June, 2017
www.us-tech.com Tate Technology Says Yes to E by SIPLACE Continued from page 21
have a steep learning curve, though I was confi- dent that I’d made the right decision for many rea- sons.”
E by SIPLACE has emerged as a premier sys-
tem for the mid-speed market, drawing on the proven and advanced ASM placement technology found in high-speed SIPLACE platforms and building in flexibility for the unique needs of the mid-speed sector. For Tate, the system ticked all the boxes. Every feature addresses Tate Technolo- gy’s job scenario extremes, from the customer wait- ing in the lobby for five boards to the 5,000 board jobs, allowing Tate to effectively manage both ends of the spectrum. “This is the best hybrid solution,” says Tate.
“The feeder technology was a big factor in my deci- sion.” With 120, 8 mm (0.31 in.) feeder slots, hot- swappable feeders that simply connect and self- calibrate, and a JEDEC tray elevator that is easily removed and inter- changed, E by SIPLACE delivers a high level of flexibility. That the placement system can be a short strip solution is also an important feature, and eliminates the need to spend a lot of additional time splicing or buy- ing extra parts. Software simplicity, the ability to
teach parts, along with system net- working capability, were other key considerations for Tate Technology. Using Centroid data, it is easy to pan- elize, cluster and optimize the job across many various lines. “ASM’s E by SIPLACE has the
best blending of our two types of busi- ness models — the quick-turn NPI and the high-cph, high-repeatability re- quirements, along with multi-machine job integration,” explains Tate, adding that other systems he evaluated had no machine-to-machine network capa- bility. “The ability to be flexible be- tween the two production scenarios is tremendous.”
Proof Positive Since installing the ASM pick-
and-place systems, Tate Technology has realized positive, measurable re- sults. Based on the speed and intelli- gence of the machines, productivity at the company has greatly improved. “The cph is exponentially higher than our older systems,” says Tate. He al- so notes that the placement machines do not derate as much as others with gang-pick heads that claim to deliver the same cph. Tate says that a place- ment system that he considered was billed as a 25,000 cph machine. But, he was told he wouldn’t be able to achieve actual speeds over 8,000 cph, even for simple jobs. “We have no problem getting our E by SIPLACE machines up to 14,000 cph on more complex assemblies, which is very close to the IPC-9850 rating of 14,700 cph. We have speed when we need it,” says Tate.
Placement of small and complex
parts is also managed easily. One job required the company to handle an oddly-configured BGA. The 1 in. (25.4 mm) square part had rows of solder balls that didn’t start until about half an inch inside the perimeter. “The grid was well inside the part, so there was a massive overhang with no sol- der balls,” explains Tate. “We tried to place these with our old system and failed miserably.” E by SIPLACE’s digital vision
system inspects 100 percent of leads and bumps — as opposed to only the part’s outer edges, which is the tech- nique employed by conventional laser systems. This technology allowed full inspection of the unique BGA and ac-
Scott Tate, president of Tate Technology, beside an E by SIPLACE pick-and-place machine.
curate placement. The system was able to place all 300 of the BGA components, solving the placement challenge. The company is now consistently plac- ing BGAs as small as 0.74 mm (0.03 in.) square. It is not only oddly-configured, difficult parts
that make the placement machine earn its keep. “The placement precision is exceptional,” says Tate. He adds that since installing the systems, quality has improved and SMT touch-up and re- work have been reduced dramatically. This all translates to a more robust bottom
line. From a cost perspective, Tate estimates that the improvements to productivity have already paid dividends. A recent analysis of 14 jobs that were previously run on Tate’s older machines was telling. When the identical jobs were run on the ASM machines, the data revealed a nearly 10 per- cent increase in efficiency, saving over 300 hours of
Continued on page 25
Page 23
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
