We use cookies to provide our visitors with an optimal site experience. View our privacy notice and cookie notice to learn more about how we use cookies and how to manage your settings. By proceeding on our website you consent to the use of cookies.
Yes, I would go with the footprint from Allegro, it appears correct. If there is any doubt you can always check against the dimensions provided in the datasheet, snippets below:
I see what you’re saying about the evaluation board layout vs. the datasheet. I’m going to field this one with our Product Management team for Allegro to see what they say. We’ll get back as soon as we have anything.
The device has a TMR-type magnetic field sensor inside which detects the magnetic field of the current passing through the pad on the bottom of the device. The sensor can detect magnitude and polarity of the field, which can be used to resolve for current magnitude and direction.
All that matters is that the current pass through that pad. In either footprint shown above, the current will pass through that pad and allow the TMR sensor to get the reading, so it doesn’t matter, from a functionality standpoint, which layout is used. However, using the entire pad would seem to be the better design practice, as it provides more surface area for the CT110 to adhere to the circuit board, which should make it less likely to break off due to external stresses.
Here’s a useful image Allegro shows in one of their power points covering TMR current sensors: