Hello Phillip,
I am surprised to hear you find less holes in a design of SMT over though hole. It has been my understanding for a long time that SMT with all of it's interconnections on the surfaces, actually increases the number of vias in a board design. That is unless you are designing with blind via-in-pad.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:06
Subject: Re: [TN] Cost Reductions from Converting to SMT
> Richard, Philip
>
> More than the components, there are big savings in the PCBs. Not only can you save on
> surface area, but the fact that you have fewer holes to get in the way, you can often
> reduce from 6 signal layers to just 4.
>
> On the other hand, all the placement equipment is more expensive, the soldering process
> is more complex with slightly higher fault rates, cleaning, if necessary is horrendous,
> so it ain't all roses all the way.
>
> Without concrete figures, some of my clients have mentioned an overall 5-10% drop in
> costs (including amortisation), but only after the processes are fine tuned and run in:
> expect an increase over the first 3-6 months. The biggest savings, if you are a large
> producer is due to the fact that you stack the bare boards at one end of the line and
> test the finished assemblies at the other end, with no human intervention between the
> two.
>
> FWIW
>
> Brian
>
> Richard Hamilton wrote:
>
> > Philip,
> >
> > I know exactly from where you are coming!! Somewhat of the same scenario
> > here.
> >
> > We are 'moving' into the SM scene reservedly. I am using the component cost
> > issue to help support the need to change. Based on two non-scientific,
> > unprofessional, apples to oranges (OK, OK, just wanted to get the point
> > across!) comparisons, my survey with vendors two years ago indicated a 15%
> > price reduction by going to SM components. Another survey I just did
> > indicated a 25% reduction in cost by moving to SM.
> >
> > Like I said, this was not a scientific gathering of information, but based
> > on our parts this increase in reduction means the pricing trend is moving in
> > a direction that we should consider.
> >
> > >From the department of 'For What it is Worth', digest in good health!
> >
> > Richard Hamilton
> > Clemar Mfg. / Rain Bird
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Philip Poling [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 5:47 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: [TN] Cost Reductions from Converting to SMT
> > >
> > > Greetings TechNetters,
> > >
> > > I'm trying to justify changing some of our circuit assemblies from THT to
> > > SMT.
> > > They go into a 40 Ton vehicle, so saving weight or space isn't enough
> > > justification. I need to be able to show that, at least in some cases,
> > > you can
> > > reduce the cost of a circuit assembly by converting it to SMT. For my
> > > justification, I need to find some examples of how other companies have
> > > actually
> > > reduced the cost of a circuit assembly by converting it to SMT.
> > >
> > > Have any of you gone through this process and actually reduced the cost of
> > > a
> > > circuit assembly? Was the savings significant? Have any of you written
> > > any
> > > articles or reports that you could share? Or, has anyone read any
> > > articles or
> > > books on the subject?
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate receiving any information and examples you have. Exact
> > > figures
> > > are not required, just ballpark estimates of cost savings would be very
> > > helpful.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Phil Poling
> > > United Defense
> > > 4800 East River Road
> > > Fridley, MN 55421-1498
> > > 612-572-6533
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > ##############################################################
> > > TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
> > > ##############################################################
> > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> > > following text in
> > > the body:
> > > To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
> > > To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TECHNET
> > > ##############################################################
> > > Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> > > additional
> > > information.
> > > If you need assistance - contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> > > 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> > > ##############################################################
> >
> > ##############################################################
> > TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
> > ##############################################################
> > To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> > the body:
> > To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
> > To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TECHNET
> > ##############################################################
> > Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
> > information.
> > If you need assistance - contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> > 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> > ##############################################################
>
> ##############################################################
> TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
> ##############################################################
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the body:
> To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
> To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TECHNET
> ##############################################################
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
> information.
> If you need assistance - contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> ##############################################################
>
|
