Printed Circuit Board Assembly & PCB Design Forum

SMT electronics assembly manufacturing forum.

SMTnet
»
Electronics Forum
»
advice on selecting ATE/ICT

advice on selecting ATE/ICT

Subscribe to Thread

I would appreciate any and all input on selection of ICT/ATE... - Sep 20, 2007 by mparker

For multiple products, none of which have test points, you m... - Sep 20, 2007 by JAX

You do not always need test points designed on the board. An... - Sep 20, 2007 by PeteC

Welcome back to SMTnet, bubba. Depending on your goal sel... - Sep 20, 2007 by davef

Thanx Dave- yep- back in the saddle again- kickin' ass, taki... - Sep 21, 2007 by mparker

Pete- you help is appreciated ... - Sep 21, 2007 by mparker

My past experience included flying probe- we used it as more... - Sep 21, 2007 by mparker

To clarify my comment regarding test points- I mentioned tha... - Sep 21, 2007 by mparker

The selection of Test equipment primarily should be driven b... - Sep 22, 2007 by SMT

Depending on my customers needs there are functional test re... - Sep 24, 2007 by mparker

Have you looked at J-tag? I have the feeling that ICT use i... - Sep 24, 2007 by Stephen

Not yet. What is it? A test technology, a manufacturer of te... - Sep 24, 2007 by mparker

It's a test technology. It's quite different from either IC... - Sep 25, 2007 by Stephen

I've heard of boundary scan. A flying probe is that way. ... - Sep 25, 2007 by mparker

mparker

#51854

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 20 September, 2007

I would appreciate any and all input on selection of ICT/ATE equipment. I'm a CM supplying various PCA's, none of which are designed with test points. I am looking for a robust, user friendly, low cost, low maintence that can be easily adapted for each assembly or revision that I produce for my customers. I have SMT fine pitch, through hole technologies. No BGA's as of yet.

A recommendation of suppliers, make, model, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

reply »

JAX

#51855

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 20 September, 2007

For multiple products, none of which have test points, you might want to think about a Flying Probe. Although not as fast as ICT, it should have higher flexibility.It's also easily modified without large tooling/fixture costs.

reply »

PeteC

#51856

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 20 September, 2007

You do not always need test points designed on the board. Any ICT supplier will consult with you on that and after looking at your designs. Teradyne offers new and refurb'd systems for ICT, analog only or w/ Vectorless testing to ensure ICs have a connection or full Vector testing of IC's. There are also options on some systems for B-Scan and funtional testing, flash programming, etc..... The TesStation LH model is one to look at:

http://www.teradyne.com/ict/teststation-in-circuit-test/

Some other suppliers are:

http://www.seicatestsolutions.com/pages/1/Seica-com-Home-Page.php

http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/home.jspx?cc=US&lc=eng&cmpid=4533

http://www.digitaltest.de/en/main/products/testers/testers_frame.htm

reply »

davef

#51861

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 20 September, 2007

Welcome back to SMTnet, bubba.

Depending on your goal select from: * Manufacturing defects tester * In-circuit tester

reply »

mparker

#51866

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 21 September, 2007

Thanx Dave- yep- back in the saddle again- kickin' ass, takin' names- should be fun

reply »

mparker

#51867

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 21 September, 2007

Pete- you help is appreciated

reply »

mparker

#51868

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 21 September, 2007

My past experience included flying probe- we used it as more an R&D tool, it obvious wasn't fast enough for production. Once the probe gave us the answers need, we then developed the HP 3070 test bed and program.

reply »

mparker

#51869

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 21 September, 2007

To clarify my comment regarding test points- I mentioned that fact as I knew we would need to develop test beds that may be more difficult due to test points not easily provided. Beyond that, my goal is to begin DFM with my customers that would include test points in the design.

reply »

SMT

#51882

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 22 September, 2007

The selection of Test equipment primarily should be driven by the requirement of fault spectrum you would like to capture. If you are looking at Manufacutring defects MDA/ICT would do the job, if you would like to cover the functional aspect a combinational tester would be ideal.

reply »

mparker

#51891

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 24 September, 2007

Depending on my customers needs there are functional test requirements for PCA's and mechanical assemblies. Soem of my customers have developed and provided dedicated functional test beds. Others are not to sophisticated and expect the unit to power up and operate, my requirement is 100% visual, inpsecting for manufacturing defects only.

I need to improve beyond the visual inspection by ICT methods. I will also need to prove some functionality where test coverage doesn't exist.

To go back to my original post request I would like recommendations of machines that are desirable for the types of test I need. Brands, models, recommended options, best tech support, any user training needed to be up and running, etc.

reply »

Stephen

#51896

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 24 September, 2007

Have you looked at J-tag? I have the feeling that ICT use is shrinking and will continue to do so.

reply »

mparker

#51897

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 24 September, 2007

Not yet. What is it? A test technology, a manufacturer of test machines?

reply »

Stephen

#51898

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 25 September, 2007

It's a test technology. It's quite different from either ICT or functional. It's also called boundary scan. The board has to be designed for it. You basically plug the J-tag tester into a port built into the board.

It has it's own special niche but from what I understand it is a powerfull tool.

reply »

mparker

#51899

advice on selecting ATE/ICT | 25 September, 2007

I've heard of boundary scan. A flying probe is that way.

reply »