IPC-2581 Revision C: Complete Build Intent for Rigid-Flex

Reading time ( words)

With the current design transfer formats, rigid-flex designers face a hand-off conundrum. You know the situation: My rigid-flex design is done so now it is time to get this built and into the product. Reviewing the documentation reveals that there are tables to define the different stackup definitions used in the design. The cross-references for the different zones to areas of the design are all there, I think. The last time a zone definition was missed, we caused a costly mistake.

Continuing to review the design documents, I verify that the bend locations are defined with information about the radius of the bends with a detail about how the final product looks when all bending is complete, ensuring that the folds are made in the correct order. I hope all information is contained in the documentation, and there will be no calls from the fabricator delaying the product. With all these documents and details left open to interpretation, there must be a way to send this data more intelligently.

Enter IPC-2581 Revision C
There is a way to transfer this data digitally, reducing the need for various forms of drawing details in a document. The new IPC-2581 Revision C format eliminates the need to manually—and painstakingly—create these details in a fabrication drawing. It uses the design data to explicitly define the multiple aspects of a rigid-flex design. How? Let’s look at how some of the details are sent digitally.

First, let’s look at stackup and general board structure. In the design tool, the different stackup details are created, with one or more rigid stackup definitions (8-layer vs. 4-layer, etc.) as well as several flex stackup structures (1 or 2 copper layers, etc.). In my design database a boundary is defined and the stackup data is assigned to those boundaries. This data is then placed into the IPC-2581C format containing the links of each stackup to each boundary association. These are known in IPC-2581 terms as stackup groups assigned to stackup zones. A by-product of these connections is the ability to define the outline profile for each copper and dielectric layer, a key tool for the fabricator.

To read this entire article, which appeared in the March 2021 issue of Design007 Magazine, click here.

03/21/2023 | Andy Shaughnessy, Design007 Magazine

During DesignCon, I spoke with James Hofer from Accurate Circuit Engineering about some of his customers' biggest challenges. We discussed various ways to increase the level—and quality—of communication between designers and fabricators. James also offered some interesting observations about bridging the gap between designer and fabricator. How often do you communicate with your fabricator?

03/09/2023 | Anaya Vardya, American Standard Circuits

One of the biggest challenges facing PCB designers is not understanding the cost drivers in the PCB manufacturing process. The next final finishes to discuss in this series is OSP. As with all surface finishes there are pros and cons with the decision of which to use. It is a combination of application, cost, and the properties of the finish. OSP is RoHS-compliant as there is zero lead content in the finish.

02/14/2023 | Anaya Vardya, American Standard Circuits

One of the biggest challenges facing PCB designers is not understanding the cost drivers in the PCB manufacturing process. This article is the latest in a series that will discuss these cost drivers (from the PCB manufacturer's perspective) and the design decisions that will impact product reliability.