Page 62
www.us-tech.com
February, 2016 Saving Valuable Time in
SMT and Test Programming Continued from previous page
changeovers, which by themselves might use up much of the downtime. The other option is to allow a line
to overproduce, and store the excess as WIP or as finished goods. While this may reduce the need for a downgrade in line performance, it incurs other related costs — space, logistics, initial investment — and also carries with it the risk of depreciation or the product becoming obsolete. Given these difficulties, the
reported productivity of many SMT operations does not include the hid- den losses built in by the planning process. A headline productivity per- formance, or even an OEE analysis, may show results of 80 to 95 percent while hiding planning losses of 40 percent or more. Where such losses are visible, efforts are made to reduce them. Creating a common material setup between similar products allows a line to assemble any item in the product group without losing
single engineering tool which sup- ports multiple machine vendor plat- forms, and all forms of output — SMT, test, through-hole, inspection, and documentation — lead-time will be decreased. The best tool will sup- port the requirements of ODB++ and the IPC-2581 standards. If each of these also contain a reference file of the product, there is no need for data reconstruction.
Single Materials Library. When introducing new product data, the majority of time is spent managing shape libraries. Not only the format, but also the existing content is usual- ly different on each production machine. At each step, the settings for a product will be slightly different to accommodate the part of the process involved. It is a mammoth task to correct shape settings, as changing data may delete other information. But, to leave discrepan- cies in the data might lead to unex-
FANCORT CRAFTSMANSHIP MEANS:
BUILDING SOMETHING WITH YOUR OWN TWO HANDS, WITH QUALITY COMPONENTS, IN AN AMERICAN FACTORY.
FANCORT HAS BEEN BUILDING PNEUMATIC & SERVO PRESSES FOR THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY FOR OVER 4 DECADES.
SERVO PRESSES
PNEUMATIC PRESSES UP TO 10 TONS
SMART PRESS™ LOAD CONTROL PRESS FIT TOOLING HEATED FIXTURES
TIMOTHY DECKER FANCORT TOOLMAKER SINCE 2009
www.fancort.com
FANCORT INDUSTRIES, INC. 31 FAIRFIELD PLACE WEST CALDWELL, NJ 07006 1-888-326-2678 E-MAIL:
SALES@FANCORT.COM
Piecing together the various parts of an SMT production line calls for a changed perspective by engineers.
time to changeover. While this approach appears at first to be suc- cessful, in many cases, the grouped products are so similar that they share the same demand fluctuation. The alternative, creating things that are less similar on the line, results in performance losses as more changes must be made between items. With these methods, the hidden losses are simply tossed around the production process.
A Completely New Approach A requirement of efficient pro-
duction is to be able to assign a prod- uct quickly to the most capable line configuration in the shop. The plan- ning team is then free to choose the process that best meets a change in demand, at any time. To reconcile the machines of today with the demand of tomorrow, the way in which engineering systems are cho- sen and used must change to meet these four criteria.
Single Product Model. Too much time is spent creating product mod- els, which can be complex. By using a
pected problems. The solution is for the data
preparation tool to manage a single master shapes library, such as Mentor’s Valor Parts Library. This reduces the amount of work when new materials are brought it, and completely eliminates any duplication of effort and conflict across the plat- forms. The best data preparation tools will be able to extract information about new shapes from a database, by the Internet, or by shape information embedded in design data.
Execution Qualification.
Problems with the rotation of place- ments happen often during product introduction. This might be for a variety of reasons including issues with design macros, material supply forms, and machine operation. The need to physically check them as part of the qualification process is time- consuming. The preparation soft- ware should be able to replace this check with an off-line simulation, and should be able to handle the modeling of design shapes, the orien-
Continued on next page
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96