Counterfeit Electronic Components Identification: A Case Study
July 26, 2017 | Martin Goetz and Ramesh Varma, Northrop Grumman Corp.Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
During functional test of control module boards used in a multiple sub-array of a testable antenna, two boards failed. The root cause for the failures was identified as "unable to write specific addresses at system speeds." When diagnosing the issue, it was narrowed down to an SRAM that was supplied by an electronics part broker. The parts in question were procured from the broker, an approved diminishing material supply (DMS) supplier, due to unavailability from a franchised distributor of the original components manufacturer (OCM). When reviewed by the internal Failure Review Board, it was determined that a comparison of SRAM parts supplied by the broker should be compared with parts from the distributor to determine if there were any observable differences in the parts.
Figure 1: Comparison of two SRAM parts with different lot numbers.
Analysis Approaches and Techniques
A total of seven different methods which ranged from nondestructive to destructive were used to make a determination about the SRAM parts being suspect counterfeit. Any individual analysis does not make a clear case on its own merits. However, to make a legal case for suspect counterfeit, enough due diligence is necessary.
The following outlines the seven analyses used to make the case:
1. Visual inspection by optical microscopy
2. X-ray
3. De-capsulation
4. Scanning acoustic microscopy
5. FTIR
6. Electrical test
7. Discussions with OCM
Visual Inspection by Optical Microscopy
Once the failure occurs on a component or subsystem, typically there is an optical inspection to determine if there was any physical damage to the part either before or during testing. Damage can occur from a variety of sources including handling, testing conditions and setup, foreign object damage or debris (FOD), fixturing, etc. Figure 1 shows a comparison of an SRAM received by an authorized distributor and the broker in question. It was noted that the lot number of the broker part was not in the OCM database.
Figure 2: Lead and mold inspection. Different mold interface and pin width.
In and of itself, this does not constitute a smoking gun, but it does inspire one to continue the investigation. Upon further visual inspection, it appeared the workmanship, or quality of the part around the leads suggested a difference in mold processing (Figure 2). Because visual inspection is subjective and directed by any given customer requirements, incoming inspection (5-10X at AQL) easily can miss the inconsistencies. This is especially true when suspect counterfeit parts are mixed in the same delivery packaging and 100% inspection is not performed.
Finally, there was a measurement of pin width between the two different leads. The leads from the distributor parts were on the order of 14.5 mils wide, whereas the lead width from the broker parts was 12 mils. The difference led to the next step in the investigation, namely X-ray.
To read this entire article, which appeared in the July 2017 issue of SMT Magazine, click here.
Page 2 of 2Suggested Items
Altair Acquires Research in Flight, Forging a New Path for Aerodynamic Analysis
05/03/2024 | AltairAltair a global leader in computational intelligence, announced it has acquired Research in Flight, maker of FlightStream®, which provides computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software with a large footprint in the aerospace and defense sector and a growing presence in marine, energy, turbomachinery, and automotive applications.
Boeing, GKN Aerospace Close Deal for St. Louis Site
04/29/2024 | BoeingBoeing has closed a deal with GKN Aerospace St. Louis and its parent company, Melrose Industries, to continue the manufacturing of critical components that support the U.S. government and its allies.
Cicor Records Solid Growth in Q1
04/16/2024 | CicorThe Cicor Group continued to grow in the first three months of the year. Quarterly sales increased by 11.8% to CHF 107.3 million compared to the first quarter of the previous year (Q1/2023: CHF 96.0 million).
TT Electronics Awarded Contract with Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace
04/11/2024 | TT ElectronicsTT Electronics, a leading provider of global manufacturing solutions and engineered technologies, announced today that its Fairford UK business has been awarded a new contract with long-standing customer Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace (Kongsberg) for the production of complex cable harness solutions.
Cicor Successfully Completes Acquisition of TT Electronics IoT Solutions Ltd.
04/03/2024 | CicorThe Cicor Group has successfully completed the acquisition of TT Electronics IoT Solutions Ltd. with three production sites in the UK and China.