Experimental Evaluation of Dry and Contactless Cleaning Methods for the Production of Digital Vehicle Dashboards

Pillar-to-pillar dashboards have become common in modern electric vehicles. These dashboards are made of liquid crystal displays (LCDs), of which backlight units (BLUs) are an integral part. Particulate contamination inside BLUs can lead to either an aesthetic or functional failure and is in consequence a part of quality control. Automatic optical inspection (AOI) was used to detect particulate matter to enable a process chain analysis to be carried out. The investigation showed that a high percentage of all contaminants originated from the assembly of the edge/side lightguide. The implementation of an additional cleaning process was the favored countermeasure to reduce the contaminants. The objective (cleanliness requirement) was to remove all contaminants larger than 100 µm from the lightguide with contactless (non-destructive) cleaning methods. The preferred cleaning methods of choice were compressed air and CO2 snow jet cleaning. This work investigates the cleaning efficacy of both cleaning methods under consideration of the following impact factors: distance, orientation (inclination) and speed. The central question of this paper was as follows: would cleaning with compressed air be sufficient to meet the cleanliness requirements? In order to answer this question, a cleaning validation was carried out, based on a Box–Behnken design of experiments (DoE). To do so, representative test contaminants had to be selected in step one, followed by the selection of an appropriate measurement technology to be able to count the contaminants on the lightguide. In the third step, a test rig had to be designed and built to finally carry out the experiments. The data revealed that CO2 was able to achieve a cleaning efficacy of 100% in five of the experiments, while the best cleaning efficacy of compressed air was 89.87%. The cleaning efficacy of compressed air could be improved by a parameter optimization to 94.19%. In contrast, a 100% cleaning efficacy is achievable with CO2 after parameter optimization, which is what is needed to meet the cleanliness requirements.