|
HEI
assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy
or validity of these tests. The tests were done by an
independent contract manufacturer for the purpose of
evaluating for future purchases, what they have deemed
to be the best soldering station, for their respective
applications.
Soldering Iron Evaluation
Draft 1
Executive Summary
After completion of
the first two phases of this project, it is our
recommendation that the JBC Advanced Series soldering
iron is more capable than the current vendor Metcal.
JBC has outperformed Metcal and all other vendors in
nearly every evaluation category. It is our
recommendation to purchase two JBC Advanced Series units
to complete an extended tip life study, as well as a
complete cost justification analysis to prove a cost
benefit. This would allow the last two phases of
the project to be completed.
Project Overview
This project
evaluates new vendors of soldering iron/rework units.
The scope is to purchase units from the vendor of choice
for future buys for all locations or replace existing
irons when minimum capabilities cannot be met. At
the least, the vendor of choice should be allowed on the
approved vendor list for rework/repair situations that
our current vendor cannot support. Recommendations
will be based on results of the evaluation.
Purpose
for Evaluation Improvement
effort for Repair UG
Capability and
technology of soldering irons Flexibility of
workstation Tip life and cost comparison Want
better control of Solder/Repair operations Future
purchases of irons
Vendors
Evaluated
Metcal JBC Hakko Pace ERSA
(only evaluated on the thermal load testing)
Equipment Used
Hakko FM-202 Soldering Station
Pace TW100 Soldering Station JBC AD4200 Soldering
Station Metcal MX- 500S-11 Soldering Station
ERSA PT Soldering Station (only in thermal load
testing) Pace Process Monitor Wahl ST2100 Solder
Iron Tester ERSA Thermal Load Tester
Limitations of Current Metcal Irons
Short tip life
(some last 2 weeks)
Expensive Tips
(twice as much as most competition)
3 tips
required for varying temperatures
No 0402 or
0201 capability
Ground plane
repairs difficult (PTH and SMT)
IC-shaped tips
are not effective
Additional
flux needed to achieve hole fill
Process
Controls
Assumptions
Test equipment used is repeatable.
Decision matrix scoring is objective.
Phases of Evaluation
Phase 1: Paper evaluation
-Reduce to 2 vendors (Weighted Decision Matrix)
Phase 2: Demo
units (1-2 months)
-Performance based evaluation
-Thermal performance based tests
Phase 3: Cost
justification
-Tip life/cost and added capability
Phase 4:
Implementation
Phase 1: Paper Evaluation
The first phase of
the evaluation consisted of the team compiling a matrix
that lists important attributes of soldering irons.
Each of the vendors evaluated were compiled into the
matrix so comparisons could be made (Appendix 1.).
The team then weighed each of the attributes from 0-1
(least to most importance). The weighted scores
from each of the team members were then averaged and
entered as the multiplier on the weighted matrix.
From the information listed, a score from 1-5
(worst-best) was given to each of the attributes for
each vendor. The total score is the sum of the
weight multiplied by the attribute score (Appendix 2.).
The total scores were as follows:
|
Hakko
|
45.975
|
|
Pace
|
45.75
|
|
JBC
|
53.175
|
|
Metcal
|
42.125
|
Phase 2: Demo Units
Part 1. Performance based
evaluation.
Each of the units was used for
approximately one month in three locations. All of
the units were utilized at rework stations by certified
experienced solderers. After each vendor rotation,
the user was given a questionnaire to fill out (Appendix
3.). Five out of the 20 questions ranked the irons
against the Metcal iron (3 = same as Metcal, 5 =
superior to Metcal, 1 = inferior to Metcal, etc) and the
results are as follows:
|
JBC
|
B2
|
B4
|
B5
|
Average
|
|
Ergonomics
|
5
|
4
|
|
4.5
|
|
Tip Change
|
4
|
5
|
|
4.5
|
|
Durability
|
5
|
4
|
|
4.5
|
|
Temp Recovery
|
5
|
5
|
|
5
|
|
Capability
|
5
|
4
|
|
4.5
|
|
Hakko
|
B2
|
B4
|
B5
|
Average
|
|
Ergonomics
|
4
|
4
|
|
4
|
|
Tip Change
|
3
|
3
|
|
3
|
|
Durability
|
3
|
3
|
|
3
|
|
Temp Recovery
|
5
|
4
|
|
4.5
|
|
Capability
|
5
|
3
|
|
4
|
|
Pace
|
B2
|
B4
|
B5
|
Average
|
|
Ergonomics
|
3
|
4
|
|
3.5
|
|
Tip Change
|
1
|
3
|
|
2
|
|
Durability
|
2
|
3
|
|
2.5
|
|
Temp Recovery
|
2
|
2
|
|
2
|
|
Capability
|
2
|
2
|
|
2
|
Part 2. Thermal
performance based tests.
To evaluate the thermal performance of
each of the soldering irons, we acquired the three
following test units:
|
Pace Process
Monitor
|
Wahl ST2100
Solder Iron
|
ERSA Thermal
Load Tester
|
|
|
|
Soldering Iron Evaluation
Results:
Tables 1 and 2
represent data collected on the first day (9-12-02) of
having the Pace thermal load equipment. Representatives
from JBC and Pace were there to assist the testing
process. The Pace tester is certified to Government SR4
test specifications. Considerations for these types of
tests are the following:
-
Use the same tip size and configuration.
-
Use the same temperature setting.
-
Use the same amount of solder wire for the tinning
of the iron.
-
Tin both sides of the soldering iron prior to test.
-
Each tip is new.
Table 1:
Thermal Load Test Small Coupon (3/4 square) Pace 2100
(9-12-02)
|
Vendor
|
Tip #
|
Ave.
|
|
ERSA (PT)
|
832VD
|
22.1
|
|
Pace (HW)
|
0010 177
|
22.3
|
|
Pace (TW)
|
0010 177
|
25.7
|
|
Hakko
|
|
18.9
|
|
JBC
|
2245-008
|
10.3
|
|
Metcal
|
STTC-117
|
18.6
|
Table 2: Thermal Load Test
Large Coupon (1 ½ square) Pace 2100 (9-12-02)
|
Vendor
|
Tip #
|
Ave.
|
|
ERSA (PT)
|
832VD
|
120
|
|
Pace (HW)
|
0010 177
|
116
|
|
Pace (TW)
|
0010 177
|
120
|
|
Hakko
|
|
82
|
|
JBC
|
2245-008
|
30
|
|
Metcal
|
STTC-117
|
43
|
Table 3: Thermal Loading
Tests Small Coupon Pace 2100 (9-16-02)
|
Vendor
|
Tip #
|
Temp. (Set
Point)
|
Temp. (Actual)
|
Run #1
(John)
|
Run #2
(Shawn)
|
Run #3
(Brian)
|
Ave.
|
|
ERSA (TT)
|
612ED
|
700
|
707
|
20.8
|
25.5
|
23.7
|
23.3
|
|
ERSA (PT)
|
832VD
|
700
|
698
|
24.5
|
17.1
|
16.6
|
19.4
|
|
Pace (HW)
|
0010 177
|
700
|
690
|
29.7
|
24.9
|
29.7
|
28.1
|
|
Pace (TW)
|
0010 177
|
700
|
645
|
31.4
|
33.5
|
29.5
|
31.5
|
|
Hakko
|
|
700
|
675
|
22.1
|
19.2
|
26.0
|
22.4
|
|
JBC
|
2245-008
|
700
|
715
|
12.2
|
13.2
|
15.7
|
13.7
|
|
Metcal
|
STTC-117
|
700
|
726
|
17.9
|
14.9
|
12.7
|
15.2
|
Table 4: Thermal Loading
Tests ERSA Solder Pot (9-16-02)
|
Vendor
|
Tip #
|
Temp. (Set
Point)
|
Temp. (Actual)
|
Ave.
|
|
ERSA (TT)
|
612ED
|
700
|
750
|
54
|
|
ERSA (PT)
|
832VD
|
700
|
702
|
52
|
|
JBC
|
2245-008
|
700
|
702
|
48
|
|
Metcal
|
STTC-117
|
700
|
737
|
57
|
Table 5: Thermal Loading
Tests Small Coupon Pace 2100 (9-20-02)
|
Vendor
|
Tip #
|
Temp. (Set
Point)
|
Temp. (Actual)
|
Run #1
(John)
|
Run #2
(John)
|
Ave.
|
|
ERSA (TT)
|
612ED
|
700
|
720-725
|
22.5
|
25.4
|
24.0
|
|
ERSA (PT)
|
832VD
|
700
|
720-725
|
17.7
|
23.7
|
20.7
|
|
JBC
|
2245-008
|
700
|
720-725
|
15.2
|
13.7
|
14.5
|
|
Metcal
|
STTC-117
|
700
|
720-725
|
20.9
|
22.0
|
21.5
|
Table 6: Thermal Loading
Tests Large Coupon Pace 2100 (9-20-02)
|
Vendor
|
Tip #
|
Temp. (Set
Point)
|
Temp. (Actual)
|
Run #1
(John)
|
Run #2
(John)
|
Ave.
|
|
ERSA (TT)
|
612ED
|
700
|
720-725
|
72.5
|
100
|
86.2
|
|
ERSA (PT)
|
832VD
|
700
|
720-725
|
66.3
|
93.5
|
79.9
|
|
JBC
|
2245-008
|
700
|
720-725
|
39.9
|
46.5
|
43.2
|
|
Metcal
|
STTC-117
|
700
|
720-725
|
31.4
|
69.8
|
50.6
|
Table 7: Thermal Loading
Tests ERSA Solder Pots (9-20-02)
|
Vendor
|
Tip #
|
Temp. (Set
Point)
|
Temp. (Actual)
|
Ave.
|
|
ERSA (TT)
|
612ED
|
700
|
701-707
|
63
|
|
ERSA (PT)
|
832VD
|
700
|
714-717
|
58
|
|
Pace (HW)
|
0010 177
|
700
|
703-708
|
93
|
|
Hakko
|
|
700
|
674-676
|
69
|
|
JBC
|
2245-008
|
700
|
700-705
|
48
|
|
Metcal
|
STTC-117
|
700
|
716-720
|
61
|
Thermal Load Tests Overall
Results: (JBC vs. Metcal)
Table 1: 44.6% faster
Table 2: 30.2% faster Table 3: 9.8% faster
Table 4: 15.8% faster Table 5: 14.6%
faster Table 6: 21.3% faster
Recommendation
After completion of
the first two phases of this project, it is our
recommendation that the JBC Advanced Series soldering
iron is more capable than the current vendor Metcal.
JBC has outperformed Metcal and other evaluated vendors
in nearly every evaluation category. It is our
recommendation to purchase two JBC Advanced Series units
to complete an extended tip life study, as well as a
complete cost justification analysis to prove a cost
benefit. This would allow the last two phases of
the project to be completed.
Appendix 1.
Appendix 2.
HEI assumes no responsibility or
liability for the accuracy or validity of these tests.
The tests were done by an independent contract
manufacturer for the purpose of evaluating for future
purchases, what they have deemed to be the best
soldering station, for their respective applications
|