No abstract

No abstract

Counterfeit components have become a multi-million dollar, yet undesirable, part of the electronics industry. The profitability of the counterfeit industry rests in large part to its ability to recognize supply constraints and quickly respond, effectively taking advantage of a complex and vulnerable supply chain. Events like product obsolescence, long life cycles, economic downturn and recovery, local disruptions in manufacturing due to natural disasters, and lack of proper IP legislation all represent opportunities for the counterfeit component industry to flourish. Electronic counterfeits affect every segment of the market, including consumer goods, networking and communications, medical, automotive, aerospace, and defense. At the manufacturing level, the use of undetected counterfeits leads to increased scrap rates, early field failures, and increased rework rates. While this presents a major problem impacting profitability, the use of counterfeit components in high reliability applications can have far more serious consequences with severe or lethal outcomes. For some time the weak link in the supply chain has been identified at the level of independent distributors. With the emergence of new legislation and through the efforts of different industry entities, new standards and guidelines are now available for suppliers to establish and maintain product traceability and to establish receiving inspection and detection protocols. There is no substitute for a healthy supply chain, and distributors play an essential role in the dynamics of the system. At the same time, there is an increased awareness of the need for proper management of electronic waste. Regardless of the nature of the counterfeits, whether cloned, skimmed, or re-branded, counterfeits are dangerous and too expensive to be ignored.The work presented here by the iNEMI Counterfeit Components-Assessment project group takes a more comprehensive view of the problem by surveying the possible points of entry in the supply chain and assessing the impact of counterfeit components on the industry at various points of use. We then propose a risk assessment matrix that can be used to reduce the risks for manufacturers.

98.5Sn0.5Ag1Cu0.05Mn (SAC0510M) exhibits a melting behavior similar to SAC105. It is two times better than SAC105 in the dynamic bending test; more than 8 times better in the modified JEDEC drop test; and more than 40-60% better in the -55 C/125 C thermal cycling test. The reduced hardness and much thinner and stable IMC layer on Ni are responsible for the superior nonfragility, while the stabilized IMC and microstructure are responsible for the thermal cycling performance. A thinner IMC layer on Ni is more important than reduced hardness in improving non-fragility. The thermal cycling performance of SAC0510M may override SAC305. A high Tg brittle board causes poor drop test results due to pad cratering. INTRODUCTIONLead-free soldering has been widely adopted by the electronics industry, with SnAgCu (SAC) having high Ag content being the initial main stream of choice. This selection was later challenged due to the fragility of solder joints toward drop and the high cost of Ag. Low Ag SAC was considered to be a solution for resolving both issues. However, this approach compromised temperature cycling performance, making it unacceptable for high end applications. Previously, a low Ag SAC alloy doped with Mn, SACM™, was reported to have considerable improvement in shock resistance and thermal fatigue performance. In this study, a second generation alloy within the SACM family was developed with significantly more improvement. It was evaluated against SAC105 for JEDEC22B111 drop, dynamic bending test, and IPC-9701 -55/125 C temperature cycling. The improvement essentially eliminated the need for underfilling for BGA and CSP on mobile devices, and the results are presented and discussed.

No abstract