PCB Placement Redesign

H

hanyyassa76

Execute the bottom/power PCB placement redesign now. Set board to 32 mm x 32 mm rounded-square with 8 mm corner radius and Standard 4 Layer stackup overrides: L1 Signal, L2 Ground Plane, L3 Power Plane, L4 Signal. Do not route. Preserve schematic components; do not delete. Ensure bottom-board components are included for PCB/BOM and top-board-only components are marked Exclude from PCB/BOM/Pick&Place. Place J7 exactly at X=+5.0 mm, Y=-17.6 mm, rotation 0°. Place U1/J2/RT1/U2/Q1/F1/J1/D1/PS1/L4/D2/D3/IC1/K1/J5/J6/D9/M1-M4/Q2-Q5/D4-D7 and local passives in the required functional groups. Run DRC/fit/routing feasibility checks, do not route, and update/create the project file 'Bottom Power PCB Placement Notes'. Keep final concise.

flux

I’ll apply the bottom/power PCB placement redesign, keep the schematic intact, exclude top-board-only parts from fabrication outputs, then run placement/fit/DRC feasibility checks without routing.

flux

I found the existing project files list and am applying the requested board geometry/stackup first, then I’ll use the project notes to classify bottom vs top-board-only parts.

flux

The board setup operation is hitting a platform-side “missing project document context” error, so I’m checking whether layout/document state is accessible before retrying with a lower-level edit path.

flux

Processing was stopped.
Here's a summary of what I was working on: Troubleshooting tool issues
It looks like the tool is failing, which has me wondering if there's an active run. I might need to inspect the project metadata or check if the current project isn't in the right context. I see that the layout appears to be empty, which is odd. Perhaps there’s no layout document in context. I should report this, but maybe I can still proceed with mutating the layout component positions. It’s worth a try to read the docs for more insight.
Use Placement tool
Inspect current setup
Create placement notes
Run checks only
Inspect, place, check
Sign up to send

Files

Schematic

Layout

Preview

Screenless Layout Feasibility — Premium Health Smartwatch PCB
Summary
I completed the schematic revision for the screenless wearable:
  • removed the blue and amber LEDs
  • converted the remaining indicator to a single low-power green LED
  • rewired that LED to the nPM1300 LED0 output through a 1 kΩ resistor from VSYS
  • updated the project specification and firmware pin plan
  • verified the schematic-side rule checks relevant to the LED change are clean
Board-size attempts
32 mm x 32 mm rounded square
Result: not feasible with the current architecture and component set.
Observed outcome:
  • the board is substantially over-packed even using both sides
  • fresh placement did not converge to a manufacturable arrangement
  • there were persistent component collisions and spacing failures
  • the design could not be prepared for routing in this envelope
34 mm x 34 mm rounded square
Result: still not feasible with the current architecture and the user's 34 mm maximum.
Observed outcome:
  • board density remains critical
  • congestion remains concentrated around the lower central area where these blocks compete for space:
    • nRF5340 main MCU (U3)
    • nPM1300 PMIC (U1)
    • ADS1292R ECG AFE (U10)
    • USB-C connector (J1)
    • electrode connector block (J4)
  • a follow-up fresh placement attempt at 34 mm timed out before it could meaningfully improve the arrangement
  • routing is not the current blocker; manufacturable placement is
Main blocking cluster
The layout is dominated by five competing regions that all want short, low-noise paths:
  1. MCU / central digital hub — U3 and its decoupling, crystals, RF matching
  2. Power-entry / PMIC block — J1, U1, fuse, battery path, charger sensing
  3. ECG analog block — U10 and the electrode-side routing region
  4. High-voltage stimulation block — boost, timing, photorelay, clamp, output limiting
  5. Mechanical perimeter claims — four motors, antenna edge, battery connector, skin sensors, USB edge
At 34 mm, these requirements still overlap too heavily for a clean wearable board without either:
  • increasing board size beyond the user-approved maximum, or
  • changing the architecture / mechanical partitioning
What would unblock the layout
Any one of the following would materially improve feasibility:
  1. Increase board size beyond 34 mm
  2. Relax architecture constraints, especially one or more of:
    • move the SWD/programming connector off-board or to test pads only
    • reduce or relocate the ECG connector/mechanical region
    • reduce the number or placement of corner motors
    • externalize part of the stimulation or ECG interface
  3. Allow a different mechanical partition, such as a rigid-flex or a two-board wearable architecture
Recommendation
For a fully manufacturable wearable with this exact feature set, the cleanest next step is to approve either:
  • a larger board than 34 mm, or
  • a controlled architecture simplification focused on the lower-center congestion around U3/U1/U10/J1/J4
Until one of those changes is approved, I do not recommend proceeding to routing or manufacturing export.

  • Summary

  • Board-size attempts

  • 32 mm x 32 mm rounded square

  • 34 mm x 34 mm rounded square

  • Main blocking cluster

  • What would unblock the layout

  • Recommendation