Part Verification and Datasheet Review
Thought for 2 mins 6 sec
I reviewed the part project against the current datasheet URL and the existing symbol/footprint data. I used the datasheet as the source of truth for pin-count and metadata checking, which is the right workflow for part-project verification
What’s currently in the part project
Project metadata
- MPN:
SKRHADE010 - Manufacturer Name:
ALPS Electric - Designator Prefix:
S - Datasheet URL:
https://www.mouser.fr/datasheet/2/15/SKRH-1370966.pdf - Project description:
Multi-Directional Switches 4-directn cntr push w/ boss 500K cycles
Symbol terminals present
- Electrical-style terminals:
A,CENTER,C,B,COMMON,D - Additional terminals:
MP1,MP2 - All terminal
Pin Typevalues are currentlyUnspecified - No pin descriptions are populated
- Pin numbers are set as:
A=1CENTER=2C=3B=4COMMON=5D=6MP1=MP1MP2=MP2
Footprint objects present
- Pads named:
A,CENTER,C,B,COMMON,D,MP1,MP2 - Additional footprint pad objects:
MH1,MH2
From the current datasheet URL:
- Part family: SKRH 4-direction with Center-push Function, Surface Mount Type
- Manufacturer shown in the datasheet: Alps Alpine
- Exact listed part number includes SKRHADE010
- Electrical rating: 50 mA, 12 VDC max
- Minimum rating: 10 µA, 1 VDC
- For SKRHADE010:
- 4-direction operating force: 1.2 N
- Center-push operating force: 2.35 N
- Travel: 0.25 mm directional, 0.15 mm center-push
- Operating life: 1,000,000 cycles for each direction
- Initial contact resistance: 100 mΩ max
- Body dimensions from the extracted table for this variant family: about W = 7.45 mm, D = 7.5 mm, H = 5 mm
- The datasheet extraction clearly shows a 6-terminal circuit diagram numbered 1..6 and a separate PCB mounting hole and land dimensions drawing. It did not yield a textual legend naming those six pins. The PDF text extraction specifically did not find explicit terminal descriptions like “common terminal” or “center push terminal.”
- Type: 4-direction tactile switch with center-push
- Mounting: Surface mount
- Electrical contacts shown: 6
- Max rating: 50 mA, 12 VDC
- Min rating: 10 µA, 1 VDC
- Directional force: 1.2 N
- Center force: 2.35 N
- Travel: 0.25 mm directional / 0.15 mm center
- Life: 1,000,000 cycles each direction
- Initial contact resistance: 100 mΩ max
Your current description says “500K cycles”, but the datasheet entry for SKRHADE010 says 1,000,000 cycles for each direction.
This is a real mismatch.
2) Manufacturer name is outdated / inconsistent
This is a real mismatch.
Project property says ALPS Electric, while the datasheet identifies the manufacturer as Alps Alpine.
Not electrically critical, but it is a metadata mismatch.
3) Package / case code is missing
Not electrically critical, but it is a metadata mismatch.
I did not find a populated package property in the project. The datasheet confirms the part is surface mount, and gives body dimensions, but I didn’t see a formal package/case code already stored in the project.
4) Symbol has 8 terminals, while datasheet circuit diagram shows 6 electrical terminals
The datasheet extraction clearly shows a 6-pin circuit diagram. Your symbol exposes:
- 6 numbered electrical terminals (
1..6) - plus
MP1andMP2
That means the symbol currently behaves like an 8-terminal part. This is a potential mismatch unless
MP1/MP2 are intentionally exposed mechanical solder tabs.The footprint includes:
- 6 named electrical pads matching the circuit diagram
MP1,MP2- and also
MH1,MH2
So the footprint contains 10 named pad objects total. Based on the text-extracted datasheet, I could confirm only:
- 6 circuit terminals
- plus a separate mounting-hole/land drawing
So there is a potential footprint over-definition or naming inconsistency:
MP1/MP2andMH1/MH2may be duplicating the same mechanical features, or- they may represent separate holes and lands, but the current extracted datasheet text was not detailed enough to prove that.
No terminal descriptions are populated in the project. That’s a gap.
7) Pin types are all still Unspecified
For a switch part, these should be intentionally classified rather than left unspecified. Even if the exact functional names need confirmation, leaving every terminal as
8) Terminal names are only partially confirmed by the datasheet
Unspecified weakens downstream usability/ERC.The current symbol names:
A,B,C,D,CENTER,COMMON
These are plausible, but the PDF text extraction did not provide an explicit terminal-name legend. So I can confirm the pin numbers 1..6 exist, but I cannot fully prove that the current semantic naming is exactly what Alps Alpine intended from the extracted text alone.
Datasheet URL status
A datasheet URL is already set, so I did not update it.
I also checked for a more official source: I did not find a dedicated official per-part PDF for
Bottom line
I also checked for a more official source: I did not find a dedicated official per-part PDF for
SKRHADE010, but I did find an official Alps Alpine SKRH series catalog PDF that includes this exact part number. So your current Mouser-hosted PDF is usable, but it is not obviously the most canonical official URL.Looks correct / likely correct
- MPN
SKRHADE010 - Designator prefix
S - 6 main electrical pins numbered
1..6 - General part family and switch function
Needs attention
- Description lifecycle spec is wrong:
500Kvs datasheet1,000,000 - Manufacturer should likely be normalized to
Alps Alpine - Package/case metadata is incomplete
- Pin descriptions are missing
- Pin types are all unspecified
- Symbol/footprint handling of
MP1/MP2andMH1/MH2needs verification against the mechanical drawing
If you want, I can do the next pass and update the metadata + terminal properties, and I can also help decide whether
MP1/MP2 should remain exposed symbol pins or be treated as purely mechanical footprint features.Fix all mismatches
Check power passives
Save review notes
To get started, talk to Flux or create a New Document.
