For a little PCB prototyping business intent on serving a number of the best known and respected tech brands on the planet, fast turnaround is more than simply a marketing gimmick – it’s a promise. PCB model assembly is by no way a simple activity, and also small, timeconsuming hangups may develop into lost orders and mad customers in a industry where 48-hour turn arounds are the norm.
In order to be in a position to PCB prototype produce results on such limited time frames, PCB assembly plants will need to maximize nearly every component of these work flow for consistency and speed. In the middle of this demand is a inherent conflict between maximizing the resources and assets you already own or even adding additional resources and assets to your own environment.
Essentially, what fast-turnaround PCB assemblers wish to understand is whether or not they should hire extra aid and make more use of their machinery, or even buy newer, better machines which may let them create the most of the existing staff.
Before leaping to the matter of if machine or workforce power really produces rapid turnarounds, we will need to be sure that the PCB planning system itself has already been performing optimally.
Essentially, that bottleneck is made up of 2 parts – component sequencing and puppy agreements. PCB manufacturers need to Find the optimal order of parts then assign them into the proper feeders
There are nearly unlimited ways that PCB component sequencing and feeder arrangements can be approached. Choosing the truly most efficient solution is simply not achievable in a business circumstance – maybe not, at the least, with current computational technology, and certainly not within a short period.
PCB assemblers to a tight deadline use genetic algorithms to determine near-optimal intending systems without becoming lost on the way to the”perfect” solution. While this is not just a challenge that can be solved with the current technology, so it’s crucial to not forget that no current PCB assembly method is absolutely efficient. It becomes an ever more complicating element for high-volume PCB design companies.
More Machines Means More Establish Up Time
Knowing that any given PCB assembly procedure must be less than perfectly efficient, we could turn to time limits on workflow procedures.
SMT machines aren’t plugandplay devices. Better machines require change-overs of at least one hour – if you run to ten installments weekly, that means that you are losing an entire day in production time weekly.
Changeover times could grow to be a enormous drag on production, especially when coping with tight turn arounds. Time, once lost, cannot be recovered, and every moment of time stored promotes earnings.
Since SMT machines can encounter nearly infinite production chances on a single run, and are often tasked with making multiple runs each day, any changeover period is downtime. A UIC shows in a very simple set of charts in accordance with SMT machine revenue generating period, every moment counts – an hour of downtime for a lineup that creates $10 million yearly costs $5000.
While there are always ways to enhance the efficiency of a PCB assembly line, there isn’t any way to account fully for about $5000 in unnecessary reductions. Considering some SMT machines can take upto 4 hours to install for a single run of a prototype PCB, making the most of each work day is undoubtedly the better option.
Furthermore, installing additional production lines doesn’t affect the productivity of every person lineup. While it may seem to increase PCB assembly turnaround, adding more workers and lines may be more expensive than its worth if overall production volume will not also grow. For this reason, keeping workers late and sometimes even employing an extra shift is by far the superior option.