TECHNET Archives

1995

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Robert Willis <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
09 Dec 95 05:36:30 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (147 lines)
As requested by a number of people here is the basic text in the last cleaning
survey. The graphs have been removed.

I hope this will increase the number of people who will spare 5min to answer the
new survey that has been re posted.

CLEANING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY

UK SURVEY RESULTS
1991 to 1994

by 
Bob Willis

THE SMART GROUP
86 EASTON STREET
HIGH WYCOME
BUCKS HP11 1LT

TEL: 0494 465217  FAX: 0494 473975



The following survey results show the general changes taking place in the
electronics industry for cleaning printed board assemblies. The results were
obtained from three individual surveys conducted at cleaning seminars organised
by National Physics Laboratory, Electrovert Consulting Services and The SMART
Group.

The seminars were organised in Scotland in Ireland during October 1992 and in
England during June 1991. Over 150 people attended the seminar in England with
70 people in Scotland and over 30 people in Ireland. A copy of the survey
questionnaire sheet is attached to the results. 

The results are shown in graphical form and provide the basic data obtained from
the survey. The intention of the surveys was to give a basic idea of the
direction being taken by those people attending the individual technical events.

The survey has recently been repeated by The SMART Group during October 1993.
The results are based on 85 responses from England, Ireland and Scotland. The
second figures are just for England.


Bob Willis


During the seminar held in Scotland 80% of the people attending were from
companies involved in assembling printed board, many of which were from small
and medium volume manufactures.

The highest percentage (39%) of companies were assembling between 100-1000
boards per week. The smallest group were those who were only assembling 1-100
boards per week.

The most popular specifications use for cleanliness assessment were the MIL/IPC
standards which were generally the most popular standards for each of the
surveys.


The existing method most commonly used during 1991/2 for cleaning electronic
assemblies was CFC 113 (56%), which shows the slow change in the electronics
industry. 

The process which is becoming the favoured choice as an alternative to the use
of CFC 113 is the no-clean option (49%). As the use of nitrogen is also
considered a no clean option this raises the total to 57% who favour the
no-clean approach.


The results of the survey conducted in Ireland provided similar results to
Scotland with 82% of those attending being directly involved with assembly of
printed boards.


The survey results from Ireland tended to be based on larger companies who were
producing between 100-5000 boards per week.

The specifications most often used by companies in Ireland were the MIL/IPC
documents which may in this case have been expected as many of the companies
represented are US based manufacturers.

Less than 50% of Irish manufacturers are currently using CFC 113 as a cleaning
solvent. Aqueous cleaning has always been a popular technique favoured by
companies based in Ireland, again mainly influenced by the US manufacturers.

As was the case in Scotland the Irish results indicate that no-clean is the most
popular process for the future. If the nitrogen results were also added to the
no-clean figure this would yield a figure of over 60% who were in favour of
no-clean.

The final results were obtained from a survey conducted in England and were
taken from the largest group of over 170 delegates.


The companies represented at the seminar (49%) were mainly medium volume
companies, assembling between 100 to 1000 boards per week.

The results from the England survey indicated again that MIL/IPC specifications
are the most often used guide to printed board cleanliness.   

Although the need to change has been highlighted in many publications it has
been indicated at each of these seminars that there is a reluctance to make a
decision on an alternative to CFC cleaning.

The results from the survey in England indicated that no-clean was the preferred
option although it was not as popular as it was in Scotland and Ireland. The
lower percentage figures for the no-clean option may have been due to the time
delay between the three surveys.

To provide a better understanding of the UK's view on cleaning alternatives the
results of the three surveys have been combined. The combined results in terms
of the direction which is being taken on alternatives to CFC does radically
change the results.

During this final survey the bulk of the companies 76% were assembles producing
100-1000 boards per week.

The MIL/IPC specifications were again the most quoted document and used  as a
reference.

Still at this point 56% of assembly facilities were using CFC as a cleaning
agent with no clean the next with a much lower figure of 13%.

In terms of future plans no clean was considered to be the best option for the
future with 36% and aqueous with 22%.



The final set of graphs show the results from the most recent survey conducted
during October 1993 and show the direction being taken by manufacturing plants
to eliminate CFC cleaning.

The surveys were conducted by Bob Willis of Electronic Presentation Services.
Further copies of these results may be obtained by contacting The SMART Group,
the address of which appears on the front cover of this report.


The results are available free of charge, please do not photocopy this document
as the SMART Group would like to gauge the level of interest in this
information.


For further information on the survey, contact Bob Willis on Tel: 0245 351502
Fax: 0245 496123.  



ATOM RSS1 RSS2