Search Results

This document defines capabilities and limitations of LSM and CLSM as they pertain to suspect/counterfeit EEE part detection. Additionally, this document outlines requirements associated with the application of LSM and CLSM including: operator training, sample preparation, various imaging techniques, data interpretation, calibration, and reporting of test results. This test method is primarily directed to analyses performed in the visible to near infrared range (approximately 400nm to 1100nm). The Test Laboratory shall be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 to perform the LSM and CLSM Test Methods as defined in this standard. The Test Laboratory shall indicate in the ISO/IEC 17025 Scope statement, the specific method being accredited to: Option 1: All AS6171/17 Test Methods, or Option 2: All AS6171/17 Test Methods except CLSM. If SAE AS6171/17 is invoked in the contract, the base document, AS6171 General Requirements shall also apply.

Acoustic Microscopy Test Methods for Counterfeit Capacitors

The intent of this document is to define the methodology for suspect/counterfeit parts inspection using REME Analysis. The purpose of REME Analysis for suspect counterfeit part inspection is to detect misrepresentation or tampering of a part. REME Analysis can also potentially detect unintentional damage to the part resulting from improper removal of the part from assemblies, exposure to electrostatic discharge, exposure to radiation outside of acceptable limits (ionizing or high-power electromagnetic), or degradation. Improper removal of part from assemblies may include, but is not limited to, prolonged elevated temperature exposure during desoldering operations or mechanical stresses during removal. Degradation may include, but is not limited to, prolonged burn-in/testing, exposure to out-of-specification environmental conditions, or use outside of expected electrical tolerances.

This document describes an assessment of the effectiveness of a specified test plan used to screen for counterfeit parts. The assessment includes the determination of the types of defects detected using a specified test plan along with the related counterfeit type coverage. The output of this evaluation will produce Counterfeit Defect Coverage (CDC), Counterfeit Type Coverage (CTC), Not-Covered Defects (NCDs), and Under-Covered Defects (UCDs). This information will be supplied to the test laboratory’s customer in both the test report and the Certificate of Quality Conformance (CoQC). This evaluation method does not address the effectiveness of detecting tampered type devices. The Test Evaluation Method also describes an Optimized Test Sequence Selection, in which a test sequence is selected that maximizes the CDC utilizing test cost and time as constraints, for any tier level except the Critical Risk Level. The constraints can be adjusted until the desired CDC is achieved.

This document describes an assessment of the effectiveness of a specified test plan used to screen for counterfeit parts. The assessment includes the determination of the types of defects detected using a specified test plan along with the related counterfeit type coverage. The output of this evaluation will produce Counterfeit Defect Coverage (CDC), Counterfeit Type Coverage (CTC), Not-Covered Defects (NCDs), and Under-Covered Defects (UCDs). This information will be supplied to the test laboratory’s customer in both the test report and the Certificate of Quality Conformance (CoQC). This evaluation method does not address the effectiveness of detecting tampered type devices. The Test Evaluation Method also describes an Optimized Test Sequence Selection, in which a test sequence is selected that maximizes the CDC utilizing test cost and time as constraints, for any tier level except the Critical Risk Level. The constraints can be adjusted until the desired CDC is achieved.

Non-conformance and now Suspect counterfeit packaging represents a hazard to electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitive devices or components through cross contamination during transport and storage while generating high voltage discharges to ESD sensitive devices during in shipping, the inspection process, handling and manufacturing. Several aerospace related issues involve long-term storage supplier non-conformance with antistatic foams, antistatic bubble, antistatic pink poly, vacuum formed antistatic polymers, Type I moisture barrier bags and Type III static shielding bags have posed issues. The late John Kolyer, Ph.D. (Boeing, Ret.) and Ray Gompf, P.E., Ph.D. (NASA-KSC, Ret.) were advocates in the utilization of a formalized physical testing material qualification process. Today, however, prime contractors and CMs rely heavily upon a visual inspection process for ESD packaging materials.