HAND TOOLS IN ELECTRONICS ASSEMBLY - CASE STUDY

Abstract:

This case study analyzes the use of hand tools during the assembly of electronic devices, with particular emphasis on tools compliant with ESD standards. Various tools were analyzed, ESD-related problems were identified, and effective solutions were presented to eliminate the risks of product damage. Laboratory tests confirmed the improvement in the assembly process after changing tools and procedures.

Introduction:

The assembly of electronic devices requires precision and meticulousness, especially in the context of electrostatic discharge (ESD), which can damage components. This study focuses on analyzing various tools used in the assembly process, emphasizing tools compliant with ESD standards.

Methods:

1. Resistance Measurements: Standard resistance measurements were performed on various ESD-compliant tools.

2. Assembly Process Analysis: A detailed analysis of assembly processes was conducted, focusing on manual assembly stations.

3. Laboratory Tests: Alternative tools were tested, considering worst-case scenarios such as lack of proper grounding at the workstation.

Results: Various types of hand tools used in electronic device assembly were considered. In this specific case, tools compliant with ESD standards were used, which passed positive verification and resistance measurements according to the recommendations described in the documentation.

Verified Tools:

• Tool #1 - tool used in production

• Tool #2 - alternative tool

• Tool #3 - alternative tool

• Tool #4 - alternative tool (final solution for the client)

During Process Analysis:

During process analyses, a series of measurements were performed on the production area. Initially, standard resistance measurements did not show significant discrepancies. However, during process analyses at several manual assembly stations, active measurements revealed certain problems that proved to be the source of customer problems and product

Therefore, different types of alternative tools were selected to potentially replace the currently used Tool #1, and laboratory tests were conducted. Several scenarios were considered.

• WORST-CASE SCENARIO: A situation where the workstation was not properly grounded (a common issue in workstations within EPA zones).

• Properly Functioning Systems: According to ANSI S20.20 and IEC 61340-5-1. We can see below that even in a workstation built according to standards, there are sudden energy transfers when using different types of tools in the process. However, when comparing them, Tool #4 performs significantly better.

• Properly Functioning Systems + Production Process Modification: According to ANSI S20.20 and IEC 61340-5-1. Ultimately, after implementing slight modifications to the process and operator procedures, we achieved a fully safe production process. Additionally, it was confirmed that this process is stable over a long period, regardless of operator actions.

Discussion:

The analysis showed that even a properly built workstation could generate electrostatic discharges when using different tools. Tool #4, after implementing production process modifications, provided a stable process with minimized damage risk.

Summary:

The analysis and verification of the process and tools demonstrated that the correct selection of tools is crucial for the safety of produced electronic items. The change in procedures and tools contributed not only to increased safety but also to a significant reduction in defects and costs associated with electronic product damage by approximately €70,000 per month.