Add Daisy Chain Board - PCB

[mohamed-dek1]

Closes #86

Notes

Anything reviewers should be aware of when reviewing? Other related issues? Known problems? Future work?

Self-Review

1. Are all files under 300 kB (if not, please carefully assess whether it is worth committing them)? No, the altium file are bigger but required
2. Are all files named according to the appropriate naming convention, i.e., dash-case, camelCase, snake case? Yes
3. Do all Markdown files follow the CONTRIBUTING article template? N/A
4. Do all links work in the material that the PR is adding? N/A
5. Is the PR configured to close the correct issue(s)? Yes
6. Did the PR fully address the Approach section of the issue(s) it is closing? Yes

Reviewer Instructions

Reviewers, please copy and paste a suitable review checklist into your review and answer all questions.

Appendix

This section should be the same for all PRs. Do not edit this section when creating a PR.

Review Checklists

Checklists maintained by the eLev lab for research repositories include:

• Report checklist
• Publication archive checklist (select a checklist from the Approach that corresponds to the step this PR seeks to complete).
• Standard checklist (if none of the above apply).

Standard checklist

1. Are all files under 300 kB (if not, please carefully assess whether it is worth committing them)? **Yes or No**
2. Are all files named according to the appropriate [naming convention](https://github.com/Severson-Group/research-repo-template?tab=readme-ov-file#file-naming), i.e., dash-case, camelCase, snake case? **Yes or No**
3. Do all Markdown files follow the [CONTRIBUTING article template](https://github.com/Severson-Group/.github/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#markdown-documentation-template)? **Yes or No**
4. Do all links work in the material that the PR is adding? **Yes or No**
5. Is the PR configured to close the correct issue(s)? **Yes or No**
6. Did the PR fully address the `Approach` section of the issue(s) it is closing? **Yes or No**

Please work on addressing any **No** items.

PCB

2D

3D Top

3D Bottom

@knvprasad-dr can you review this?

[mohamed-dek1]

Per 1/26:

I've run a DRC and ran into a bunch of warnings. After fixing many of the warnings and also updating some of the rule constraints, this is the updated PCB for this board.

2D top

3D top

3D bottom

[mohamed-dek1]

After updating the pins from the schematic, this is the most recent PCB design.

Front

Back

[mohamed-dek1]

Per 1/29:

@knvprasad-dr and I have gone through and reviewed the PCB layout. Below are screenshots of the current layout along with a passed DRC report.

DRC Report

Schematic

3D

[knvprasad-dr]

Thank you @mohamed-dek1, PCB looks good to me.

1. Are all files under 300 kB (if not, please carefully assess whether it is worth committing them)? No PCB files are larger than 300 kB
2. Are all files named according to the appropriate naming convention, i.e., dash-case, camelCase, snake case? Yes
3. Do all Markdown files follow the CONTRIBUTING article template? NA
4. Do all links work in the material that the PR is adding? NA
5. Is the PR configured to close the correct issue(s)? Yes
6. Did the PR fully address the Approach section of the issue(s) it is closing? Yes

Prof. @elsevers, I have checked files by opening them in the lab system and they look fine, could you please review this PR.

[elsevers]

Thanks @mohamed-dek1 and @knvprasad-dr. I am approving this based on seeing the files are named reasonably. I have not done a detailed review and so am counting on your careful review. One question I do have: what size stand-offs is this specified for? Is it the same as the AMDC or AMDS?

If yes: and if you are comfortable with this, I say go ahead and merge.

[mohamed-dek1]

The board is designed with the same standoffs that the AMDS uses. These are the #4-40 1/2" standoffs with #4-40 1/4" screws.