll be probably soldering the firs prototype and I'm afraid that by having no solder mask the tin will flow away from the smd pads.

Do you think that a stack up with signals only on internal layer is feasible? Are via stubs and feedback loop length a reasonable concern at the frequencies at which the DC/DCs are working? Do you have experience with such design? Should I remove the solder mask completely or maybe only on few spots?

These guidelines don't really make sense to me but I can't play by my own rules without justifying them first to the team.
Thank you!

If you use SMD components, the usual layout just places the components as close together as possible, forming tiny, short traces between them. What you should do? Add vias to go to mid layer, them come back with another via? That's more track on the top layer compared to if you did it fully on top alone.

Maybe this is some leftover from through hole days, when you could pick any layer, and layouts were sparse?

If nothing else, components are susceptible to EMI anyway. This is why a top/bottom layer ground fills are not silver bullets. Also exposed vias - assuming you don't use buried vias, which suck. What really works is an actual shield, which can fully enclose the board layout and components. You can buy those metal cans which are soldered on the board.

Thanks for the insight! I totally agree with you, however I've asked the same question to different people and I've gotten different answers :-\
A guy who designs PCB for space applications told me:  "A stackup with signals only on the inner layers is not only possible, but may be preferred. That is our standard approach. On most boards, the only traces on the top layer are for short traces to allow connections from pads/pins to vias going down to internal layers."
So I'm more confused than before :'(

OK, that reply confirms my suspicions.

It's just non-technical double speak.

They say "no traces", yet they mean "no long traces". A huge difference, isn't it!

This also basically confirms the standard is wrong, it cannot be followed, because even those who claim to follow it, in the next sentence admit they follow a different rule: accepting certain length of traces when going to via.

Where you set the threshold of "long trace", makes it more inaccurate art, than exact science. Maybe 10mm? 20mm? 100mm?

And why adding two vias makes it good, even if the track length on top layer increases due to that?

It's hilarious in how far people go to support their fallacies. So they can break the rules by making a short trace, but only if it goes to the via, comes back from another via, to another short trace; the vias are acting as symbols of "I did something to try to follow the impossible rule, which I still didn't follow, but hey, there are vias!" In reality, they just make the rule breach bigger, because the vias add more copper area to the track, compared how short it could be if you did not jump into the mid layer.

The key of survival in such absurdly regulated field is to sense the atmosphere, trying to socially figure out what are the socially set, non-written actual rules, how strong their enforcement is, i.e., do you get in trouble if you follow the actual rules, or in case that is impossible and no one are following the rules, at least do the Right Thing. Finally, try your best to mitigate the negative effects of said rules (official and made-up).

This is exactly why I hate such regulated fields. With some good regulation, comes also broken regulation, and with good social high-status job, come also sick social games. Navigating in that minefield and get out products that allow you to sleep at night requires experience. I would suck at that job, I would just concentrate on making things work and be safe and reliable, based on the physical reality.

In through hole design, this insanity does not exist: the length of the track is the same regardless of being on outer or inner layer, and no extra copper needs to be added to hop between layers, so such rule does not hurt and might help with EMI, a bit. Simplistic rule of thumb, but not super-harmful.

With modern high-density SMD, it totally blows everything up and forces to do inferior design, EMI-wise and otherwise.

Well ,  going to  give my limited insight in this field (I worked for around 3 months in an internship in Space company doing schematic stuff), thing is that I was interested in how the PCB layout was done as well and this was what I gathered:

1-The routing had to be symmetrical(this was a MUST): example: TOP-GND-POWER-SIGNAL-GND-GND-SIGNAL-POWER-GND-BOTTOM.(16 layer boards is normal there)

2-Only space grade components, thing is that a LOT of them were TH this is were your no traces in first layer comes from, very few modern IC´s are space grade so for example, when designing a Linear regulator we did it from voltage reference, opamp, transistor etc no such thing as a nice 78XX.

3-ancient IC were used, I mean a lot of 74HCXX were used as well. As before, all space grade(EXPENSIVE as hell, 1 resistor around 1$).

don't know if the requisites for CUBESAT are lower but this is I why didn't want to design for space, it was like designing something out of the sixties.

So in short you are gonna have to design something analogic or a simple dc/dc,  probably controlled by something like a 8051(for example) monitoring the power supply and state of the battery, with parallel or low baud rate.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version