Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1398328
AUGUST 2021 I SMT007 MAGAZINE 13 do they physically fit? Are the leads compat- ible with the pads that are created? Immedi- ately you can see how problems happen if cer- tain checks are not made. e question is how to get the approval from design that these dif- ferent parts are good to use. e digital twin is then again in use, even though the design was made months ago and was signed off. If you start changing the shapes of components used, the designer can't be responsible for anything that happens. is puts the risk on the manufacturer, but they have motivation to decide to do something. Now, using the digital twin, all the informa- tion about the design and the design intent is available. e sign-off for a material change in the BOM can be done by any suitable applica- tion, not necessarily the original design and designer, using the data in the digital twin. e design rules, the layout and everything physical about the design is available as part of the digi- tal twin. If an application has permission to use that data, the EMS company can start to do the analysis of effects of changes themselves. e designers are happy because they've included their rules and they know that those rules are going to be followed. Unless there's an excep- tion, they're not going to get called. Matties: Part of the communication recom- mendation is that the designer needs to know who is manufacturing the board upfront so that they can work to their capabilities. Oen the designers do not know that. e question is, how do we get the EMS and the bare board fabricator to put their capabilities out so that designers can design to the fabricator's capa- bilities? Our understanding is that those capa- bilities aren't always available publicly, anyway. Ford: is is a very interesting area because with the digital twin, as IPC has set it out, you have elements of digital twin for design and for manufacturing. In the manufacturing dig- ital twin, there is a complete description of the enterprise, broken down into sites, con- if you will. It forces communication. Espe- cially as we develop these digital factories, the need for communication in the digital twin is there. And it forces that communication when we start manufacturing from a recipe-driven digital twin. How does this help the EMS and designer communicate? What are the ben- efits? What are the drawbacks? What do we need to do? Ford: In the EMS scenario, there is the com- plication of disparate design, PLM, ERP, and MES systems all trying to work together to come up with data for some form of quota- tion. All the data contextualized together is what the EMS company really wants, and is what a human team has to do today, but how do you make a translation and connect context between them? ey are all individual solu- tions; they're all proprietary. ey all deal with things in slightly different ways, each giving great values and benefits, but without speak- ing a common language. To that end, the digi- tal twin from IPC is the definition of the single architecture and language that they can use to communicate. On the design side this would start with, for example, the design intent, featuring specifica- tions and rules, together with associated elec- tronic design file; 3D mechanical CAD file; design bill of materials, 3D models of mate- rials used on the board, all of which forms a package, digital twin data, such that all solu- tions needed to process the data can under- stand the formats and use the data interoper- ably. e ERP application is going to add to the digital twin data, because they will select and purchase materials that are locally avail- able, and that are functional and cost-effective. Now, these can be checked using the digital twin, such that any alternatives or substitutes will actually fit on the circuit board and be as effective as the originals suggested. As ERP must choose components from different ven- dors; you're going to have a different footprint. Electronic functionality may be a given, but