ASSOCIATION CONNECTING ELECTRONICS …

1 IPC-9850 Surface MountPlacement EquipmentCharacterizationDeveloped by the SMT Component Placement Equipment Subcommittee(5-41) of the Assembly Equipment Committee (5-40) of IPCU sers of this standard are encouraged to participate in thedevelopment of future :IPC2215 Sanders RoadNorthbrook, Illinois60062-6135 Tel 847 847 CONNECTINGELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES September 16, 2002 Table of .. Considerations .. Limitations .. Requirements .. Components .. Panels .. Methods .. and Definitions .. of Measurement .. 52 REFERENCED 53 PLACEMENT PERFORMANCE Performance Form IPC-9850-F1 .. Performance .. Validation .. Methodology .. Performance Parameters .. Conditions .. Parameters .. Measured Parameters .. 94 ATTRIBUTE DEFECT RATE AND RELIABILITYPERFORMANCE METRIC FORM Defect Rate.

2 Parameters .. Placements Between Assists (MPBA) .. Time To Recover from Assists(MTTRa) .. Placements Between Failures (MPBF) .. Time To Repair Failures (MTTRf) .. Time .. Time .. Time .. Dependent Uptime .. Maintenance (PM) Time .. Rate (in PPM) .. Sites .. of Machines .. Number of Placements .. Pickup Attempts .. 175 MEASUREMENT CAPABILITY VERIFICATION FORM Repeatability and ReproducibilityCapability .. Capability .. 176 TEST Verification Panel Specifications .. Verification Panel CarrierSpecifications .. Slug Specifications .. Media Application .. Program .. Component .. Component .. and BGA-228 Slugs .. Slug .. 267 FORMS AND 31 APPENDIX 35 APPENDIX 36 APPENDIX 37 APPENDIX 39 APPENDIX 44 APPENDIX 48 APPENDIX 49 APPENDIX 50 APPENDIX 51 APPENDIX 52 FiguresFigure 3-1 Performance Parameter Description fora Single Panel.

3 8 Figure 3-2 Performance Parameter Description for aFour-Panel Build .. 8 Figure 3-3 Maximum Lead Tip Error Due to PlacementMachine (Combined Xdev, Ydev and dev .. 11 Figure 5-1 Accuracy Verification Panel .. 18 Figure 6-1 Placement Verification Panel .. 20 July 2002 IPC-9850iiiFigure 6-2 QFP 100 Slug for White Background forLeads on Chrome Background (Negative) .. 21 Figure 6-3 QFP 100 Slug for Chrome Leads With NoBackground (Positive) .. 22 Figure 6-4 QFP 208 Slug for White Background forLeads on Chrome Background (Negative) .. 23 Figure 6-5 QFP 208 Slug for Chrome Leads With NoBackground (Positive) .. 24 Figure 6-6 BGA-228 Slug for White Background forLeads on Chrome Background (Negative) .. 25 Figure 6-7 BGA-228 Slug with No Background(Positive) .. 26 Figure 6-8 Component Location Layout for 1608 CComponents.)

4 27 Figure 6-9 Component Location Layout for SOIC 16 Components .. 28 Figure 6-10 Component Location Layout for QFP-100and BGA 228 Slug Components .. 29 Figure 6-11 Component Location Layout for QFP-208 Slug Components .. 30 Figure A-1 Cpk Graphic Representation .. 35 Figure H-1 Gauge R&R Spreadsheet Example .. 50 Figure I-1 Placement Verification Panel Carrier .. 51 Figure J-1 Termination-to-Land Calculation Example .. 52 TablesTable 3-1 Cpk for Termination-to-Land Coverag .. 11 Table 4-1 Component Typesand Quantities for Typical Kit .. 13 Table 4-2 Calculation Example .. 15 Table 4-3 Terms Definition .. 16 Table 6-1 Tool Kit Materials Listfor Performance Evaluation .. 19 Table D-1 Mean and stdev using 2 fiducials .. 40 Table D-2 Mean and stdev per method using 4 fiducials .. 40 Table D-3 Mean and stdev vs.

5 Number ofmeasured leads .. 42 IPC-9850 July 2002ivSurface Mount Placement Equipment Characterization1 ScopeThis standard establishes the procedures tocharacterize the capability of surface mount assemblyequipment in specification documents, as well as in docu-mentation used to verify a specific machine s placementcapability conformance to the specification, while main-taining a placement accuracy to placement speed PurposeIPC-9850 has been developed to standard-ize the parameters, measurement procedures, and the meth-odologies used for the specification, evaluation, and con-tinuing verification of assembly equipment characterizationparameters. These standardized toolsshallbe used todevelop and report the information called out in this BackgroundWith the proliferation of Surface MountTechnology (SMT), placement equipment users havestruggled with the question of which machine will performbest in a given manufacturing environment.

6 The advantageof the SMT assembly process to rapidly place componentsin precise alignment to the land patterns on the printedwiring board (PWB) was the initial yardstick by whichmachines were selected. Machines that could place compo-nents the quickest and with the least amount of scrap wereconsidered the , the most common evaluation method was place-ment yield. For this evaluation, a machine is made to popu-late a large number of the user product where visible place-ment errors are counted as defects. Machines with the leastdefects and the most robust operation were considered high yield and reliability of modern SMT placementsystems require that very large amounts of data be col-lected to meaningfully assess yield and reliability. Thisstandard provides new tools for gauging the yield and reli-ability of placement equipment yet presents performanceresults in the traditional addition to the high yield and reliability expected ofmodern placement equipment, the SMT assembly processhas become significantly more demanding.

7 Componentshave decreased in size, component terminations aresmaller, and placement locations have moved closertogether. All this while the number of components on thePWB and product volumes have increased equipment must now place components morerapidly and with extreme precision to be financially has made requirements on placement machines , placement equipment vendors have selectedtheir own parameters and methodologies to present thespecification of their machines throughput and placementcapabilities. The many representations of this informationhave made the comparison between similar types of place-ment machines very difficult. To obtain comparable data,users have been forced to conduct on-location evaluationsof various machines under the same conditions.

8 This typeof methodology is very time consuming for users and verycapital intensive for standard simplifies the evaluation process by standard-izing the performance parameters that describe the place-ment machines capabilities. It also couples placementthroughput and placement quality so speed and accuracyparameters are dependent on each other. This standard alsospecifies the methodologies by which the capability param-eters are measured. This reduces potential user-vendor fric-tion created when the user believes the equipment is notfunctioning properly. The methodologies specified hereinare consistent and verifiable, thus providing common-ground-methodologies between users and methodologies were achieved by separating machineperformance from the rest of the SMT process variables,which include paste printing, component quality, packagingtype and PWB quality.

9 The speed and quality evaluationmethods of this standard specify that measurements will bemade by placement of standardized components into stickymedia on clear glass panels. Experience shows that surfacemount equipment must perform well on sticky mediabefore it can perform well in production. Furthermore,improved process capability on sticky tape usually trans-lates into enhanced process capability in this method does not provide information thatcan be utilized to perfectly predict production quality, thismethodology was selected in order to remove as much ofthe variation as possible between facilities, products, pro-cess, and the ultimate goal is to evaluate a machine s capabil-ity to place components in paste on actual PWBs, it is notcurrently possible to make such measurements at therequired precision and speed.

10 It is anticipated that futurein-line inspection systems will improve in their ability tomeasure component location and orientation. In the futureit may become possible to use in-line post-placement (pre-reflow) automatic optical inspection (AOI) systems to mea-sure the placement machine to the convergence of high-speed and fine pitchmachines, this standard makes no attempt to separate thetwo types of machines. The user is empowered to decide ifJuly 2002 IPC-98501