counterfeit device validation protocol - micross · counterfeit device validation protocol packaged...

Micross Components • 7725 N. Orange Blossom Trail • Orlando, FL 32810 • 407.298.7100 • [email protected] • www.micross.com

May 2013 • Rev. 1.4

Counterfeit Device Validation ProtocolPackaged Devices

As presented in the Micross Components Authentic Material Policy, an unbroken chain of documentation (certifications, packing slips, etc.) tracing the parts back to the OCM (Original Component Manufacturer) is maintained. If we are directed by the customer to explore unauthorized sources, material is then put through a heightened level of scrutiny and, if appropriate, we will perform additional testing based on our experience, military specifications and AS5553. This evaluation may be offered as a service to existing customers.

Incoming Documentation Review

All Certificates of Compliance and packing slips are reviewed for applicability and consistency to the delivered material. Items checked include:

• Lot and/or date codes on packaging are consistent with lot and/or date codes on parts.

• Labeling on boxes and packing slips matche previous documents received from the OCM.

• No evidence of alterations or changes to the documentation; proper grammar and spelling are evident.

• Bar code data matches human readable data.

• Package materials are consistent with previous OCM shipments and appropriate for the product type.

If there is an elevated concern for product integrity, the OCM will be contacted in an attempt to validate the product traceability data.


May 2013 • Rev. 1.4

External Visual Inspection, MIL-STD-883, TM 2009

An external visual inspection is performed on 100% of incoming packaged parts at 10x to 40x magnification. In addition to the TM 2009 criteria, particular attention will be paid to the following attributes recommended by AS5553.

• Uneven top and/or bottom coating of the part or inconsistent texture or color between top and bottom side coating (mold compound). This could indicate some recoating or attempt to obliterate the original device marking.

• Bent leads or inconsistent lead plating coverage can be indicative of salvaged devices or poor process control by the OCM

• Poor quality part ink or laser marking

• Chip-outs on the package corners which may indicate excessive or careless handling.

• Rough surface texture in the normally smooth Pin 1 indicator area

• Scratches on the surface of the package

• Cracks in the package that may signify thermal stress

• Presence of numerous date codes on one reel, tube, tray, etc. that do not match the OCM packing slip

• Lot or date codes reflecting a date of manufacture after the last date of manufacture by the OCM

• Terminal finishes on the part not consistent with the terminal finish designator in the part number

• Country of manufacturer not associated with OCM assembly locations

• Markings not consistent with standard OCM marking content and format

• Lot or date codes not consistent with OCM production records

• Partially filled reels, trays, etc.

• Inconsistent physical dimensions of packaging

An experienced inspector and/or product engineer will make judgment calls to determine if anomalies actually indicate a counterfeit, poor workmanship, or are consistent with the OCM’s practices. If there is an elevated concern for product integrity, the OCM will be contacted in an attempt to validate the product.


May 2013 • Rev. 1.4

Specific Inspection for Evidence of Remarking or Resurfacing

After an external visual inspection, a representative sample will be selected from each date code if lot homogeneity is apparent. The sample will be subjected to one or more of the following tests to determine the validity of the current product marking.

• ResistancetoSolvents-MIL-STD-883,TM2015 – Validates the permanency of the marking; OCM marking will not be affected.

• ScanningAcousticMicroscopy – Perform a scan of the surface looking for evidence of material interfaces that could indicate an attempt to mask the original OCM data.

• MarkingSurfaceDPAEvaluation – Perform various evaluations to determine the validity of the marking such as using acetone or mechanical means to remove suspected surface coatings.

Electrical Performance Validation

Devices are screened to the level of assurance required by the customer’s application. A combination of the following tests can be used to validate the product.

• ContinuityTest-ConTest-1K™– 100% continuity testing to verify the presence of an interconnected die.

• ConstantAcceleration,MIL-STD-883,TM2001,ConditionE – 100% of the devices will be subjected to one minute at 30Kg (g force may be reduced based on device weight). After this test, devices are examined for evidence of package and/or marking deterioration. This test will exacerbate damage inflicted by excessive handling during a salvage operation.

• TemperatureCycle,MIL-STD-883,TM1010 – 100% of the devices will be subjected to a minimum of ten cycles of -65°C to +150°C in accordance with method 1010, Condition C. After this test, devices are examined for evidence of package and/or marking deterioration. This test will exacerbate damage inflicted by excessive handling during a salvage operation.

• ElectricalMeasurements – Detailed electrical testing will be performed on all devices over the specified operating range with variables data collected. Testing will be based on the appropriate data sheet or specification.

• Burn-in,MIL-STD-883,TM1015 – Devices will be subjected to burn-in for 168 hours using the appropriate TM1015 condition for the device. When burn-in is selected as part of the evaluation, electrical measurements will be taken with variables data both before and after.

• FineandGrossLeak,MIL-STD-883,TM1014 – Ceramic and metal packaged devices will be subject to leak testing to validate hermeticity.


May 2013 • Rev. 1.4

Materials and Internal Construction Evaluation

A sample of the devices should be evaluated to determine if the correct materials and construction techniques were used to build the parts. A combination of these tests may be utilized.

• X-RayInspection – X-ray analysis should be performed on all parts to verify that the internal package elements and construction are consistent with the device purchased.

• X-RayFluorescence(XRF) – X-Ray fluorescence testing should be performed on a sample to confirm the materials present are consistent with the device purchased.

• DestructivePhysicalAnalysis,MIL-STD-883,TM5009 – Destructive physical analysis (DPA) should be performed on a sample to validate that design and construction are consistent with the device purchased.

counterfeit device validation protocol - micross · counterfeit device validation protocol packaged...

Documents