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:

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:

 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:

1. Use the same tip size and configuration.
2. Use the same temperature setting.
3. Use the same amount of solder wire for the tinning of the iron.
4. Tin both sides of the soldering iron prior to test.
5. Each tip is new.

 Table 1: Thermal Load Test – Small Coupon (3/4” square) Pace 2100 (9-12-02)

Table 2: Thermal Load Test – Large Coupon (1 ½” square) Pace 2100 (9-12-02)

 Table 3: Thermal Loading Tests – Small Coupon Pace 2100 (9-16-02)

Table 4: Thermal Loading Tests – ERSA Solder Pot (9-16-02)

Table 5: Thermal Loading Tests – Small Coupon Pace 2100 (9-20-02)

Table 6: Thermal Loading Tests – Large Coupon Pace 2100 (9-20-02)