Counterfeit Electronic Components Identification: A Case Study

Reading time ( words)

Background on Case Study

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


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.



Suggested Items

Meet Alfred Macha, SMT007 Columnist

11/06/2019 | I-Connect007 Editorial Team
Meet Alfred Macha, one of our SMT007 columnists! Macha’s columns concentrate on process validation, supply chain management, quality management systems, government contracts, FDA regulations, process controls, and more. Alfred Macha brings 20 years of senior leadership roles in quality and operations management working for Sanmina, DDi (now TTM Technologies), Anaren (now TTM Technologies), and HEI Microelectronics.

Discover the Benefits of a Technology Center

10/23/2019 | Barry Matties, I-Connect007
Nico Fahrner, application engineer at Rehm Thermal Systems, talks with Barry Matties about the benefits prospective customers get from being able to fully test their systems in-line at Rehm’s technology centers before purchasing.

Breaking the Stereotype: Millennials in Manufacturing

10/22/2019 | Barry Matties, I-Connect007
Goodwinds Composites is a company that I have watched grow from a small distributor serving the hobby industry to a full-fledged manufacturer serving many industries. Leland Holeman and his sister, Amelia Cook have worked together for the past 12 years to transform this company into a healthy business.

Copyright © 2019 I-Connect007. All rights reserved.