In a 2 layer PCB with a top layer densely populated, from an EMI & EMC point of view should the ground plane be on top, bottom or both and why?Dealing with splits in my ground planeTraces over ground planePlacement of Vias to Connect Ground PlanesWhat are the advantages of having two ground pours?Splitting Power Tracks/Planes into Different LayersWhich is the best way to ground the top layer copper pour on a PCB?2-layer PCB design, through hole technology and ground planeMaking 2 layer board, using ground pour when I already use ground plane?Four layer board in Altium Designer, the power and ground layer is shown without copper pourWhy are ground pours isolated from each other on the top layer?Best layer stack strategy for a 6 layer PCB with mostly SMD componentsOptimum placement, PCB routing for bypass/decoupling capacitors and ground loops
Isn't it obvious there are infinitely many primes?
What happens when a ceramic bypass or decoupling capacitor goes bad?
Mostly pluses and minuses: says Grandpa
Why is super hero technology never used by civilians?
Phrase/Word-pair for a variant of master-slave relationship
What is the maximum distance you can cause damage from?
Does a small cup of coffee result in a 45% reduced blood flow to the brain?
How to schedule exclusively with the keyboard?
How to ask someone about something without accusing them
Are there any (natural) scientists in Middle-earth?
how make a equation a little smaller
Why do the Rebels probe the section of the shield within the gate?
Why is the Australian ETA application fee cheaper on a 3rd party website?
Is there a mechanic for a PC to learn the relative strength of an opponent, stat-wise?
Should I turn off kernel logging (and how?) if I'm running off an SSD?
Why in the world would the tab on a TO-220 package have a connection to anything (but GND, if applicable)?
Format a swedish phone number
Monoids of endomorphisms of nonisomorphic groups
Questions about go around safety
Can a President nominate a US Supreme Court Justice in anticipation of a sitting Justice's demise?
How to deal with third parties in physical pentests?
Why is hydro-electric power still scarce in some places?
Are results that are derived simply by having more computational power publishable?
How to understand quality of Google Maps transport info in advance?
In a 2 layer PCB with a top layer densely populated, from an EMI & EMC point of view should the ground plane be on top, bottom or both and why?
Dealing with splits in my ground planeTraces over ground planePlacement of Vias to Connect Ground PlanesWhat are the advantages of having two ground pours?Splitting Power Tracks/Planes into Different LayersWhich is the best way to ground the top layer copper pour on a PCB?2-layer PCB design, through hole technology and ground planeMaking 2 layer board, using ground pour when I already use ground plane?Four layer board in Altium Designer, the power and ground layer is shown without copper pourWhy are ground pours isolated from each other on the top layer?Best layer stack strategy for a 6 layer PCB with mostly SMD componentsOptimum placement, PCB routing for bypass/decoupling capacitors and ground loops
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Suppose I have a 2 layer PCB with the following characteristics:
- Top layer is relatively densely populated by both THT ad SMD components
- Bottom layer has very few traces
Among the following, what is the best option from a theoretical EMI & EMC point of view and why?
- Top ground plane (copper pour)
- Bottom ground plane (copper pour)
- Both top and bottom ground planes with connecting vias
If you think another option not listed might be better please do propose it and explain why.
This is a theoretical question so I don't have a concrete example to show. Feel free to report some practical examples.
My guess is that option 2 would be the best since it allows for the current to choose the path of least resistance and avoid large loops, although maybe depending on the layout option 3 might also be reasonable.
pcb pcb-design ground emc
asked Aug 11 at 18:05
mickkkmickkk
8473 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Suppose I have a 2 layer PCB with the following characteristics:
- Top layer is relatively densely populated by both THT ad SMD components
- Bottom layer has very few traces
Among the following, what is the best option from a theoretical EMI & EMC point of view and why?
- Top ground plane (copper pour)
- Bottom ground plane (copper pour)
- Both top and bottom ground planes with connecting vias
If you think another option not listed might be better please do propose it and explain why.
This is a theoretical question so I don't have a concrete example to show. Feel free to report some practical examples.
My guess is that option 2 would be the best since it allows for the current to choose the path of least resistance and avoid large loops, although maybe depending on the layout option 3 might also be reasonable.
pcb pcb-design ground emc
asked Aug 11 at 18:05
mickkkmickkk
8473 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What makes you think that 1 or 2 is better than 3? Looking at return paths, option 3 is good at least as 1 and 2, since it is both of them...
$endgroup$
– Vladimir Cravero
Aug 11 at 18:09
1
$begingroup$
If you turn the board upside down top becomes bottom.... what’s your question?
$endgroup$
– Andy aka
Aug 11 at 18:18
1
$begingroup$
@Andyaka the point is that one layer is densely populated by components and traces.. (i.e. the top one in this case, but it may be the bottom one as far as the problem is concerned).
$endgroup$
– mickkk
Aug 11 at 18:45
$begingroup$
related: Dealing with splits in my ground plane and Traces over ground plane
$endgroup$
– Nick Alexeev♦
Aug 12 at 3:27
$begingroup$
Why are you putting your SMDs on top in a mixed tech board? Generally mixed technology assemblies have the SMDs on the bottom (copper) side along with most of the traces; this was originally done to allow for single-pass wave soldering of all the things, but also allows the top (component) side to serve as the ground plane in a two-layer board.
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Aug 12 at 4:11
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Suppose I have a 2 layer PCB with the following characteristics:
- Top layer is relatively densely populated by both THT ad SMD components
- Bottom layer has very few traces
Among the following, what is the best option from a theoretical EMI & EMC point of view and why?
- Top ground plane (copper pour)
- Bottom ground plane (copper pour)
- Both top and bottom ground planes with connecting vias
If you think another option not listed might be better please do propose it and explain why.
This is a theoretical question so I don't have a concrete example to show. Feel free to report some practical examples.
My guess is that option 2 would be the best since it allows for the current to choose the path of least resistance and avoid large loops, although maybe depending on the layout option 3 might also be reasonable.
pcb pcb-design ground emc
asked Aug 11 at 18:05
mickkkmickkk
8473 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Suppose I have a 2 layer PCB with the following characteristics:
- Top layer is relatively densely populated by both THT ad SMD components
- Bottom layer has very few traces
Among the following, what is the best option from a theoretical EMI & EMC point of view and why?
- Top ground plane (copper pour)
- Bottom ground plane (copper pour)
- Both top and bottom ground planes with connecting vias
If you think another option not listed might be better please do propose it and explain why.
This is a theoretical question so I don't have a concrete example to show. Feel free to report some practical examples.
My guess is that option 2 would be the best since it allows for the current to choose the path of least resistance and avoid large loops, although maybe depending on the layout option 3 might also be reasonable.
pcb pcb-design ground emc
pcb pcb-design ground emc
asked Aug 11 at 18:05
mickkkmickkk
8473 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges
asked Aug 11 at 18:05
mickkkmickkk
8473 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges
asked Aug 11 at 18:05
mickkkmickkk
8473 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges
asked Aug 11 at 18:05
mickkkmickkk
8473 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges
asked Aug 11 at 18:05
mickkkmickkk
8473 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges
8473 gold badges9 silver badges24 bronze badges
$begingroup$
What makes you think that 1 or 2 is better than 3? Looking at return paths, option 3 is good at least as 1 and 2, since it is both of them...
$endgroup$
– Vladimir Cravero
Aug 11 at 18:09
1
$begingroup$
If you turn the board upside down top becomes bottom.... what’s your question?
$endgroup$
– Andy aka
Aug 11 at 18:18
1
$begingroup$
@Andyaka the point is that one layer is densely populated by components and traces.. (i.e. the top one in this case, but it may be the bottom one as far as the problem is concerned).
$endgroup$
– mickkk
Aug 11 at 18:45
$begingroup$
related: Dealing with splits in my ground plane and Traces over ground plane
$endgroup$
– Nick Alexeev♦
Aug 12 at 3:27
$begingroup$
Why are you putting your SMDs on top in a mixed tech board? Generally mixed technology assemblies have the SMDs on the bottom (copper) side along with most of the traces; this was originally done to allow for single-pass wave soldering of all the things, but also allows the top (component) side to serve as the ground plane in a two-layer board.
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Aug 12 at 4:11
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
What makes you think that 1 or 2 is better than 3? Looking at return paths, option 3 is good at least as 1 and 2, since it is both of them...
$endgroup$
– Vladimir Cravero
Aug 11 at 18:09
1
$begingroup$
If you turn the board upside down top becomes bottom.... what’s your question?
$endgroup$
– Andy aka
Aug 11 at 18:18
1
$begingroup$
@Andyaka the point is that one layer is densely populated by components and traces.. (i.e. the top one in this case, but it may be the bottom one as far as the problem is concerned).
$endgroup$
– mickkk
Aug 11 at 18:45
$begingroup$
related: Dealing with splits in my ground plane and Traces over ground plane
$endgroup$
– Nick Alexeev♦
Aug 12 at 3:27
$begingroup$
Why are you putting your SMDs on top in a mixed tech board? Generally mixed technology assemblies have the SMDs on the bottom (copper) side along with most of the traces; this was originally done to allow for single-pass wave soldering of all the things, but also allows the top (component) side to serve as the ground plane in a two-layer board.
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Aug 12 at 4:11
$begingroup$
What makes you think that 1 or 2 is better than 3? Looking at return paths, option 3 is good at least as 1 and 2, since it is both of them...
$endgroup$
– Vladimir Cravero
Aug 11 at 18:09
$begingroup$
What makes you think that 1 or 2 is better than 3? Looking at return paths, option 3 is good at least as 1 and 2, since it is both of them...
$endgroup$
– Vladimir Cravero
Aug 11 at 18:09
1
1
$begingroup$
If you turn the board upside down top becomes bottom.... what’s your question?
$endgroup$
– Andy aka
Aug 11 at 18:18
$begingroup$
If you turn the board upside down top becomes bottom.... what’s your question?
$endgroup$
– Andy aka
Aug 11 at 18:18
1
1
$begingroup$
@Andyaka the point is that one layer is densely populated by components and traces.. (i.e. the top one in this case, but it may be the bottom one as far as the problem is concerned).
$endgroup$
– mickkk
Aug 11 at 18:45
$begingroup$
@Andyaka the point is that one layer is densely populated by components and traces.. (i.e. the top one in this case, but it may be the bottom one as far as the problem is concerned).
$endgroup$
– mickkk
Aug 11 at 18:45
$begingroup$
related: Dealing with splits in my ground plane and Traces over ground plane
$endgroup$
– Nick Alexeev♦
Aug 12 at 3:27
$begingroup$
related: Dealing with splits in my ground plane and Traces over ground plane
$endgroup$
– Nick Alexeev♦
Aug 12 at 3:27
$begingroup$
Why are you putting your SMDs on top in a mixed tech board? Generally mixed technology assemblies have the SMDs on the bottom (copper) side along with most of the traces; this was originally done to allow for single-pass wave soldering of all the things, but also allows the top (component) side to serve as the ground plane in a two-layer board.
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Aug 12 at 4:11
$begingroup$
Why are you putting your SMDs on top in a mixed tech board? Generally mixed technology assemblies have the SMDs on the bottom (copper) side along with most of the traces; this was originally done to allow for single-pass wave soldering of all the things, but also allows the top (component) side to serve as the ground plane in a two-layer board.
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Aug 12 at 4:11
|
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You want as solid ground plane as possible, so you should have the ground on bottom and preferably have no other traces there.
For better copper balance you should also have the copper pours on the top layer to fill the empty spaces. If there isn't any better use for it, connecting the pours to the bottom ground plane with vias is a good choice. Though this has little to no effect on EMC performance.
So from your options the number 3 is the best, but if you are considering only EMC performance the option 2 is practically equally good.
Though, with these questions about 2 layer boards, I always like to remind that nowadays 4 layer boards are cheap, and using 2 layers is recommended only if you have to save every last penny, i.e. you have huge volumes. Otherwise the higher design cost of two layers will outnumber the higher production cost of 4 layers
answered Aug 11 at 18:19
TemeVTemeV
1,1231 silver badge9 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for pointing to the 4 layer board possibility.
$endgroup$
– jjmontes
Aug 12 at 10:07
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
A copper pour amongst a bunch of component traces is NOT the same as a ground plane. This is because the whole point of a ground plane is to provide currents the shortest, lowest inductance (smallest loop) possible path. This does not happen in a copper pour riddled with component pads and traces since the ground/return currents must take the long route around all the interruptions.
It's just a copper pour so less etchant is required and enure more symmetrical copper balance on both sides of the board (to prevent warping) that has been connected to a fixed potential so that it doesn't float and cause EMI issues.
With this in mind:
Option 1 is not a ground plane at all.
Option 2 is a ground plane.
Option 3 is not two ground plane connected by vias. It's one copper pour on top which has been connected to a ground plane on the bottom via copper pour.
answered Aug 11 at 18:49
DKNguyenDKNguyen
10.5k1 gold badge11 silver badges37 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So are you answering the OP with option 2? Your answer doesn't say...
$endgroup$
– TonyM
Aug 11 at 19:08
$begingroup$
@TonyM My point was to tell the OP the facts and have him draw his own conclusion. From an EMI/EMC point of view the difference should not matter between 2 and 3. But that doesn't mean 2 and 3 are the same in all other matters.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
Aug 11 at 19:57
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function ()
StackExchange.schematics.init();
);
, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452505%2fin-a-2-layer-pcb-with-a-top-layer-densely-populated-from-an-emi-emc-point-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You want as solid ground plane as possible, so you should have the ground on bottom and preferably have no other traces there.
For better copper balance you should also have the copper pours on the top layer to fill the empty spaces. If there isn't any better use for it, connecting the pours to the bottom ground plane with vias is a good choice. Though this has little to no effect on EMC performance.
So from your options the number 3 is the best, but if you are considering only EMC performance the option 2 is practically equally good.
Though, with these questions about 2 layer boards, I always like to remind that nowadays 4 layer boards are cheap, and using 2 layers is recommended only if you have to save every last penny, i.e. you have huge volumes. Otherwise the higher design cost of two layers will outnumber the higher production cost of 4 layers
answered Aug 11 at 18:19
TemeVTemeV
1,1231 silver badge9 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for pointing to the 4 layer board possibility.
$endgroup$
– jjmontes
Aug 12 at 10:07
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
You want as solid ground plane as possible, so you should have the ground on bottom and preferably have no other traces there.
For better copper balance you should also have the copper pours on the top layer to fill the empty spaces. If there isn't any better use for it, connecting the pours to the bottom ground plane with vias is a good choice. Though this has little to no effect on EMC performance.
So from your options the number 3 is the best, but if you are considering only EMC performance the option 2 is practically equally good.
Though, with these questions about 2 layer boards, I always like to remind that nowadays 4 layer boards are cheap, and using 2 layers is recommended only if you have to save every last penny, i.e. you have huge volumes. Otherwise the higher design cost of two layers will outnumber the higher production cost of 4 layers
answered Aug 11 at 18:19
TemeVTemeV
1,1231 silver badge9 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for pointing to the 4 layer board possibility.
$endgroup$
– jjmontes
Aug 12 at 10:07
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
You want as solid ground plane as possible, so you should have the ground on bottom and preferably have no other traces there.
For better copper balance you should also have the copper pours on the top layer to fill the empty spaces. If there isn't any better use for it, connecting the pours to the bottom ground plane with vias is a good choice. Though this has little to no effect on EMC performance.
So from your options the number 3 is the best, but if you are considering only EMC performance the option 2 is practically equally good.
Though, with these questions about 2 layer boards, I always like to remind that nowadays 4 layer boards are cheap, and using 2 layers is recommended only if you have to save every last penny, i.e. you have huge volumes. Otherwise the higher design cost of two layers will outnumber the higher production cost of 4 layers
answered Aug 11 at 18:19
TemeVTemeV
1,1231 silver badge9 bronze badges
$endgroup$
You want as solid ground plane as possible, so you should have the ground on bottom and preferably have no other traces there.
For better copper balance you should also have the copper pours on the top layer to fill the empty spaces. If there isn't any better use for it, connecting the pours to the bottom ground plane with vias is a good choice. Though this has little to no effect on EMC performance.
So from your options the number 3 is the best, but if you are considering only EMC performance the option 2 is practically equally good.
Though, with these questions about 2 layer boards, I always like to remind that nowadays 4 layer boards are cheap, and using 2 layers is recommended only if you have to save every last penny, i.e. you have huge volumes. Otherwise the higher design cost of two layers will outnumber the higher production cost of 4 layers
answered Aug 11 at 18:19
TemeVTemeV
1,1231 silver badge9 bronze badges
edited Aug 12 at 12:35
answered Aug 11 at 18:19
TemeVTemeV
1,1231 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered Aug 11 at 18:19
TemeVTemeV
1,1231 silver badge9 bronze badges
answered Aug 11 at 18:19
TemeVTemeV
1,1231 silver badge9 bronze badges
1,1231 silver badge9 bronze badges
$begingroup$
+1 for pointing to the 4 layer board possibility.
$endgroup$
– jjmontes
Aug 12 at 10:07
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
+1 for pointing to the 4 layer board possibility.
$endgroup$
– jjmontes
Aug 12 at 10:07
$begingroup$
+1 for pointing to the 4 layer board possibility.
$endgroup$
– jjmontes
Aug 12 at 10:07
$begingroup$
+1 for pointing to the 4 layer board possibility.
$endgroup$
– jjmontes
Aug 12 at 10:07
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
A copper pour amongst a bunch of component traces is NOT the same as a ground plane. This is because the whole point of a ground plane is to provide currents the shortest, lowest inductance (smallest loop) possible path. This does not happen in a copper pour riddled with component pads and traces since the ground/return currents must take the long route around all the interruptions.
It's just a copper pour so less etchant is required and enure more symmetrical copper balance on both sides of the board (to prevent warping) that has been connected to a fixed potential so that it doesn't float and cause EMI issues.
With this in mind:
Option 1 is not a ground plane at all.
Option 2 is a ground plane.
Option 3 is not two ground plane connected by vias. It's one copper pour on top which has been connected to a ground plane on the bottom via copper pour.
answered Aug 11 at 18:49
DKNguyenDKNguyen
10.5k1 gold badge11 silver badges37 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So are you answering the OP with option 2? Your answer doesn't say...
$endgroup$
– TonyM
Aug 11 at 19:08
$begingroup$
@TonyM My point was to tell the OP the facts and have him draw his own conclusion. From an EMI/EMC point of view the difference should not matter between 2 and 3. But that doesn't mean 2 and 3 are the same in all other matters.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
Aug 11 at 19:57
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
A copper pour amongst a bunch of component traces is NOT the same as a ground plane. This is because the whole point of a ground plane is to provide currents the shortest, lowest inductance (smallest loop) possible path. This does not happen in a copper pour riddled with component pads and traces since the ground/return currents must take the long route around all the interruptions.
It's just a copper pour so less etchant is required and enure more symmetrical copper balance on both sides of the board (to prevent warping) that has been connected to a fixed potential so that it doesn't float and cause EMI issues.
With this in mind:
Option 1 is not a ground plane at all.
Option 2 is a ground plane.
Option 3 is not two ground plane connected by vias. It's one copper pour on top which has been connected to a ground plane on the bottom via copper pour.
answered Aug 11 at 18:49
DKNguyenDKNguyen
10.5k1 gold badge11 silver badges37 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So are you answering the OP with option 2? Your answer doesn't say...
$endgroup$
– TonyM
Aug 11 at 19:08
$begingroup$
@TonyM My point was to tell the OP the facts and have him draw his own conclusion. From an EMI/EMC point of view the difference should not matter between 2 and 3. But that doesn't mean 2 and 3 are the same in all other matters.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
Aug 11 at 19:57
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
A copper pour amongst a bunch of component traces is NOT the same as a ground plane. This is because the whole point of a ground plane is to provide currents the shortest, lowest inductance (smallest loop) possible path. This does not happen in a copper pour riddled with component pads and traces since the ground/return currents must take the long route around all the interruptions.
It's just a copper pour so less etchant is required and enure more symmetrical copper balance on both sides of the board (to prevent warping) that has been connected to a fixed potential so that it doesn't float and cause EMI issues.
With this in mind:
Option 1 is not a ground plane at all.
Option 2 is a ground plane.
Option 3 is not two ground plane connected by vias. It's one copper pour on top which has been connected to a ground plane on the bottom via copper pour.
answered Aug 11 at 18:49
DKNguyenDKNguyen
10.5k1 gold badge11 silver badges37 bronze badges
$endgroup$
A copper pour amongst a bunch of component traces is NOT the same as a ground plane. This is because the whole point of a ground plane is to provide currents the shortest, lowest inductance (smallest loop) possible path. This does not happen in a copper pour riddled with component pads and traces since the ground/return currents must take the long route around all the interruptions.
It's just a copper pour so less etchant is required and enure more symmetrical copper balance on both sides of the board (to prevent warping) that has been connected to a fixed potential so that it doesn't float and cause EMI issues.
With this in mind:
Option 1 is not a ground plane at all.
Option 2 is a ground plane.
Option 3 is not two ground plane connected by vias. It's one copper pour on top which has been connected to a ground plane on the bottom via copper pour.
answered Aug 11 at 18:49
DKNguyenDKNguyen
10.5k1 gold badge11 silver badges37 bronze badges
edited Aug 11 at 18:58
answered Aug 11 at 18:49
DKNguyenDKNguyen
10.5k1 gold badge11 silver badges37 bronze badges
answered Aug 11 at 18:49
DKNguyenDKNguyen
10.5k1 gold badge11 silver badges37 bronze badges
answered Aug 11 at 18:49
DKNguyenDKNguyen
10.5k1 gold badge11 silver badges37 bronze badges
10.5k1 gold badge11 silver badges37 bronze badges
$begingroup$
So are you answering the OP with option 2? Your answer doesn't say...
$endgroup$
– TonyM
Aug 11 at 19:08
$begingroup$
@TonyM My point was to tell the OP the facts and have him draw his own conclusion. From an EMI/EMC point of view the difference should not matter between 2 and 3. But that doesn't mean 2 and 3 are the same in all other matters.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
Aug 11 at 19:57
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
So are you answering the OP with option 2? Your answer doesn't say...
$endgroup$
– TonyM
Aug 11 at 19:08
$begingroup$
@TonyM My point was to tell the OP the facts and have him draw his own conclusion. From an EMI/EMC point of view the difference should not matter between 2 and 3. But that doesn't mean 2 and 3 are the same in all other matters.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
Aug 11 at 19:57
$begingroup$
So are you answering the OP with option 2? Your answer doesn't say...
$endgroup$
– TonyM
Aug 11 at 19:08
$begingroup$
So are you answering the OP with option 2? Your answer doesn't say...
$endgroup$
– TonyM
Aug 11 at 19:08
$begingroup$
@TonyM My point was to tell the OP the facts and have him draw his own conclusion. From an EMI/EMC point of view the difference should not matter between 2 and 3. But that doesn't mean 2 and 3 are the same in all other matters.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
Aug 11 at 19:57
$begingroup$
@TonyM My point was to tell the OP the facts and have him draw his own conclusion. From an EMI/EMC point of view the difference should not matter between 2 and 3. But that doesn't mean 2 and 3 are the same in all other matters.
$endgroup$
– DKNguyen
Aug 11 at 19:57
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452505%2fin-a-2-layer-pcb-with-a-top-layer-densely-populated-from-an-emi-emc-point-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
What makes you think that 1 or 2 is better than 3? Looking at return paths, option 3 is good at least as 1 and 2, since it is both of them...
$endgroup$
– Vladimir Cravero
Aug 11 at 18:09
1
$begingroup$
If you turn the board upside down top becomes bottom.... what’s your question?
$endgroup$
– Andy aka
Aug 11 at 18:18
1
$begingroup$
@Andyaka the point is that one layer is densely populated by components and traces.. (i.e. the top one in this case, but it may be the bottom one as far as the problem is concerned).
$endgroup$
– mickkk
Aug 11 at 18:45
$begingroup$
related: Dealing with splits in my ground plane and Traces over ground plane
$endgroup$
– Nick Alexeev♦
Aug 12 at 3:27
$begingroup$
Why are you putting your SMDs on top in a mixed tech board? Generally mixed technology assemblies have the SMDs on the bottom (copper) side along with most of the traces; this was originally done to allow for single-pass wave soldering of all the things, but also allows the top (component) side to serve as the ground plane in a two-layer board.
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Aug 12 at 4:11