Design for Excellence in Electronics Manufacturing. Cheryl Tulkoff

Design for Excellence in Electronics Manufacturing - Cheryl Tulkoff


Скачать книгу
(DBTF) cycle. This was essentially a trial‐and‐error approach where the product was designed, prototypes were tested, failures/defects were discovered, corrections were made in the design, more prototypes were made, etc. Traditional OEMs spent almost 75% of product‐development costs on this approach (Allen and Jarman 1999). Shortcomings of this approach include:

       Design issues are often not well defined.

       Early build methods do not match final processes.

       Testing doesn't equal actual customer usage.

       Improving fault detection catches more problems but causes more rework.

       Problems are found too late for effective corrective action; quick fixes are often used.

       Testing more parts and more/longer tests are “seen as the only way” to increase reliability.

       OEMs cannot afford the time or money to test to high reliability.

      In DBTF‐based product development and validation process, reliability growth continued well into production and the field and was a highly reactive process. Using this approach, design engineers worked independently, then transferred designs either “over the wall” to the next department or external to the company. Eventually, manufacturing had to assemble a product not designed for its processes. Since it was too late to make changes, manufacturing struggled to meet yield, quality, cost, and delivery targets. This required trial‐and‐error crisis management, followed by launch delays, and then quality and reliability issues. This approach has fallen out of favor and been replaced by a combination of concurrent engineering and reliability physics modeling approaches. The newer approaches have the goal of simultaneously optimizing the design across all the DfX disciplines.

       Block Diagrams

       Rfs(t) = Rfp(t) Rfl(t) Rfi(t) Recu(t) Rfw(t)

       Rfs(t) = 0.980 0.998 0.985 0.975 0.964 = 0.905 90.5% reliability

       F(t) = 1 Rfs(t) = 1 .905 = .0945 9.45% failure

      For every 100,000 vehicles built, be prepared for 100,000 times 0.0945 = 9453 fuel system repairs by time (t).

“Block diagram for a simple fuel system - a series reliability system model used when one failure of one component results in the failure of the system.” Diagram for calculating the reliability of a parallel brake system, using the given reliability values.

       Rbt = 1 [1 Rbc1(t)] [1 Rbc2(t)]

       = 1 [ 1 0.990] [ 1 0.990]

       = 1 [ 0.010] [ 0.010]

       = 1 0.0001 = 0.9999 or 99.99%,

       then Fbc = 1 [1 0.990] = 0.02 and Fbt =.0001

      For one failure out of two, the calculation is upper R squared. For two failures out of two, the calculation is normal upper R equals 1 minus left-parenthesis 1 minus upper R right-parenthesis squared. So, the probability of a single brake circuit failure is 1 minus left-parenthesis 1 minus period 01 right-parenthesis squared equals period 02, or 2000 incidents for every 100,000 vehicles built. The probability of both brake circuits failing is 0.0001, or 10 incidents for every 100,000 vehicles built: i.e. 200 times less likely to fail due to the dual design.

       Automated Design Analysis

      Automated design analysis tools represent the latest frontier in reliability analysis and modeling. One example is the ANSYS‐DfR Sherlock automated design analysis software. It is a reliability physics‐based electronics design software that provides fast and accurate life predictions for electronic hardware at the component, board, and system levels in early design stages. Sherlock allows designers to simulate real‐world conditions and accurately model PCBs and assemblies to predict solder fatigue due to thermal, mechanical, and shock and vibration conditions. Approximately 73% of product development costs are spent on the test‐fail‐fix‐repeat cycle. Sherlock design software provides fast and accurate reliability predictions in the earliest design stages tailored to specific materials, components, dies, printed circuit board (PCB)/ball grid array (BGA) stackups, and use conditions. With libraries containing over one million parts, Sherlock reduces FEA modeling time and provides insights before prototyping, eliminating test failures and design flaws, while accelerating product qualification and the introduction of groundbreaking technologies. During preprocessing, Sherlock automatically translates ECAD and MCAE data into 3D finite element models in minutes. In post‐processing, Sherlock automates thermal derating and democratizes the thermal and mechanical analysis of electronics.

      Sherlock seamlessly integrates with already existing simulation workflows in the hardware design process. It is most valuable when implemented in the early design stages, such as:

       Initial parts selection

       Initial parts placement

       Selecting the final bill of material

       Final layout

       Design for manufacturing

      Sherlock makes ANSYS SIwave, ANSYS Icepak, and ANSYS Mechanical users more efficient. It directly connects simulation to material and manufacturing costs.

      Additionally, Sherlock's locked IP model protects intellectual property in the supply chain. With the locked IP model, designs are transferred back and forth between design suppliers and design users while preserving PCB design details; the intended use of the PCB design will not be disclosed via environmental conditions or reliability requirements. This communication tool enables two entities to work together on a system with a layer of trust built into the reliability calculations. Sherlock simplifies and improves reliability prediction using a unique, three‐phase process consisting of data input, analysis, and reporting and recommendations.

      Assessment options include:

       Thermal cycling

       Solder joint fatigue


Скачать книгу