Walker Frank - Final Presentation

Summer Intern Project – Final Report

Walker FrankUniversity of PortlandElectrical Engineering

Major Project: Increase Panel Utilization

• Increase the amount of area used by images and coupons on a panel

Milestones:• Identify and retool low percentage utilization parts• Define minimum part spacing criteria• Document keepout requirements

2

Analyzing Demand Data & Re-panelizing

3

Customer Part Number Utilization Before Panel Size Before Qty Up Before Cost/Unit Before Utilization After Panel Size After Qty Up After Cost/Unit AfterCELESTICA CORPORATION 81607993 55.1 18 x 24 3 187.99 70.39 18 x 24 4 151.84

ROCKWELL COLLINS 81547722 51.16 18 x 24 40 17.84 66.22 18 x 24 48 14.99VANGUARD EMS 81630537 61.43 18 x 24 9 92.63 77.65 18 x 24 12 69.86VANGUARD EMS 81623683 59.97 18 x 24 10 60.82 68.77 21 x 24 14 51.02

ROCKWELL COLLINS 81518366 57.08 18 x 24 6 82.87 75.33 18 x 24 8 64.63JABIL CIRCUIT 81508595 63.26 18 x 24 22 23.65 73.92 18 x24 24 20

ROCKWELL COLLINS 81591578 22.8 18 x 24 4 57.91 61.41 18 x 24 12 22.79JABIL CIRCUIT 81630599 54.62 21 x 24 18 17.5 72.32 21 x 24 24 14.54GE AVIATION 81543432 48.82 18 x 24 12 60.8 65.43 18 x 24 16 50.2

Cost Analysis of Retooled Parts

• Retooled demand parts that could fit more images up on a panel

• Updated since my midterm presentation (June 28th)

4

Customer Part Number Utilization Before Panel Size Before Qty Up Before Yield Before Cost/Unit BeforeCELESTICA CORPORATION 81607993 55.1 18 x 24 3 95.5 187.99

ROCKWELL COLLINS 81547722 51.16 18 x 24 40 97 17.84ROCKWELL COLLINS 81518366 57.08 18 x 24 6 96.1 82.87

Date of Control to Retool Utilization After Panel Size After Qty Up After Yield After Cost/Unit After Qty of Panels Since Retool5/27/2016 70.39 18 x 24 4 90 151.84 286/1/2016 66.22 18 x 24 48 98 14.99 25

6/20/2016 75.33 18 x 24 8 90 64.63 7

Savings of $12,291.43 for these three parts

$103,936.43 in total savings from re-panelized parts

DOE Panel to Test Panel Boundaries

• Overall eight panels that will look at registration and plating• Coupons containing Through-Hole Vias/CDD Holes/Microvia

Holes• Control coupons located in the center• Test coupons located 550mils away from both edges of the

board– “Stair-stepping” towards the center of the board

5

DOE Test Panel Analysis

6


7

DOE Test Panel Analysis• Looked at the four corners and the four control coupon

groups for the first four panels• Analyzed each kind of coupon and the key data points

– Through-Holes (9.1, 11.8, 13.8)• Average hole wall thickness• Minimum hole wall thickness• Minimum annular ring

– CDD Holes (9.2, 11.8, 15.5)• Average hole wall thickness• Minimum hole wall thickness• Minimum capture pad• Minimum landing pad

– Microvias (5mil, 6mil, 7mil)• Minimum capture pad• Minimum landing pad

8

DOE Test Panel Analysis• Panel 3 – Control vs. Corner

– Through-Holes

9

Q9 A9


10

• Panel 2 – Control– CDD Holes

9.2Aspect Ratio = .986

11.8Aspect Ratio = 1.165



11

• Panel 2 – Corner– CDD Holes

9.2Aspect Ratio = .958



DOE Test Panel Analysis• Panel 3 – Control vs. Corner

– Microvias

12

Q3 A3

13

Each bigger ring represents a pad

The small pink ring represents where we have to drill to hit all the pads, while keeping a distance of 1 mil away from each pad

Each dot represents the center of a pad

Since there is variation in the location of each pad, there will be an offset


• Conclusion:– Registration

• Expected to lose 2 mils of registration in both the x and y direction from the center to the edge of the panel

• Actually losing 2.5 mils of registration– Plating

• Expected the 15.5 holes to look how they did• Corners were lucky, won’t always plate that way

– There is a lot more to be done..• 288 coupons tested• 2304 coupons to go

16

Keysight Analysis – 815-33501 (C9860668) 100% Scrap

17

Panel 2ETop Left Hole

Chippewa Falls, WI Trip (7/12 to 7/15)• Traveled with Jim Larson to meet the tooling department• Saw how they currently panelize and work on jobs

18

Forest Grove Chippewa Falls

TDR Coupon Width DeterminationTDR > / = +/-10% | 0.75" | >/= 1" | 0.55"

TDR < +/-10% | 1" | >/= 1.5" | See Engineering

• Single ended• Width = {# layers (round up to multiple of 3) / 30} + .15• i.e. 10 layer width = {12/30} + .15 = .55"• Differential• Width = {# layers (round up to even number) x .1} + .1• i.e. 9 layer width = {10 x .1} + .1 = 1.10"

IP(B) Coupons .55" x 1.44" 4 required, one in each corner, .30" x .95"Solderability Coupon .55" x 1.2" 1 required, .25" x 2.70"

IST Coupon .75" x ~6.5" .60" x 5.00"Border Violations N/A Has its own section

Minimum Border w/out Via .55" .625"Minimum Border w/Via 1.5" .5" from top, .875" from sides, .825" from bottom

B.Via ? .750"Sublamination ? 1"

Orientation of Optimizer Coupons N/A• 16.5 by 18.5, 18.5 by 24.5 and 21.5 by 24.5 (VERTICAL)• 18.5 by 27.5 and 21.5 by 27.5 (HORIZONTAL)

Part to Part Spacing .15" up to .5" .1" up to .6"Minimum Part to Part Spacing N/A .0661" with .0591 cutter

Coupon to Part Spacing N/A (same as part to part) .2" to .6"Minimum Coupon to Part Spacing N/A (same as part to part) .07", .08" for BCMI coupons

Coupon to Coupon Spacing on Side of Tab N/A .25"Optimizer Coupon Spacing N/A .1" all around

Tiebar Width N/A .03"

Differences between Forest Grove (FEE 115) and Chippewa Falls (Panel Utilization Document)

Updated Panelization Guidelines

• Updated the FEE 115 document to current standards– Discussed with Jim Larson, Eric Webb, and a handful of engineers to

determine current rules we should be following– Compared our guidelines to Chippewa Falls’ guidelines

• Available on the Buildability Wiki soon– http://viapoint/facility/ForestGrove/BuildabilityWiki/

19

http://viapoint/facility/ForestGrove/BuildabilityWiki/

http://viapoint/facility/ForestGrove/BuildabilityWiki/

Michaela’s ENIG RFID Project & Lenz

• ENIG Project– Helped Michaela with testing and troubleshooting the RFID antennas

• Tested different antennas and their ranges, position, power, etc.– Set up a pilot test on the ENIG line to determine the best placements

of the antennas.• Lenz

– Recorded manual steps that could be automated– Documented problems we were having with various parts– Gave all this information to Ravi and tooling to be able to update steps

and fix issues in the future

20

What I Gained

• Learned the process of manufacturing a printed circuit board– Tooling/CAM, Finishing, Metlab

• How to perform analysis with issues regarding registration and plating

• Sitting in on meetings and seeing the decision making process between quality, engineering, and management

• How to interact and work with others in a professional environment

21

Special Thanks To…

• Eric Webb• Jim Larson• Colin Reed• Nguyen Dinh• Vance Van Zyl• Ravi Lal• Dave Wilson• Ismet Prosjanovic

22

Questions?

Walker Frank - Final Presentation

Documents