Saturday, August 9, 2008
Greener PCB Coatings
Balance cost, performance and environmental impact when selecting a conformal coating.
Many of today’s circuit boards benefit from the use of protective, yet environmentally “green” conformal coatings that allow them to operate reliably, even in harsh environments. The usage of conformal coatings has been rapidly expanding in recent years, not only in highly demanding applications such as avionics, military and automotive, but also in portable electronics that sometimes face more severe use – and abuse – than you might at first recognize.
Conformal coatings have a proven track record of protecting boards from dust and debris, liquids, and contact with a wide range of harsh conditions that they encounter. Such coatings must protect in very cold to very hot environments, and withstand vibrations and mechanical shocks that range from those encountered in automotive engine compartments to personal electronics that are frequently dropped, kicked, run over, and even immersed in the ocean. In all of these conditions, coatings must protect electronics from shorts and other damage.
Protective coatings work by closely conforming to surfaces, components, wire bonds and solder joints and forming a barrier to conductive contaminants. Additionally, they electrically insulate and isolate conductors that may be in close proximity to each other. An application of a coating to a PCB is shown in Figure 1. Conformal coatings are applied at the end of the assembly process, but like the components on the PCB, these coatings are most often selected early in the design process, based on specific performance requirements.
Even with greatly enhanced durability that can come from protecting electronics with a conformal coating, all too often such protection is added as an afterthought or as a last-minute correction to prevent failures brought to light by design-validation testing just before production launch. At this late stage in the game, only limited material characteristics can be considered, and trade-offs between performance, material price and production costs must be made very quickly. Ideally, such durability performance should be designed in from the start.
When improved reliability and durability requirements lead to coating choices made earlier in the commercialization cycle, designers can not only factor in board layouts that simplify coating application processes, but also consider the potential environmental and material regulatory aspects of their materials choice. There can be considerable differences in the possible environmental impacts of various coatings, and these differences may factor into the decisions of circuit board companies that want to improve the “green” credentials of their electronics.
There are many factors that go into the selection of the best conformal coating for a given application. Cost draws the laser focus of purchasing agents and buyers, and is the bane of suppliers’ sales agents. It is easy to concentrate on the price per kilogram of a material when considering various types of coatings, but that is only part of the total cost of ownership. Even materials that meet performance specifications may differ wildly on the cost associated with delivery, inventory, handling, dispensing, curing, waste handling, testing, scrap rates and warranty/ reliability/ durability in the final end use.
In Figure 2 the market share for the different types of coating materials is shown. Because of their low purchase price, acrylics are the largest volume coating used, but a low initial cost does not tell the whole story.
A solvent-based coating for instance, may offer a very attractive price per kilogram, but may require multiple application passes to obtain the same cured coating thickness – and therefore level of protection – as a solventless material. Additionally, there are costs associated with shipping, handling, storage, and the use of flammable and often toxic solvents. Moreover these same solvents transform into vapors during curing, and the vapors can often present additional issues to deal with. Also, most solvents are considered Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and, in addition to having toxicological properties, they are recognized as contributors to ozone depletion and/or global warming. Finally, there may be considerable costs associated with the waste disposal of uncured (and sometimes cured) material.
Likewise, materials that require a curing oven not only add capital costs when setting up a production line, but also incur additional energy costs and likely add work for the HVAC of the manufacturing area. Ovens also add cycle time and work-in-process (WIP) costs that must be added to the total cost-of-ownership equation. The example in Figure 3 compares the total cost of two materials. Coating material 'A' had a lower price per kilogram, but ended up with higher processing costs and more rework and scrap costs. When the total cost to coat a board was calculated, the two materials had almost identical cost.
Other factors can include the cost of quality problems, measured by first-time reject and rework rates. On the other hand, improved profit margin in the form of superior reliability and durability for the end product can be achieved and enhanced by making the correct conformal coating selection.
Besides cost of purchase, performance criteria certainly must be met. Even here, just meeting product specification minimum requirements may not be an adequate criterion for choosing one coating versus another. For instance, a minimum coating-thickness requirement must be met to ensure adequate protection. However, nearly all coating application methods will produce varying thicknesses on a populated board. Vertical surfaces, wires, sharp edges and solder joints often will allow a coating to slump and sag, leaving far less coating and protection in those areas.
Boards may require differing levels of protection, depending on the environment in which they will be used. While board assemblers may try different coatings in pursuing a more perfect match of performance and value for a given application, there are additional costs when multiple coatings are used on a production floor. In some cases, using one product that meets the most demanding requirements for all coating lines may actually incur lower total costs when viewed through the larger picture of an entire plant’s operation.
Besides cost and performance, an increasing concern for lower environmental impact is affecting board assemblers’ decision making when evaluating conformal coating choices.
Solvents. Most production lines capture only a fraction of the solvent vapors given off by many coatings,and this applies particularly to acrylic coatings. These solvents are typically vented to the atmosphere where they are usually counted as greenhouse gases. Additionally, most solvents have noxious odors that are quite objectionable to workers – and to neighbors as well.
In addition to solvents within the coating formulation, some products, such as parylene, requires an adhesion promotion step that can involve large quantities of solvent that are released into the air and must be either captured or scrubbed before it is vented into the atmosphere.
Solventless coatings create far fewer volatiles or vapors, and therefore may contribute far less to environmental problems such as global warming. Parylene, urethanes and silicones are commonly available in solventless versions. In some cases, silicones are available in solvents that are not considered VOCs or greenhouse gases.
Toxicity. While nearly all materials can be considered as having at least some toxicological effects in certain concentrations or exposures, some coatings are recognized as needing greater care when handling, applying, curing and in the disposing of waste materials. Some acrylics and many urethanes can present significant challenges. Parylene and silicone have some of the least issues in this regard.
Operator Impact. Besides flammability and toxicology issues, worker exposure to unpleasant or noxious fumes and potential health problems due to skin contact are significant concerns. Parylene, which must be deposited under highly controlled vacuum conditions, is commonly applied only by specialized vendors. Silicones generally are more user-friendly than most conformal coatings.
Waste. When considering the environmental impact of a coating, the disposition of the waste associated with its application and use should be taken into consideration. While most spray, flow and dip-tank applications can limit waste to a relatively low percentage, parylene application can generate 90% or greater rates of material waste.
Environmental Stability. It is easy to overlook the disposal process of materials once they leave a manufacturing site. Organic carbon-based coatings will last a long time when used within their specification limits, but eventually they will degrade chemically, breaking down with exposure to sunlight, heat, ozone, bacteria and a host of other environmental conditions. Coating degradation causes the release of chemical components into the environment In Figure 4, the environmental impact of the various process steps is detailed. Silicones are widely recognized as having far superior stability to harsh and prolonged exposure conditions.
Environmental Impact. When carbon-based coatings do degrade, they release considerable carbon-content chemicals into the air and ground, since they are typically made up of greater than 90% carbon. However, since silicones are based on an inorganic mineral-like structure, they have far less carbon to release when they do eventually degrade. Typical silicones have only 33% carbon content (Figure 5).
Many electronic applications have had to deal with lead-free regulations that have required use of alternative soldering materials. While reducing the potential environmental impact of lead, these regulations have caused other issues. One of the bigger problems has come from the higher tin content in solders. Under some conditions, tin will form “whiskers” and other phenomenon that can bridge between conductors, causing electrical shorts and failures. This has substantially reduced reliability and life expectancy on some circuit boards.
Several studies have shown that silicones have been one of the best conformal coatings at slowing the formation of tin-whiskers. Additionally, they also may deflect the growth direction, which can prolong the life expectancy of the electronic assembly.1
Conclusion
There are many factors that go into the selection of conformal coatings used to protect circuit boards. Performance is critical, and total cost of ownership must ensure economic viability. Environmental “green” concerns are growing in importance, even in emerging markets at both the corporate and governmental levels. Each type of conformal coating has its own set of benefits and detractors that must be considered to make the best performance, economic and environmental choices.
Acrylics have a very low price, but many contain undesirably high levels of solvents that pose significant flammability, toxicological, and environmental concerns. Their low price may well be offset when looking at the total cost of ownership and environmental impact.
Urethanes offer expanded performance at an intermediate price, but health and safety concerns can seriously compromise their perceived value and the full costs of use. When urethanes degrade, they can release high levels of both carbon- and nitrogen-based chemicals into the environment.
Parylene is a specialty coating whose total cost of use can be extremely high. It also has by far the highest material waste associated with typical protective coating applications.
Silicones have a high purchase price, but their ease of use, high performance, superior stability, relatively low environmental impact, and the increased reliability improvements for circuit boards can often reduce their total cost to the same or even less than other common coatings. PCD&F
REFERENCES
1. Evaluation Of Conformal Coatings As A Tin Whisker Mitigation Strategy, Part I & II, Thomas A. Woodrow and Eugene A. Ledbury, The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA.
Kent Larson is a senior engineer within the Electronics Global Application Engineering Center at Dow Corning Corporation and can be reached at electronics@dowcorning.com.
free PCB fundamentals pdf to download
Printed Circuit Board Fundamentals
Copper Plating and Microvia Fill for Advanced PCBs
Vertical in-line plating systems are well-suited for high-volume PCB manufacturing that requires copper plated microvia fill.
Miniaturization and portability of consumer electronics is driving the ever-increasing circuit density of today’s PCB designs. Thin core material, combined with build-up constructions, reduced line widths, smaller diameter through-holes and blind microvias are the key attributes of high density interconnect (HDI) packages.
Electrolytic copper microvia filling is an enabling technology prominently used in today’s manufacture of advanced HDI product. This article describes the features and benefits of vertical in-line (VIL) plating equipment for copper microvia fill mass production.
Advanced HDI product designs require planar surfaces after via fill to allow reliable formation of subsequent layers with a minimum amount of copper deposited onto the surface to improve fine-line yield. Via fill quality is typically characterized by a parameter termed “dimple depth,” which represents the difference in heights between the plated copper within a via and around the perimeter of that via. Customer specifications continue to demand increased via fill quality at progressively lower plated copper thicknesses. The capabilities of some current microvia filling processes are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
Selection of Electroplating Equipment for Copper Microvia Filling
The following factors should be considered when comparing the advantages and disadvantages of different types of copper electroplating processes for via filling:
1.Plating uniformity
2.Thin core material handling
3.Throughput
4.Equipment cost, complexity and footprint.
Copper electroplating process equipment can be generally placed in two broad categories: vertical batch or continuous conveyorized processes. In conventional vertical batch electroplating systems, a number of panels are mounted on a single flight bar and processed in a single vertical plating cell for the full duration of the plating cycle. In conveyorized electroplating systems, the panels are dynamically transported through a series of plating cells.
Continuous conveyorized processes can be further divided into horizontal and vertical systems. While both individual panels and continuous web flex circuits may be processed in such types of conveyorized equipment, this article will focus on processing individual HDI substrates, rather than the use of specialized reel-to-reel equipment for flexible circuit manufacture.
Vertical Batch vs. Conveyorized Equipment
With conventional vertical batch electroplating systems, increased production throughput may be realized by increasing the number and/or the size of the plating cells. When the size of a plating cell is increased, the number of panels within the cell increases proportionally. Depending on the specific design and dimensions of the plating cell, panels may be placed in either single or multiple rows on a flight bar. Unfortunately, this increased panel loading leads to decreased plating uniformity, particularly when comparing panels from the center of the flight bar with those from the ends.
In contrast, the use of either horizontal or vertical conveyorized equipment promotes increased consistency, as each panel “sees” the same overall flow and current distribution as it passes through the equipment. The improvements in consistency can be seen in both better surface thickness distribution and enhanced uniformity of throwing power and via filling, both within a panel and from panel-to-panel.
However, when side-to-side variation within a panel is considered, vertical continuous systems hold a significant advantage in that only vertical systems allow the two sides of the panel to be processed in equivalent physical environments. VIL equipment designs are particularly suitable for via filling applications since the vertical panel orientation minimizes air entrapment and associated skipped or partially filled vias. In contrast, these defects can be problematic on the bottom-side of panels processed in horizontal equipment.
Conveyorized systems have an overwhelming advantage over conventional vertical batch systems when it comes to handling thin-core material. For ultra-thin material, horizontal systems may hold a slight handling advantage over VIL plating systems.
When system cost and footprint are considered, VIL equipment affords considerable advantages versus horizontal designs of similar capacity. Additionally, more advanced multiple track VIL equipment designs are being offered, which provide both conventional conformal plating and via filling capability in a single process line.
A wide variety of system design features that further enhance via filling performance may be incorporated in VIL plating equipment. These include the use of insoluble anodes and engineered fluid delivery devices such as eductors or nozzles designed to create impinging flow on panel surfaces. Insoluble anodes improve plating uniformity by presenting a more stable anode profile over time than copper anodes. Coupled with increased solution flow, insoluble anodes also allow the use of higher operating current densities.
Considering all the different factors that influence process selection for copper via filling, vertical in-line plating equipment offers a very attractive combination of excellent process capability with attractive equipment cost.
There are a number of commercially available vertical in-line plating systems. Figures 3 and 4 show systems that are commercially available from Process Automation International Ltd (PAL) Hong Kong and Applied Equipment Ltd. Taiwan.
Factors Affecting Microvia Filling
The key process factors affecting via filling performance, other than process chemistry formulation and bath composition, are solution flow, current density and pretreatment process.
While lower levels of solution flow will generally improve via filling performance, particularly of large (100 μm or above) vias, this improvement comes at the price of increased risk of improperly filled small (75 μm or less) diameter vias. Improper fill may manifest itself as defects ranging from seams within the plated deposit to completely voided vias. The consequence of this behavior is that equipment parameters must be optimized to achieve acceptable levels of fill and plating quality for the specific applications being run.
The effects of current density are somewhat less complex, as lower current density will both enhance via filling performance and also produce product with lower levels of improperly filled vias. However, the impact of current density is strongest at the very early stages of via filling. Once vias have partially filled, higher current densities can be applied without adverse effects.
While the simplest way to operate a plating process might be to run a single set of flow and current density parameters, use of a more complex operating scheme, incorporating variable flow and current density at different times in the plating cycle, can yield better via filling quality at higher overall production throughput. Although such complex plating cycles can, in principle, be applied to vertical batch processes, their implementation in VIL equipment is much easier. The flow and current density settings in individual modules can be set at different levels to create the desired profile of these two parameters with plating time. Specifically, flow would be greatest and current density the lowest in the initial modules, switching toward lower flows and higher current densities in later modules. The detailed parameter setting will vary depending on a number of considerations, including via dimensions, board layout, customer requirements and equipment capabilities.
Proper control of pretreatment processes also plays an important role in achieving good via filling yield. A typical process sequence uses acid cleaner, micro-etching and acid dip steps to make sure the copper substrate is clean (free of contamination and surface oxidation) and properly prepared for the subsequent copper plating step.
Summary
Vertical in-line plating systems offer an attractive alternative for high-volume PCB manufacturing with features particularly suited to copper microvia filling. In conjunction with more capable equipment, copper via filling electrolytes are also evolving to provide more capable and consistent performance. This combination of VIL equipment and chemistry offers end-users a cost-effective, highly capable and production-proven process for HDI substrate microvia filling. PCD&F
Bruce Chen is assistant engineering manager RD&E – Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials Taiwan Ltd. He may be contacted by email at: hcchen@rohmhaas.com.
Miniaturization and portability of consumer electronics is driving the ever-increasing circuit density of today’s PCB designs. Thin core material, combined with build-up constructions, reduced line widths, smaller diameter through-holes and blind microvias are the key attributes of high density interconnect (HDI) packages.
Electrolytic copper microvia filling is an enabling technology prominently used in today’s manufacture of advanced HDI product. This article describes the features and benefits of vertical in-line (VIL) plating equipment for copper microvia fill mass production.
Advanced HDI product designs require planar surfaces after via fill to allow reliable formation of subsequent layers with a minimum amount of copper deposited onto the surface to improve fine-line yield. Via fill quality is typically characterized by a parameter termed “dimple depth,” which represents the difference in heights between the plated copper within a via and around the perimeter of that via. Customer specifications continue to demand increased via fill quality at progressively lower plated copper thicknesses. The capabilities of some current microvia filling processes are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
Selection of Electroplating Equipment for Copper Microvia Filling
The following factors should be considered when comparing the advantages and disadvantages of different types of copper electroplating processes for via filling:
1.Plating uniformity
2.Thin core material handling
3.Throughput
4.Equipment cost, complexity and footprint.
Copper electroplating process equipment can be generally placed in two broad categories: vertical batch or continuous conveyorized processes. In conventional vertical batch electroplating systems, a number of panels are mounted on a single flight bar and processed in a single vertical plating cell for the full duration of the plating cycle. In conveyorized electroplating systems, the panels are dynamically transported through a series of plating cells.
Continuous conveyorized processes can be further divided into horizontal and vertical systems. While both individual panels and continuous web flex circuits may be processed in such types of conveyorized equipment, this article will focus on processing individual HDI substrates, rather than the use of specialized reel-to-reel equipment for flexible circuit manufacture.
Vertical Batch vs. Conveyorized Equipment
With conventional vertical batch electroplating systems, increased production throughput may be realized by increasing the number and/or the size of the plating cells. When the size of a plating cell is increased, the number of panels within the cell increases proportionally. Depending on the specific design and dimensions of the plating cell, panels may be placed in either single or multiple rows on a flight bar. Unfortunately, this increased panel loading leads to decreased plating uniformity, particularly when comparing panels from the center of the flight bar with those from the ends.
In contrast, the use of either horizontal or vertical conveyorized equipment promotes increased consistency, as each panel “sees” the same overall flow and current distribution as it passes through the equipment. The improvements in consistency can be seen in both better surface thickness distribution and enhanced uniformity of throwing power and via filling, both within a panel and from panel-to-panel.
However, when side-to-side variation within a panel is considered, vertical continuous systems hold a significant advantage in that only vertical systems allow the two sides of the panel to be processed in equivalent physical environments. VIL equipment designs are particularly suitable for via filling applications since the vertical panel orientation minimizes air entrapment and associated skipped or partially filled vias. In contrast, these defects can be problematic on the bottom-side of panels processed in horizontal equipment.
Conveyorized systems have an overwhelming advantage over conventional vertical batch systems when it comes to handling thin-core material. For ultra-thin material, horizontal systems may hold a slight handling advantage over VIL plating systems.
When system cost and footprint are considered, VIL equipment affords considerable advantages versus horizontal designs of similar capacity. Additionally, more advanced multiple track VIL equipment designs are being offered, which provide both conventional conformal plating and via filling capability in a single process line.
A wide variety of system design features that further enhance via filling performance may be incorporated in VIL plating equipment. These include the use of insoluble anodes and engineered fluid delivery devices such as eductors or nozzles designed to create impinging flow on panel surfaces. Insoluble anodes improve plating uniformity by presenting a more stable anode profile over time than copper anodes. Coupled with increased solution flow, insoluble anodes also allow the use of higher operating current densities.
Considering all the different factors that influence process selection for copper via filling, vertical in-line plating equipment offers a very attractive combination of excellent process capability with attractive equipment cost.
There are a number of commercially available vertical in-line plating systems. Figures 3 and 4 show systems that are commercially available from Process Automation International Ltd (PAL) Hong Kong and Applied Equipment Ltd. Taiwan.
Factors Affecting Microvia Filling
The key process factors affecting via filling performance, other than process chemistry formulation and bath composition, are solution flow, current density and pretreatment process.
While lower levels of solution flow will generally improve via filling performance, particularly of large (100 μm or above) vias, this improvement comes at the price of increased risk of improperly filled small (75 μm or less) diameter vias. Improper fill may manifest itself as defects ranging from seams within the plated deposit to completely voided vias. The consequence of this behavior is that equipment parameters must be optimized to achieve acceptable levels of fill and plating quality for the specific applications being run.
The effects of current density are somewhat less complex, as lower current density will both enhance via filling performance and also produce product with lower levels of improperly filled vias. However, the impact of current density is strongest at the very early stages of via filling. Once vias have partially filled, higher current densities can be applied without adverse effects.
While the simplest way to operate a plating process might be to run a single set of flow and current density parameters, use of a more complex operating scheme, incorporating variable flow and current density at different times in the plating cycle, can yield better via filling quality at higher overall production throughput. Although such complex plating cycles can, in principle, be applied to vertical batch processes, their implementation in VIL equipment is much easier. The flow and current density settings in individual modules can be set at different levels to create the desired profile of these two parameters with plating time. Specifically, flow would be greatest and current density the lowest in the initial modules, switching toward lower flows and higher current densities in later modules. The detailed parameter setting will vary depending on a number of considerations, including via dimensions, board layout, customer requirements and equipment capabilities.
Proper control of pretreatment processes also plays an important role in achieving good via filling yield. A typical process sequence uses acid cleaner, micro-etching and acid dip steps to make sure the copper substrate is clean (free of contamination and surface oxidation) and properly prepared for the subsequent copper plating step.
Summary
Vertical in-line plating systems offer an attractive alternative for high-volume PCB manufacturing with features particularly suited to copper microvia filling. In conjunction with more capable equipment, copper via filling electrolytes are also evolving to provide more capable and consistent performance. This combination of VIL equipment and chemistry offers end-users a cost-effective, highly capable and production-proven process for HDI substrate microvia filling. PCD&F
Bruce Chen is assistant engineering manager RD&E – Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials Taiwan Ltd. He may be contacted by email at: hcchen@rohmhaas.com.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Qualifying PCBs Outsourced in Asia
Communication, documentation and teamwork between suppliers reduces the risk and increases the benefits of outsourcing.
The growth of portable wireless products and related consumer electronics is fueling a major outsourcing effort toward Asia. Most OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) are partnering with CMs (contract manufacturers) in Asia to outsource key operations such as board design, fabrication, surface-mount assembly and procurement to maintain profitability and a competitive edge.
Outsourcing can offer OEMs significant advantages in maintaining a healthy bottom line, including reduced capital risks, increased access to current technologies and reduced time to market. Outsourcing also allows CMs and EMS (electronic manufacturing services) companies to subcontract the work that does not fit their core competencies, so that they can diversify their products.
Outsourcing with strategic partners is more important for OEMs dealing with lead-free migration since this new requirement brings many challenges for the PCB fab and assembly industries. With new high Tg (glass transition temperature) laminates, new lead-free alloys, rework processes, moisture sensitivity and other issues, the entire manufacturing process requires careful evaluation of new laminate materials to balance component layout and optimization of reflow profiles to minimize damage to PCBs. This is especially critical for thin PCBs (less than 0.1 mm) used in cell phones and other portable products, and PCBs based on build-up microvia technologies.
The handheld wireless product marketplace demands products that are small, thin, low-cost and lightweight with improved user interfaces. In addition, the convergence of handheld wireless phones with palmtop computers and Internet accessibility is accelerating the need for functional circuits designed with miniaturized, low-cost technology.
Outsourced PCBs from Asia are becoming more of a viable option for OEMs involved in high-volume manufacturing. Proper evaluation and qualification of these facilities is critical for assembly reliability.
There are critical aspects in the qualification of PCBs. Qualification efforts especially for HDI (high-density interconnect)1 and ALIVH (any layer inner via hole) PCBs2 procured from Asian fabricators in China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan need specific characterization. Quality systems audit results, PCB evaluation, acceptance criteria, DPPM (defective parts per million) review and reliability testing need to be evaluated. Additionally, strategies for overcoming cultural differences, communication, conflict resolution, and building supplier and customer relationships have a high level of importance.
High-volume surface-mount assembly production requires careful evaluation since as assembly yields depend heavily on good quality PCBs, solder paste print processes and oven reflow profiles. This has become more critical in lead-free reflow due to higher peak temperatures and narrow process windows. Proper storage, handling control in the supply chain and production process control is necessary for good yield and reliability. DPPM reduction efforts must focus not only on the manufacturing processes but also on overcoming many cultural, communication and interpretation differences.
Supplier Audit and Qualification
The qualification effort required a factory and warehouse visit, and conducting a quality systems audit of the PCB manufacturing process. Critical items such as ISO 9001-2000 certification, a capabilities survey, staff training and certification, the eight discipline process, design management, and materials controls were reviewed. Based on this review, a ranking was provided for four major categories: customer satisfaction, manufacturing process, materials management and quality system. The supplier was then certified for production based on a minimum score of 90% or above as shown in Figure 1.
Most manufacturers in Asia have some percentage of their operations outsourced. It is important to understand the manufacturing process of your product or technology, and to also survey any subcontract operations during the audit since process controls implemented there also affect the end product. In this case, all action items generated from the audit were closed within five working days. It is also important to follow up with annual quality audits.
Product Qualification. The board assembly process that qualified used a double-sided, surface-mount assembly soldering of BGA (ball grid array) packages, connectors, chip resistors, capacitors, diodes and other components. Assembly reflow took place using convection air at a peak temperature of 244°C. The assembly solder paste used was SAC 305 (tin/silver/copper) no-clean version.3
Cross-sections were performed on BGA packages and other components to evaluate the quality of the solder joints and ensure compliance to IPC 610 – Rev D for leaded packages and IPC 7095 for BGA packages. Microvia integrity was also evaluated with cross-sectional analysis. Cross-sections showed acceptable solder joints and no degradation of the microvias.3,4
The qualification process was conducted using product build for a phone program and cross-sectional analysis, and reliability testing per IPC 9701.5 Temperature and humidity tests were conducted at 85°C at 85% relative humidity for 500 hours, and thermal shock testing was conducted from –25°C to +125°C at 20 minute dwell for 500 cycles. Figure 2 shows cross-sections for HDI board assembly post reflow, and Figure 3 shows ALIVH PCB assembly post reflow.
Surface-mount packages were reworked using hot-air soldering tools, and BGA packages were reworked with hot air using controlled ramp/soak profile. The main concern was damage to microvia connections and PCB pads during component removal and reattach. Component rework was performed two times on the leaded packages and one time on the BGAs. All packages survived rework. There was no damage to PCB pads or blistering of the solder mask during rework. No damage was seen on microvia connections. Figures 4 and 5 show cross-sections of HDI and ALIVH PCB post rework after 500 thermal shock cycles.
There were two types of production rejects. Cosmetic rejects were lots rejected at the incoming IQC inspection and functional rejects where the lots were rejected post reflow (after surface-mount assembly) and during board-level electrical test.
Cosmetic Rejects. Incoming inspection was performed using IPC 600 Rev G. There were many product rejections due to incorrect paperwork, scratches, exposed copper and more. A meeting was held with suppliers and CMs to address the problems; after which, suppliers put a plan in place to address scratches and exposed copper, reducing the errors going to the CM. The Kyocera Wireless Corp. (KWC) team audited the suppliers for corrective action. There were several other process flow and material handling issues that had to be resolved to minimize PCB problems at surface-mount production.
Prior to assembly outsourcing, PCBs were shipped from supplier locations to KWC in San Diego, CA, and immediately utilized for production, so staging and storage was minimal. This situation changed when surface-mount factory operations moved to contract manufacturing in China. Due to customs requirements, all parts shipped to China must go through customs in Hong Kong and then are staged in a warehouse facility until they are ready to move to the CM’s warehouse, resulting in increased staging time and handling for PCBs. Suppliers were required to improve the packaging from standard plastic bags to specialized seamless bags that were vacuum sealed with a desiccant inside. This required some changes in PCB packaging, but in the long run resulted in higher reliability. The warehouse audits were conducted to ensure that temperature was maintained at 22ºC +/- 5ºC with humidity less than 60%. Particular attention was given to storage during the summer months when heat and humidity were very high in this geographic area.
Functional Rejects. The majority of the defects after reflow were classified into three major categories: opens, delamination and shorts. This required a review of handling and test operations at CMs and process controls at suppliers. The corrective action began with compiling defect data and meetings with the supplier and the CM. This was followed up with storage and handling audits to ensure that corrective actions were being executed properly. Fabricators implemented corrective actions in the PCB packaging area by changing the bake cycle to 120°C for four hours prior to dry packaging. The CM implemented corrective actions at IQC by resealing all packages opened for inspection before returning to storage. On the production floor, packages were only opened just prior to loading on the assembly line, and all opened packages were stored in dry boxes. Reflow assembly time was controlled within 48 hours. Warehouse corrective actions were implemented to store PCBs in a controlled temperature/humidity portion of the warehouse, and FIFO (first in, first out) was enforced.
To address delamination issues, PCB suppliers conducted a design of experiments (DOE) with their material suppliers to get a better understanding in processing high Tg laminates. Circuit trace "opens" issues were addressed by implementing controls in the electroless plating process and various other plating and cleaning bath parameters and controls. Additionally, controls were implemented in the hot-air rework process at the CM since some of the "opens" issues were occurring after rework. Proper training of rework operators, controlled distance of hot air nozzles and airflow, and ongoing audits further helped to lower DPPM for open-circuit defects. The issue of short circuits was addressed by controlling contamination in the PCB exposure, develop and etching process, and implementing proper sampling frequency to minimize the escape to the CM.
All of these combined efforts have helped reduce the DPPM post reflow and minimize scrap cost.
Communication Strategies
When switching from in-house manufacturing to an overseas manufacturer, a number of time, distance and translation difficulties get added to resolving daily line issues. As an OEM, it is essential to keep your documentation correct and updated because misinformation can cause yield loss, a delay in shipments to the customer and chargebacks to an OEM.
A PCB is a complex commodity. When parts are rejected, it requires a good understanding of the PCB manufacturing process, the acceptance criteria, failure analysis of defects and root cause determination.
Since the CM did not have a very knowledgeable PCB team, OEM component engineers had to mediate when rejections occurred. This helped both sides (the CM and PCB suppliers) understand the defects and work toward an improvement plan.
The first step was holding a meeting of suppliers and the CM to understand the CM’s IQC spec and acceptance criteria. Simple lot rejects caused by incorrect paperwork, labeling, cross-outs and other issues were eliminated after an understanding of IQC specs. The lot acceptance rate at IQC improved to 100% within six months.
This process was followed up with monthly DPPM data to suppliers and tele-conferences. For major problems, up to five failed samples were sent to the supplier for failure analysis. Additionally, each quarter, all parties met at the CM facility and reviewed DPPM and defects. This gave suppliers a chance to meet the CM team and understand the assembly operations and part movement procedures. Supplier teams reviewed the failure analysis data, and corrective action plans were defined.
To assist the supplier teams in finding the root causes of defects, specific information was provided, rather than general DPPM bar charts. DPPM data was broken down into the top three defects and top three part numbers where problems occurred to enable the suppliers to first “root cause” the major issues and minimize their impact on production. An example is shown in Figures 6 and 7.
Conflict Resolution
The differences in operations, parts management, chargeback system and language at the CM did result in conflicts concerning scrap charges. In these cases, the OEM had to intervene and ensure that a fair resolution of the chargeback was taking place. The failure analysis was evaluated to ensure that the correct root cause was determined. If it was a supplier fabrication issue, the supplier was charged. If it was a process-induced defect such as uncontrolled rework, the CM was charged. If both parties contributed, the charge was split.
Training/Knowledge Base
The labor force in the CM factory was primarily a very young group with not a lot of experience or training time. Proper monitoring of training levels is important for good yield and product reliability. This is also essential due to employee turnover. Tight control should be maintained over all process changes, engineering change orders (ECOs), manufacturing change orders (MCOs), etc. OEM-led training sessions in product handling, test, storage and inspection have also improved yields.
Conclusion
Outsourcing assembly operations gives OEMs the advantage of high-volume manufacturing capacity, massive database systems and corporate direction. However, it also brings many new challenges in cultural differences, communication barriers and skill levels that we have not experienced with U.S. PCB manufacturing. Clear, concise communication, documentation, patience and teamwork between suppliers and CMs are just a few ways to ensure success. PCD&F
REFERENCES
1 Microvias for Low Cost, High Density Interconnect. John H. Lau, S. W. Ricky Lee.
2 The Progress of the ALIVH Substrate. Daizo A., Yoshihiro T., Tadashi N., Fumio E.
3 IPC A-610 Rev D – Acceptability of Electronic Assemblies.
4 IPC 7095 – Design and Assembly Process Implementation for BGAs.
5 IPC 9701 – Performance Test Methods and Qualification Requirements of Surface Mount Solder Attachments.
6 “Control and Stability in Lead Free Reflow,” SMT. R. Burke, Sept. 2006, Vol. 20, No. 9, pp. 24 - 26, 28.
Mumtaz Y. Bora is a principal quality engineer at Kyocera Wireless Corp. and can be reached at mbora@kyocera-wireless.com.
The growth of portable wireless products and related consumer electronics is fueling a major outsourcing effort toward Asia. Most OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) are partnering with CMs (contract manufacturers) in Asia to outsource key operations such as board design, fabrication, surface-mount assembly and procurement to maintain profitability and a competitive edge.
Outsourcing can offer OEMs significant advantages in maintaining a healthy bottom line, including reduced capital risks, increased access to current technologies and reduced time to market. Outsourcing also allows CMs and EMS (electronic manufacturing services) companies to subcontract the work that does not fit their core competencies, so that they can diversify their products.
Outsourcing with strategic partners is more important for OEMs dealing with lead-free migration since this new requirement brings many challenges for the PCB fab and assembly industries. With new high Tg (glass transition temperature) laminates, new lead-free alloys, rework processes, moisture sensitivity and other issues, the entire manufacturing process requires careful evaluation of new laminate materials to balance component layout and optimization of reflow profiles to minimize damage to PCBs. This is especially critical for thin PCBs (less than 0.1 mm) used in cell phones and other portable products, and PCBs based on build-up microvia technologies.
The handheld wireless product marketplace demands products that are small, thin, low-cost and lightweight with improved user interfaces. In addition, the convergence of handheld wireless phones with palmtop computers and Internet accessibility is accelerating the need for functional circuits designed with miniaturized, low-cost technology.
Outsourced PCBs from Asia are becoming more of a viable option for OEMs involved in high-volume manufacturing. Proper evaluation and qualification of these facilities is critical for assembly reliability.
There are critical aspects in the qualification of PCBs. Qualification efforts especially for HDI (high-density interconnect)1 and ALIVH (any layer inner via hole) PCBs2 procured from Asian fabricators in China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan need specific characterization. Quality systems audit results, PCB evaluation, acceptance criteria, DPPM (defective parts per million) review and reliability testing need to be evaluated. Additionally, strategies for overcoming cultural differences, communication, conflict resolution, and building supplier and customer relationships have a high level of importance.
High-volume surface-mount assembly production requires careful evaluation since as assembly yields depend heavily on good quality PCBs, solder paste print processes and oven reflow profiles. This has become more critical in lead-free reflow due to higher peak temperatures and narrow process windows. Proper storage, handling control in the supply chain and production process control is necessary for good yield and reliability. DPPM reduction efforts must focus not only on the manufacturing processes but also on overcoming many cultural, communication and interpretation differences.
Supplier Audit and Qualification
The qualification effort required a factory and warehouse visit, and conducting a quality systems audit of the PCB manufacturing process. Critical items such as ISO 9001-2000 certification, a capabilities survey, staff training and certification, the eight discipline process, design management, and materials controls were reviewed. Based on this review, a ranking was provided for four major categories: customer satisfaction, manufacturing process, materials management and quality system. The supplier was then certified for production based on a minimum score of 90% or above as shown in Figure 1.
Most manufacturers in Asia have some percentage of their operations outsourced. It is important to understand the manufacturing process of your product or technology, and to also survey any subcontract operations during the audit since process controls implemented there also affect the end product. In this case, all action items generated from the audit were closed within five working days. It is also important to follow up with annual quality audits.
Product Qualification. The board assembly process that qualified used a double-sided, surface-mount assembly soldering of BGA (ball grid array) packages, connectors, chip resistors, capacitors, diodes and other components. Assembly reflow took place using convection air at a peak temperature of 244°C. The assembly solder paste used was SAC 305 (tin/silver/copper) no-clean version.3
Cross-sections were performed on BGA packages and other components to evaluate the quality of the solder joints and ensure compliance to IPC 610 – Rev D for leaded packages and IPC 7095 for BGA packages. Microvia integrity was also evaluated with cross-sectional analysis. Cross-sections showed acceptable solder joints and no degradation of the microvias.3,4
The qualification process was conducted using product build for a phone program and cross-sectional analysis, and reliability testing per IPC 9701.5 Temperature and humidity tests were conducted at 85°C at 85% relative humidity for 500 hours, and thermal shock testing was conducted from –25°C to +125°C at 20 minute dwell for 500 cycles. Figure 2 shows cross-sections for HDI board assembly post reflow, and Figure 3 shows ALIVH PCB assembly post reflow.
Surface-mount packages were reworked using hot-air soldering tools, and BGA packages were reworked with hot air using controlled ramp/soak profile. The main concern was damage to microvia connections and PCB pads during component removal and reattach. Component rework was performed two times on the leaded packages and one time on the BGAs. All packages survived rework. There was no damage to PCB pads or blistering of the solder mask during rework. No damage was seen on microvia connections. Figures 4 and 5 show cross-sections of HDI and ALIVH PCB post rework after 500 thermal shock cycles.
There were two types of production rejects. Cosmetic rejects were lots rejected at the incoming IQC inspection and functional rejects where the lots were rejected post reflow (after surface-mount assembly) and during board-level electrical test.
Cosmetic Rejects. Incoming inspection was performed using IPC 600 Rev G. There were many product rejections due to incorrect paperwork, scratches, exposed copper and more. A meeting was held with suppliers and CMs to address the problems; after which, suppliers put a plan in place to address scratches and exposed copper, reducing the errors going to the CM. The Kyocera Wireless Corp. (KWC) team audited the suppliers for corrective action. There were several other process flow and material handling issues that had to be resolved to minimize PCB problems at surface-mount production.
Prior to assembly outsourcing, PCBs were shipped from supplier locations to KWC in San Diego, CA, and immediately utilized for production, so staging and storage was minimal. This situation changed when surface-mount factory operations moved to contract manufacturing in China. Due to customs requirements, all parts shipped to China must go through customs in Hong Kong and then are staged in a warehouse facility until they are ready to move to the CM’s warehouse, resulting in increased staging time and handling for PCBs. Suppliers were required to improve the packaging from standard plastic bags to specialized seamless bags that were vacuum sealed with a desiccant inside. This required some changes in PCB packaging, but in the long run resulted in higher reliability. The warehouse audits were conducted to ensure that temperature was maintained at 22ºC +/- 5ºC with humidity less than 60%. Particular attention was given to storage during the summer months when heat and humidity were very high in this geographic area.
Functional Rejects. The majority of the defects after reflow were classified into three major categories: opens, delamination and shorts. This required a review of handling and test operations at CMs and process controls at suppliers. The corrective action began with compiling defect data and meetings with the supplier and the CM. This was followed up with storage and handling audits to ensure that corrective actions were being executed properly. Fabricators implemented corrective actions in the PCB packaging area by changing the bake cycle to 120°C for four hours prior to dry packaging. The CM implemented corrective actions at IQC by resealing all packages opened for inspection before returning to storage. On the production floor, packages were only opened just prior to loading on the assembly line, and all opened packages were stored in dry boxes. Reflow assembly time was controlled within 48 hours. Warehouse corrective actions were implemented to store PCBs in a controlled temperature/humidity portion of the warehouse, and FIFO (first in, first out) was enforced.
To address delamination issues, PCB suppliers conducted a design of experiments (DOE) with their material suppliers to get a better understanding in processing high Tg laminates. Circuit trace "opens" issues were addressed by implementing controls in the electroless plating process and various other plating and cleaning bath parameters and controls. Additionally, controls were implemented in the hot-air rework process at the CM since some of the "opens" issues were occurring after rework. Proper training of rework operators, controlled distance of hot air nozzles and airflow, and ongoing audits further helped to lower DPPM for open-circuit defects. The issue of short circuits was addressed by controlling contamination in the PCB exposure, develop and etching process, and implementing proper sampling frequency to minimize the escape to the CM.
All of these combined efforts have helped reduce the DPPM post reflow and minimize scrap cost.
Communication Strategies
When switching from in-house manufacturing to an overseas manufacturer, a number of time, distance and translation difficulties get added to resolving daily line issues. As an OEM, it is essential to keep your documentation correct and updated because misinformation can cause yield loss, a delay in shipments to the customer and chargebacks to an OEM.
A PCB is a complex commodity. When parts are rejected, it requires a good understanding of the PCB manufacturing process, the acceptance criteria, failure analysis of defects and root cause determination.
Since the CM did not have a very knowledgeable PCB team, OEM component engineers had to mediate when rejections occurred. This helped both sides (the CM and PCB suppliers) understand the defects and work toward an improvement plan.
The first step was holding a meeting of suppliers and the CM to understand the CM’s IQC spec and acceptance criteria. Simple lot rejects caused by incorrect paperwork, labeling, cross-outs and other issues were eliminated after an understanding of IQC specs. The lot acceptance rate at IQC improved to 100% within six months.
This process was followed up with monthly DPPM data to suppliers and tele-conferences. For major problems, up to five failed samples were sent to the supplier for failure analysis. Additionally, each quarter, all parties met at the CM facility and reviewed DPPM and defects. This gave suppliers a chance to meet the CM team and understand the assembly operations and part movement procedures. Supplier teams reviewed the failure analysis data, and corrective action plans were defined.
To assist the supplier teams in finding the root causes of defects, specific information was provided, rather than general DPPM bar charts. DPPM data was broken down into the top three defects and top three part numbers where problems occurred to enable the suppliers to first “root cause” the major issues and minimize their impact on production. An example is shown in Figures 6 and 7.
Conflict Resolution
The differences in operations, parts management, chargeback system and language at the CM did result in conflicts concerning scrap charges. In these cases, the OEM had to intervene and ensure that a fair resolution of the chargeback was taking place. The failure analysis was evaluated to ensure that the correct root cause was determined. If it was a supplier fabrication issue, the supplier was charged. If it was a process-induced defect such as uncontrolled rework, the CM was charged. If both parties contributed, the charge was split.
Training/Knowledge Base
The labor force in the CM factory was primarily a very young group with not a lot of experience or training time. Proper monitoring of training levels is important for good yield and product reliability. This is also essential due to employee turnover. Tight control should be maintained over all process changes, engineering change orders (ECOs), manufacturing change orders (MCOs), etc. OEM-led training sessions in product handling, test, storage and inspection have also improved yields.
Conclusion
Outsourcing assembly operations gives OEMs the advantage of high-volume manufacturing capacity, massive database systems and corporate direction. However, it also brings many new challenges in cultural differences, communication barriers and skill levels that we have not experienced with U.S. PCB manufacturing. Clear, concise communication, documentation, patience and teamwork between suppliers and CMs are just a few ways to ensure success. PCD&F
REFERENCES
1 Microvias for Low Cost, High Density Interconnect. John H. Lau, S. W. Ricky Lee.
2 The Progress of the ALIVH Substrate. Daizo A., Yoshihiro T., Tadashi N., Fumio E.
3 IPC A-610 Rev D – Acceptability of Electronic Assemblies.
4 IPC 7095 – Design and Assembly Process Implementation for BGAs.
5 IPC 9701 – Performance Test Methods and Qualification Requirements of Surface Mount Solder Attachments.
6 “Control and Stability in Lead Free Reflow,” SMT. R. Burke, Sept. 2006, Vol. 20, No. 9, pp. 24 - 26, 28.
Mumtaz Y. Bora is a principal quality engineer at Kyocera Wireless Corp. and can be reached at mbora@kyocera-wireless.com.
PCB Product Development Challenges in a Global Market
Globalization seems to be the buzzword of the electronics industry. The question is: what effects does this have on the electronic product development process? Can electronics companies still afford to use simple PCB systems design solutions, or are there better design solutions that must be adopted to maintain competitive parity? What new technologies and processes do designers have to learn? And how does the infrastructure of a company adapt to this changing world? These are critical questions in the face of globalization.
When we think of globalization, most of us immediately focus on the continuing move of manufacturing away from the US, Japan and Europe and into the Asia-Pacific and other low-cost manufacturing countries. But globalization is more than manufacturing. Many large electronics companies are not only using manufacturing in the Pac-Rim but are also establishing significant facilities in these countries to capitalize on the low-cost engineering talent that is available. They are also outsourcing design of all or parts of their products to ODMs (original design manufacturers). We now have a situation where the development and delivery process for a product may be spread across a number of locations around the world(FIGURE 1)
Another aspect of globalization is the necessity to market a product on a global basis. Companies need to design a product globally and then sell it to a global audience. This all adds new meaning (and words) to an old adage: “Design Everywhere – Build Anywhere – Sell Globally.” For a change, let’s work backward through the process.
Sell Globally
When a company produces a product for sale in various regions around the world, it often has to produce different versions of the same design. Examples might include different operating voltages for a product, different electromagnetic emissions regulations or different communication protocols for a wireless device depending on location. The less efficient and most risky way to meet these goals is to: design a specific product for each region, estimate the number of units to be sold in each region, and then manufacture and stockpile the correct number of units to be sold. The risk is you can produce more than enough for one region and not enough for another, thus wasting stock and missing market opportunity respectively. Another option is to slow down manufacturing and only produce versions as needed in the marketplace; again risking maximum sales due to the time required to re-kindle a manufacturing line to high volume.
The best option is to use the method of “variant design.” Using this method, a single design is produced that will accommodate all of the possible variations required for the different regions. The variations are dependent on the combination of component(s) mounted and independent of the bare board. The bare boards can then be manufactured in high volumes and stockpiled. (The bare board is not nearly as expensive as the components that go on it.) Then depending on the specific volumes required for each region, have manufacturing assemble the boards with the correct set of components.
The savings are significant and open up sales in global markets. You only have to do one design instead of multiple designs. The design software keeps track of the variants and enables manufacturing to assemble to the correct BOM (bill of materials) depending on the version (FIGURE 2). You can produce the common bare board in high volumes and stockpile them ready for assembly; then assemble the number of end products required for each region as needed, avoiding surplus stock and associated waste.
Build Anywhere
A common practice to reduce product costs in today’s global environment is to outsource manufacturing to a lower-cost manufacturing center. A company may want to line up multiple manufacturers to meet high volume and flexible demands. Taking a product from design into a successful manufacturing process requires that decisions be made during the design process to result in a smooth transition of the design into the manufacturer(s) environment (new product introduction).
First, let’s look at some decisions during design that could make the difference between a successful product and one that misses revenue goals. One of these involves choosing components early and throughout ECOs (engineering change orders) in the design process. The choice of the wrong component (even though functionally correct) could mean an increase in product cost (high reliability and an expensive part into a consumer product). Another example is a part that requires manual versus automatic assembly, again increasing the product cost (FIGURE 3). Yet another is the ability to obtain enough parts to support your production volume.
The way to prevent these situations involves two areas requiring electronic design solution capabilities. First is the ability to produce work-in-progress BOMs and communicate those to the target procurement and manufacturing organizations. These should be produced as soon as the schematic is somewhat final and before layout begins. Given the BOMs, procurement and manufacturing can identify any potential problems.
Throughout the design process, ECOs requiring the change of parts or their locations is a common occurrence. Instead of producing another complete BOM, communicating just the change electronically can save time and money. A collaboration tool that communicates the proposed design change electronically through a user-friendly viewer and provides the capability for manufacturing and procurement to review the proposal and either accept or reject it, real time, can achieve the required results.
When it comes time to transfer the design into manufacturing, it can be a daunting task if the designer is required to understand all of the target manufacturer’s machine specific format and process steps. Here, the PCB design tools suppliers can provide the efficient bridge to manufacturing and reduce the pain of the designer. The designer can use a tool that takes all of the required design data and translates it into a common format (FIGURE 4). This common data can then be accepted by the target manufacturer(s) and automatically customized to their exact needs.
Design Everywhere
As we look at the typical large enterprise today, it often has its design resources dispersed at various locations around the country or around the world. As the company strives to meet its basic business goals of getting a competitive product to market faster with lower development costs, it needs to leverage these design resources in the most efficient manner. This involves not only the electronic designers, but all of the engineering disciplines required in the design and delivery process. These disciplines include but are not limited to the numerous ECAD disciplines (IC, FPGA, engineering, layout); numerous technologies (RF, analog, digital); MCAD, manufacturing engineering (such as test); and QA. The key is collaboration. How do you create an environment where all of these disciplines can collaborate on the same design in the most efficient manner?
Collaboration
Let’s begin with a look at the ECAD environment. How can you get multiple layout designers to work simultaneously on the same design, without partitioning, even if those designers are dispersed at different locations or around the world? This could be important in two situations. First, if you had a large digital board where applying multiple designers in parallel (versus serial in multiple shifts) could reduce your design cycle time. Secondly, if you have a mixed-technology board (RF, analog, digital) where you have experts either at the same location or again spread around the world. In this situation, not only are you changing a serial process into a parallel one, but you are also giving designers the opportunity to design their part in the context of the rest of the PCB, thus avoiding redesign cycles.
Design tool technology exists to accomplish these goals. Recently, design clients connected over a LAN or WAN, which enabled simultaneous edit to the same PCB, updating of a common database and letting the designers view the edits of the others real time. Through collaboration, users of this technology are experiencing up to a 70% reduction in design cycle times.
ECAD – MCAD Collaboration
Extending collaboration into other disciplines beyond electronic design can also make a big difference in product development efficiency. An example is to create a collaboration environment where ECAD and MCAD designers communicate during the design process electronically versus via paper (FIGURE 5). The typical method of paper communication of proposed changes, either a proposal from the ECAD engineer or the MCAD designer for a change, is long, cumbersome and error prone. By implementing collaboration tools where:
1.A change is proposed.
2.That change is communicated to the other discipline electronically.
3.The engineer has the opportunity to view the proposal in a familiar environment (viewed in a typical PCB layout tool or mechanical 3D tool) and can test the complete design (e.g. for enclosure interference).
4.To comment, offer a counter proposal or approve the change, and then have that communicated back to the proposing party.
5.If accepted, to have the change reflected into the databases of both the ECAD and MCAD engineers.
It is important here to distinguish between true ECAD – MCAD collaboration and 3D viewing or data transfer. Database transfer via the older existing standard (IDF) has long been used to interface the entire PCB design or mechanical enclosure (initial board outline, holes, component placements, etc.) from the MCAD to ECAD (or vice versa) at the beginning and end of the design process, respectively. This method does not identify the incremental changes during the design process nor does it support a collaboration process of proposal and acceptance. Neither is collaboration merely 3D viewing of PCB design data in a mechanical enclosure. Subtle errors such as interference, thermal hot spots or stress can go undetected unless analyzed by a sophisticated mechanical design tool. True collaboration requires the ability for incremental proposals to be communicated. This allows each discipline the opportunity to view and experiment with the change in its own ECAD or MCAD environment. Each discipline can then accept, reject or counter propose the change. Database update follows.
Global Intellectual Property (IP) Management
With a company’s design resources spread around the world, it is important that IP (component libraries, design constraints and intent, work-in-progress design data, design reuse data, best practices work flow, etc.) be easily created, protected and accessed by designers and manufacturing. This cannot be accomplished without sophisticated ECAD design flows supported with infrastructure capabilities on a worldwide basis. This type of infrastructure requires a significant investment by the company to build and maintain.
Also, the question might be: “Can a company’s ERP, PLM or CIS systems suffice to provide the IP management capability for the electronic designer?” The answer is “maybe,” given a large investment in customization and interfaces. However, the most efficient way to provide the designer with speed and access is to have a system and data that “are a mouse click away” by storing all of the IP in the design tool’s native formats. What is required though is that the ECAD design management system (DMS) is bi-directionally integrated with the company’s ERP, PLM and CIS systems to accept and provide data.
Globalization is a Challenge
Globalization is not coming; it is here and here to stay. For an electronics company to meet its driving business goals of producing the most competitive product faster and at reduced development costs, it must learn to leverage globalization instead of fighting it. EDA vendors can provide design systems that support many of the capabilities needed to capitalize on these resources and compete on a global basis, but some changes must also come in the company’s organizational structures and product development processes. PCD&F
John Isaac is director of market development for Montor Graphics Systems Design Division and can be reached at John_Isaac@mentor.com.
When we think of globalization, most of us immediately focus on the continuing move of manufacturing away from the US, Japan and Europe and into the Asia-Pacific and other low-cost manufacturing countries. But globalization is more than manufacturing. Many large electronics companies are not only using manufacturing in the Pac-Rim but are also establishing significant facilities in these countries to capitalize on the low-cost engineering talent that is available. They are also outsourcing design of all or parts of their products to ODMs (original design manufacturers). We now have a situation where the development and delivery process for a product may be spread across a number of locations around the world(FIGURE 1)
Another aspect of globalization is the necessity to market a product on a global basis. Companies need to design a product globally and then sell it to a global audience. This all adds new meaning (and words) to an old adage: “Design Everywhere – Build Anywhere – Sell Globally.” For a change, let’s work backward through the process.
Sell Globally
When a company produces a product for sale in various regions around the world, it often has to produce different versions of the same design. Examples might include different operating voltages for a product, different electromagnetic emissions regulations or different communication protocols for a wireless device depending on location. The less efficient and most risky way to meet these goals is to: design a specific product for each region, estimate the number of units to be sold in each region, and then manufacture and stockpile the correct number of units to be sold. The risk is you can produce more than enough for one region and not enough for another, thus wasting stock and missing market opportunity respectively. Another option is to slow down manufacturing and only produce versions as needed in the marketplace; again risking maximum sales due to the time required to re-kindle a manufacturing line to high volume.
The best option is to use the method of “variant design.” Using this method, a single design is produced that will accommodate all of the possible variations required for the different regions. The variations are dependent on the combination of component(s) mounted and independent of the bare board. The bare boards can then be manufactured in high volumes and stockpiled. (The bare board is not nearly as expensive as the components that go on it.) Then depending on the specific volumes required for each region, have manufacturing assemble the boards with the correct set of components.
The savings are significant and open up sales in global markets. You only have to do one design instead of multiple designs. The design software keeps track of the variants and enables manufacturing to assemble to the correct BOM (bill of materials) depending on the version (FIGURE 2). You can produce the common bare board in high volumes and stockpile them ready for assembly; then assemble the number of end products required for each region as needed, avoiding surplus stock and associated waste.
Build Anywhere
A common practice to reduce product costs in today’s global environment is to outsource manufacturing to a lower-cost manufacturing center. A company may want to line up multiple manufacturers to meet high volume and flexible demands. Taking a product from design into a successful manufacturing process requires that decisions be made during the design process to result in a smooth transition of the design into the manufacturer(s) environment (new product introduction).
First, let’s look at some decisions during design that could make the difference between a successful product and one that misses revenue goals. One of these involves choosing components early and throughout ECOs (engineering change orders) in the design process. The choice of the wrong component (even though functionally correct) could mean an increase in product cost (high reliability and an expensive part into a consumer product). Another example is a part that requires manual versus automatic assembly, again increasing the product cost (FIGURE 3). Yet another is the ability to obtain enough parts to support your production volume.
The way to prevent these situations involves two areas requiring electronic design solution capabilities. First is the ability to produce work-in-progress BOMs and communicate those to the target procurement and manufacturing organizations. These should be produced as soon as the schematic is somewhat final and before layout begins. Given the BOMs, procurement and manufacturing can identify any potential problems.
Throughout the design process, ECOs requiring the change of parts or their locations is a common occurrence. Instead of producing another complete BOM, communicating just the change electronically can save time and money. A collaboration tool that communicates the proposed design change electronically through a user-friendly viewer and provides the capability for manufacturing and procurement to review the proposal and either accept or reject it, real time, can achieve the required results.
When it comes time to transfer the design into manufacturing, it can be a daunting task if the designer is required to understand all of the target manufacturer’s machine specific format and process steps. Here, the PCB design tools suppliers can provide the efficient bridge to manufacturing and reduce the pain of the designer. The designer can use a tool that takes all of the required design data and translates it into a common format (FIGURE 4). This common data can then be accepted by the target manufacturer(s) and automatically customized to their exact needs.
Design Everywhere
As we look at the typical large enterprise today, it often has its design resources dispersed at various locations around the country or around the world. As the company strives to meet its basic business goals of getting a competitive product to market faster with lower development costs, it needs to leverage these design resources in the most efficient manner. This involves not only the electronic designers, but all of the engineering disciplines required in the design and delivery process. These disciplines include but are not limited to the numerous ECAD disciplines (IC, FPGA, engineering, layout); numerous technologies (RF, analog, digital); MCAD, manufacturing engineering (such as test); and QA. The key is collaboration. How do you create an environment where all of these disciplines can collaborate on the same design in the most efficient manner?
Collaboration
Let’s begin with a look at the ECAD environment. How can you get multiple layout designers to work simultaneously on the same design, without partitioning, even if those designers are dispersed at different locations or around the world? This could be important in two situations. First, if you had a large digital board where applying multiple designers in parallel (versus serial in multiple shifts) could reduce your design cycle time. Secondly, if you have a mixed-technology board (RF, analog, digital) where you have experts either at the same location or again spread around the world. In this situation, not only are you changing a serial process into a parallel one, but you are also giving designers the opportunity to design their part in the context of the rest of the PCB, thus avoiding redesign cycles.
Design tool technology exists to accomplish these goals. Recently, design clients connected over a LAN or WAN, which enabled simultaneous edit to the same PCB, updating of a common database and letting the designers view the edits of the others real time. Through collaboration, users of this technology are experiencing up to a 70% reduction in design cycle times.
ECAD – MCAD Collaboration
Extending collaboration into other disciplines beyond electronic design can also make a big difference in product development efficiency. An example is to create a collaboration environment where ECAD and MCAD designers communicate during the design process electronically versus via paper (FIGURE 5). The typical method of paper communication of proposed changes, either a proposal from the ECAD engineer or the MCAD designer for a change, is long, cumbersome and error prone. By implementing collaboration tools where:
1.A change is proposed.
2.That change is communicated to the other discipline electronically.
3.The engineer has the opportunity to view the proposal in a familiar environment (viewed in a typical PCB layout tool or mechanical 3D tool) and can test the complete design (e.g. for enclosure interference).
4.To comment, offer a counter proposal or approve the change, and then have that communicated back to the proposing party.
5.If accepted, to have the change reflected into the databases of both the ECAD and MCAD engineers.
It is important here to distinguish between true ECAD – MCAD collaboration and 3D viewing or data transfer. Database transfer via the older existing standard (IDF) has long been used to interface the entire PCB design or mechanical enclosure (initial board outline, holes, component placements, etc.) from the MCAD to ECAD (or vice versa) at the beginning and end of the design process, respectively. This method does not identify the incremental changes during the design process nor does it support a collaboration process of proposal and acceptance. Neither is collaboration merely 3D viewing of PCB design data in a mechanical enclosure. Subtle errors such as interference, thermal hot spots or stress can go undetected unless analyzed by a sophisticated mechanical design tool. True collaboration requires the ability for incremental proposals to be communicated. This allows each discipline the opportunity to view and experiment with the change in its own ECAD or MCAD environment. Each discipline can then accept, reject or counter propose the change. Database update follows.
Global Intellectual Property (IP) Management
With a company’s design resources spread around the world, it is important that IP (component libraries, design constraints and intent, work-in-progress design data, design reuse data, best practices work flow, etc.) be easily created, protected and accessed by designers and manufacturing. This cannot be accomplished without sophisticated ECAD design flows supported with infrastructure capabilities on a worldwide basis. This type of infrastructure requires a significant investment by the company to build and maintain.
Also, the question might be: “Can a company’s ERP, PLM or CIS systems suffice to provide the IP management capability for the electronic designer?” The answer is “maybe,” given a large investment in customization and interfaces. However, the most efficient way to provide the designer with speed and access is to have a system and data that “are a mouse click away” by storing all of the IP in the design tool’s native formats. What is required though is that the ECAD design management system (DMS) is bi-directionally integrated with the company’s ERP, PLM and CIS systems to accept and provide data.
Globalization is a Challenge
Globalization is not coming; it is here and here to stay. For an electronics company to meet its driving business goals of producing the most competitive product faster and at reduced development costs, it must learn to leverage globalization instead of fighting it. EDA vendors can provide design systems that support many of the capabilities needed to capitalize on these resources and compete on a global basis, but some changes must also come in the company’s organizational structures and product development processes. PCD&F
John Isaac is director of market development for Montor Graphics Systems Design Division and can be reached at John_Isaac@mentor.com.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
SMT VIDEO TIPS
CLICK TH ELINKS BELOW
1. 1206 Installation
2. SOIC 14 Installation
3. 0805 Installation
4. 0402 Installation
5. BGA Site Preparation
6. Pad Preparation
7. TSOP32 Installation Multi-lead Method
8. TSOP32 Installation Drag Method
9. Chip Component Prep--Bump Tack Method
10. Chip Component Prep--Dry Tack Method
11. MELF Removal
12. PCB Corner Repair
13. Plated Through Hole Repairs of PCBs
1. 1206 Installation
2. SOIC 14 Installation
3. 0805 Installation
4. 0402 Installation
5. BGA Site Preparation
6. Pad Preparation
7. TSOP32 Installation Multi-lead Method
8. TSOP32 Installation Drag Method
9. Chip Component Prep--Bump Tack Method
10. Chip Component Prep--Dry Tack Method
11. MELF Removal
12. PCB Corner Repair
13. Plated Through Hole Repairs of PCBs
Through Hole Techniques video tips
click to the link below
1. Through Hole Component Prep Prep Pliers Method
2. Through Hole Component Prep Xmas Tree Method
3. Flat Lead Desoldering Method
4. Desoldering SOIC Tweezer Method
1. Through Hole Component Prep Prep Pliers Method
2. Through Hole Component Prep Xmas Tree Method
3. Flat Lead Desoldering Method
4. Desoldering SOIC Tweezer Method
SOLDERING VIDEO TIPS
go to the link
for Lead Free Soldering
1.Lead Free Gold Cup Wire Insertion
2. .Lead Free Gold Cup Preparation
3. .Lead Free Through Hole Soldering
4.Lead Free Multi Lead Soldering
5. Lead Free Point to Point Soldering
6. Lead Free Tacking (Part I)
7. Lead Free Tacking (Part II)
8. Lead Free SOT23 Installation
9. Lead Free 0603 Installation
10. TSOP32 Point to Point Method
11. Chip Preparation--Wet Tack Method
12. Lead-Free SOIC 20 Installation
for Lead Free Soldering
1.
2. .
3. .
4.
5. Lead Free Point to Point Soldering
6. Lead Free Tacking (Part I)
7. Lead Free Tacking (Part II)
8. Lead Free SOT23 Installation
9. Lead Free 0603 Installation
10. TSOP32 Point to Point Method
11. Chip Preparation--Wet Tack Method
12. Lead-Free SOIC 20 Installation
WELCOME TO THE LASER PHOTOPLOTTING WORLD
ALL WHOLE PCB INDUSTRY IS ALWAYS GROWING FACTOR IN TECHONOLOGY SENSE.
THAT MUST REQUIRE QUALITY BASE RAW MATERIAL TO ENHANCE THEIR FURTHER NEEDS FOR THEIR QUALITY PRODUCTION.
WE DO PROVIDE QUALITY BASED PHOTOPLOTTED FILMS WITH FREE THOROUGH MRC CAM RUN FOR EACH & EVERY JOB TO SORT OUT ANY FURTHER ERROR.
COME TO US & JOIN ...
OUR WEBSITE TO VISIT
http://www.photozonegraphics.com/
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)