Modeling the Impact of Embedding Passives on Manufacturing System Performance

Chincholkar, Mandar M.; Herrmann, Jeffrey W.

doi:10.1115/detc2002/dfm-34174

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chincholkar and Herrmann [11] present a DFP model for evaluating manufacturing cycle time as a function of the number of embedded passives. This model first determines how the number of embedded passives affects the number of layers, the board thickness, the board area, the number of boards per panel, and the number of holes.…”

Section: Applying Design For Production Principles To Embedded Passivmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost and production analysis for substrates with embedded passives

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the advent of new materials and technologies that enable passive components to be embedded within electronic substrates, one key question that arises is: under what circumstances (and for what type of applications) is it economically viable to consider using embedded passives? The economic issues that must be considered consist of a combination of manufacturing costs and throughputs, and non-manufacturing life cycle costs. This paper discusses the assessment of manufacturing costs associated with embedding resistors and capacitors in printed circuit boards and provides cost modeling results for an avionics board. The discussion is extended to include optimizing the specific embedded passive content in a board and design for production modeling when embedded passives are present. Life cycle cost issues are also qualitatively discussed.

show abstract

Section: Applying Design For Production Principles To Embedded Passivmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost and production analysis for substrates with embedded passives

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The layout times for these PCBs were well documented which was a requirement for this analysis. Table 1 lists the critical components of PCB designs as determined by [2]. These parameters contribute to the complexity of a design, and hence the time required to do layout.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper seeks to develop a metric that can aid in predicting the layout effort, based on analysis of characteristics of PCBs at a low-level so as to better plan for future generations of systems. In [2] the issue of embedded passive components is discussed as a necessity to the smaller electronic devices requiring ever smaller PCBs. They note that board area is becoming so critical that to keep pace with the size constraints new techniques are required.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estimating design time for system circuits

Bazeghi

Mesa-Martinez

Greskamp

et al. 2007

2007 IFIP International Conference on Very Large Scale Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

System design complexity is growing rapidly. As a result, current development costs are constantly increasing. It is becoming increasingly difficult to estimate how much time it will take to design and verify these designs, which are getting denser and increasingly more complex. To compound this problem, circuit design cost estimation still does not have a quantitative approach. Although designing a system is very resource consuming, there is little work invested in measuring, understanding, and estimating the effort required.To address part of the current shortcomings, this paper introduces µPCBComplexity, a methodology to measure and estimate PCB (printed circuit board) design effort. PCBs are the central component of many systems and require large amounts of resources to properly design and verify. µPCBComplexity consists of two main parts; a procedure to account for the contributions of the different elements in the design, and a non-linear statistical regression of experimental measures in order to determine a good design effort metric. We use µPCBComplexity to evaluate a series of design effort estimators for twelve PCB designs. By using the proposed µPCBComplexity metric, designers can estimate PCB design effort.

show abstract

“…Chincholkar and Herrmann [19,20] created a DFP tool for evaluating how embedding passives affects manufacturing system performance. Their study analyzed the PCB that serves as the central processing unit for the AS900 controller.…”

Section: Embedded Passivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying Design for Production Methods for Improved Product Development

Chincholkar

Hermann

Wei

2003

Volume 3a: 8th Design for Manufacturing Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design for production (DFP) refers to methods that evaluate manufacturing system performance as a function of product design variables. DFP can lead a product development team to consider changing the product design to avoid problems or improve profitability. In addition, DFP can provoke suggestions to improve the manufacturing system.This paper reviews studies that have successfully applied DFP techniques in a variety of product domains. In addition, the paper discusses how product development teams can create new DFP techniques that will help them create more profitable products. The presentation of these examples and guidelines should encourage the use of DFP and improve product development.

show abstract

Modeling the Impact of Embedding Passives on Manufacturing System Performance

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Cost and production analysis for substrates with embedded passives

Cost and production analysis for substrates with embedded passives

Estimating design time for system circuits

Applying Design for Production Methods for Improved Product Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About