Verification of Inspection Results: Local, Central, Global?


Reading time ( words)

Inspection systems—such as automated optical inspection (AOI), automated X-ray inspection (AXI) and solder paste inspection (SPI) systems—are now a firm part of every electronics production. Depending on the production size and throughput, these are implemented directly in the line (in-line) or as an isolated solution with automated or manual loading (offline).

However, it is not only the implementation of the actual test tasks that is crucial for an efficient use, but also the meaningful inclusion of the internal company process and data structure. Peripheral modules, such as verification and repair stations, play an important role in this.

Figure 1_Goepel_Aug2017.jpg

Figure 1: Part of a production line with AXI system and inline verification station.

Fault Verification Classic: Directly after the AOI System

Even if inspection systems should no longer be foregone, a necessary evil is attached to them: because of the unavoidable pseudo faults and due to the detailed fault classification, verification stations are necessary for classification after AOI or AXI systems.

Figure 2_Goepel_Aug2017.jpgFigure 2: Verification station software PILOT Verify with AOI and AXI fault images.

Within production lines, verification of detected faults is typically undertaken by inline workstations, equipped with a PC, monitor, software and corresponding licences. Their main task is often the dismissing of pseudo faults by the operator. Depending on the cycle time of the line and occurring pseudo faults, the employee is only utilized at this verification station for a part of their working time.

Efficiency through Centralization: Mutual Verification for Numerous Inspection Systems

If numerous inspection systems are available in electronic production, then the logical next step is also to have this employee undertake the verification of results from other inspection systems. Depending on the spatial arrangement of the systems (into one or more lines), this does mean that a part of the working time has to be allocated for the distances to the individual verification stations.

To assess the faults recognized by the AOI system, there is often additional, helpful information available (e.g., comparison pictures of a good PCB or angled-views of the respective part). This ensures that a skillful operator is able to undertake an assessment in most cases without having to view the objective PCB.

Verification with Greater Security: Use of All Test Results

This is now possible with verification software tools. One example is the PILOT Verify verification software, which is a part of the inspection systems by Goepel electronic. Using this software, for example, not only is the actual AOI fault image displayed, but also the respective angled-view images from a horizontal angle of 45° or 90°, comparison images of a good PCB, or the 3D view of the PCB or solder joint.

Figure 3_Goepel_Aug2017.jpgFigure 3: Central verification for numerous production lines with PILOT Supervisor.

If further inspection systems (SPI or AXI) are integrated into the production process, these results, measurements and images are also available for assessment.

Moreover, SPI, AXI and AOI systems from other manufacturers that are already integrated into the production line can also be integrated via the PILOT Connect software module, enabling their results to be presented at the verification station.

Central Verification for Numerous Production Lines

These opportunities shown make it possible to competently assess the detected errors remotely. But how does the technical implementation for central verification take place in a production with numerous inspection systems or numerous lines? A simple solution would be the remote control of existing inline verification stations (e.g., via a remote desktop connection). However, the entire equipment of such a workstation at the respective position in the production line would be required for this, made up of a PC, interface card to the belt module as well as software licences. Both costs and required space for the inline workstation are impacted here.

Share

Print


Suggested Items

André Bodegom on European Challenges, Automation, and Automotive

12/02/2019 | Pete Starkey, I-Connect007
Editor Pete Starkey speaks with André Bodegom, managing director for Adeon Technologies in the Netherlands, about changes he has seen over the years in major industry sectors, challenges in the European market, and other areas of growth.

The Digital Medical Revolution

12/02/2019 | Nolan Johnson, I-Connect007
Zulki Khan, founder and CEO of NexLogic Technologies Inc., offers his unique perspective on manufacturing trends as a PCB turnkey solutions provider based in Silicon Valley. He discusses additional requirements that are now necessary to compete in different industry sectors, most notably medical, which he says is set for a “digital revolution.”

Global Political Turmoil Creating Uncertainties for the Industry

11/20/2019 | Chris Mitchell, IPC Vice President of Global Government Relations
From where I sit, representing the interests of electronics manufacturers and related companies around the world, I regret to say that the future of our industry—while bright overall—is fraught with uncertainties, from trade policy disputes to government leadership turnovers and economic and social megatrends. IPC is working with all governments and parties to overcome these uncertainties, but there is a lot to tackle.



Copyright © 2019 I-Connect007. All rights reserved.