top of page

CBSM: ASM C5 Electrode Evaluation

Project Objective:

  • Cost Saving

  • Comparison Study And Performance data to support Electrode under study.

Leaf Pattern Design

Comparison Study

Objective:

To evaluate ASM C5 Nozzle Electrode for Cost saving

Strategy:

Comparison study between ASM Electrode and EQDR Electrode

Wire Type:

Heraeus DHF 2.0 mil (EL: 15 - 25 %, BL: 40 - 55 g)

Capillary:

SPT SU-68360-1275E

Sample Size:

30 Sample per run

Respon​ses

  • Sparking Plasma

  • Free Air Ball (FAB)

Factor Under Study

  • C5 Nozzle Electrode

Background Variables

  • Machine

  • Parameters

Picture1.png

Measurement Methode

  • Visual Inspection

  • High Power Scope (Hisomet)

Levels

  • ASM Electrode vs EQDR Electrode

Control Method

  • ASM Xtreme WB# 14

  • FAB Farming

Picture2.png

Get to Know Us

Electrode Comparison

  • ASM Electrode

Picture3.png
Picture4.png

Concentrated Blue Plasma from Tip of Electrode

  • EQ Electrode

Picture6.png
Picture7.png

Concentrated Blue Plasma from Tip of Electrode

FAB Data Comparison

  • ASM Electrode

Picture9.png
Picture10.png
Picture11.png

  • EQ Electrode

Picture12.png
Picture13.png
Picture14.png

FAB Data Comparison

ASM Electrode vs EQ Electrode

Raw Data

Summary

  • Both Electrode are quite compatible in terms of fire Plasma.

  • FAB Farming results are also compatible.

FAB Control

FAB Sample

1

130.27

129.04

2

131.33

130.58

3

130.58

129.65

4

128.43

130.47

5

130.40

128.48

6

131.38

131.52

7

131.00

129.61

8

131.44

128.40

9

130.47

128.89

10

129.72

129.82

11

131.33

129.75

12

129.62

129.72

13

128.38

131.47

14

129.50

128.72

15

128.76

129.89

16

128.87

130.41

Picture15.png

17

128.78

128.80

18

129.63

130.37

19

129.20

129.36

20

130.05

130.17

21

130.78

131.94

22

131.56

131.58

23

131.38

130.31

24

129.62

129.64

25

128.98

128.82

26

130.45

130.10

27

129.17

129.50

28

131.11

129.63

29

129.85

130.11

30

128.54

130.15

Avg

130.03

129.90

SD

1.028

0.916

EDX Analysis

Picture16.png
Picture17.png

EDX Analysis

Picture18.png
Picture19.png

EDX Analysis

Picture20.png

Summary:

  • Both ASM and EQDR electrode material are compatible.

  • Main element

    • Carbon (C)​

    • Oxygen (O)

    • Iridium (Ir)

    • Chromium (Cr)

    • Rhodium (Rh)

Electrode Life Span Study

Objective:

To evaluate the Electrode life span in production environment

Strategy:

Large sample run on 2 selected machine (WB24 & WB25)

Wire Type:

Heraeus DHF 2.0 mil (EL: 15 - 25 %, BL: 40 - 55 g)

Capillary:

SPT SU-68360-1275E

Respon​ses

  • Sparking Plasma

  • Production data

Factor Under Study

  • C5 Nozzle Electrode

Background Variables

  • Machine

  • Parameters

Measurement Methode

  • Visual Inspection

  • Production QC

Levels

  • ASM Electrode vs EQDR Electrode

Control Method

  • ASM Xtreme WB# 24 & WB# 25

  • Production SPC

Electrode Life Span Study

  • WB 24

    • After Installation​

  • WB 25​

    • After Installation​

No significant difference in NSOP and Missing Ball after 3 Hrs of Running.​

Picture21.png
Picture23.png
Picture22.png
Picture24.png

Electrode Aging Evaluation

Objective:

To evaluate the Electrode aging effect by sparking above 1KK.

Wire Type:

Heraeus DHF 2.0 mil (EL: 15 - 25 %, BL: 40 - 55 g)

Strategy:

Electrode burn in test on machine (WB00304)

Capillary:

SPT SU-68360-1275E

Respon​ses

  • Sparking Plasma

Factor Under Study

  • C5 Nozzle Electrode

Background Variables

  • Machine

  • Parameters

Measurement Methode

  • Visual Inspection

Levels

  • EQDR Electrode

Control Method

  • ASM Xtreme WB# 00304

Picture25.png

Applied setting as per production firing parameter at high end.

Electrode Aging Evaluation

  • Sparking Condition

Plasma @ 30K Spark Off

Plasma @ 200K Spark Off

Picture26.png
Picture27.png
Picture30.png
Picture31.png

Plasma @ 400K Spark Off

Plasma @ 500K Spark Off

Picture28.png
Picture29.png
Picture32.png
Picture33.png

Electrode Aging Evaluation

  • In summary at 1.4KK sparking plasma is still concentrated and no abnormality.

Plasma @ 600K Spark Off

Plasma @ 800K Spark Off

Picture34.png
Picture35.png
Picture38.png
Picture39.png

Plasma @ 1.2KK Spark Off

Plasma @ 1.4KK Spark Off

Picture36.png
Picture37.png
Picture40.png
Picture41.png

FAB Sampling Study

Objective:

To evaluate the FAB formation stability.

Strategy:

100% visual inspection of 1000 FAB with ZERO deformation or oxidize ball.

Wire Type:

Heraeus DHF 2.0 mil (EL: 15 - 25 %, BL: 40 - 55 g)

Capillary:

SPT SU-68360-1275E

Frame Type:

SO8 High Density

Respon​ses

  • FAB formation

Factor Under Study

  • C5 Nozzle Electrode

Background Variables

  • Machine

  • Parameters

  • Vl Qc

Picture42.png

Measurement Methode

  • 100% Visual Inspection

Levels

  • EQDR Electrode

Control Method

  • ASM Xtreme WB# 0034

  • As per recipe

  • Yasir, Iqbal & Geale

Picture43.png

FAB Sampling Study

  • FAB Visual sample

Picture44.png
Picture45.png

  • FAB Size sampling data

  • FAB Size compatible to production

No

FAB Size(um)

1

130.26

2

131.47

3

129.58

Picture46.png

7

130.55

6

129.76

Picture47.png

4

130.25

5

130.64

Picture48.png
Picture49.png

8

131.26

9

130.68

10

130.78

Min

129.58

Max

131.47

Avg

130.52

Equipment Doctor Services

info@eqdr-sales.com

Copyright©2011 Equipment Doctor Services. All rights reserved.

bottom of page