Illustrative concept study

From manual checks to a repeatable production test

An illustrative fixture study covering test coverage, operator workflow, traceability and maintenance.

Illustrative automated test fixture with a PCB
Illustrative concept visual, not a photograph of completed client work.

This illustrative study explains an engineering approach. It does not describe a commissioned client project or claim measured product results.

This illustrative study considers a test system for an electronic assembly. It describes a possible engineering approach rather than a commissioned customer project. The generated fixture visual is not a validated equipment design.

Understand the existing checks

Consider a team moving an assembly from development into a controlled pilot build. Engineers can check an individual unit on a bench, but production needs an agreed sequence, consistent connections and a record of what was tested.

The starting point is a review of product requirements, expected faults, available test interfaces and the information that should be recorded. Automating an unclear test does not make its acceptance criteria clearer.

Define coverage and acceptance

The test specification would identify which functions are checked, what stimulus is required and which measurements support each decision. Limits should come from the product requirement and verification work, with uncertainty and repeatability considered where they affect the result.

Development diagnostics, production screening and full design verification have different jobs. A production sequence should make its coverage and limitations explicit.

Design the fixture around the assembly

Mechanical location, connector access, harness routing and operator handling influence fixture reliability. Probe access and replacement needs should be considered alongside the board design. The selected instrumentation depends on the actual signals, loads and interfaces involved.

A fixture concept also needs a maintenance approach. Wear items, connection checks and a method for confirming the test station’s condition should be defined before handover.

Make the workflow clear

The operator needs clear instructions for loading a unit, starting a sequence and responding to an incomplete or failed test. Product identity, software versions and the test configuration should be connected to the saved result where required.

A failed result needs enough context for investigation. The process should distinguish a product issue from a connection problem or a station fault rather than relying only on a pass/fail indicator.

Verify the equipment and release the information

The test system itself needs agreed acceptance checks. Known conditions can be used to demonstrate that the sequence identifies expected outcomes. Release information would include fixture documentation, test sequences, limits, operator instructions and a maintenance plan.

DVAR’s automated test equipment and manufacturing support services address these connected requirements. The actual scope and validation approach must be agreed for each product.

Apply the thinking to your product.

Tell us about your requirements, current design and the next decision you need to make.

Talk to an engineer