# **Electronics Industry Association (EIA) G-12 Committee Meeting, January 13-14, 2004, Phoenix, Arizona**

# 

# **EIA G-12 Committee Meeting, January 13, 2004**

There were approximately 70 attendees at this meeting, representing a
broad cross-section of Government and industry.

The Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC) repeated their offer for
original equipment manufacturers (OEM) representatives to participate in
DSCC audits, despite the fact that audited companies often resist this.
The DSCC Residual Gas Analysis (RGA) Correlation task has made progress;
more details appear in the RGA Workshop minutes below.

# In the move of Microsemi from Santa Ana, California, to Scottsdale, Arizona, IPG Photonics will be taking over the Santa Ana wafer fab. The Scottsdale group will be getting most of the Santa Ana product except for the 1N6638-6643 family, which will go to Lawrence Massachusetts. All modules will go to Lawrence as well. The transition is expected to take 18-24 months, and DSCC's next audit has been moved up to April 2004.

*Al Barone of DSCC* asked about surface-mount technology (SMT) plastic
discretes; currently, there are no precedents. There was an attempt to
document a flow for plastic transistors, but the supplier involved
resigned from the effort after failing some tests. A Task Group is
needed to develop this flow.

*Ray DiBugnara of Microsemi Lawrence* stated that the next JC-22 meeting
will be held April 20-22, 2004, at the Joint Electron Device Engineering
Council (JEDEC) Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. It must be
determined whether we need to provide support more regularly. Also, the
Institute for Printed Circuits (IPC)/JEDEC Conference on Lead-Free will
be held March 17-19, 2004, at the Marriott Hotel in San Jose,
California.

G-12 requested access to public domain NASA advisories (those prepared
by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center \[GSFC\]) now that the Electrical,
Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts Information Management
System (EPIMS) site is no longer operating. This needs to be done via
the NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program/NASA Electronic
Parts Assurance Group (NEPAG) Web site.

Qualified Manufacturers List (QML) rules for vendor certification and
test optimization are potential subjects for discussion at a Defense
Microcircuit Planning Group meeting.

# *Terry Dowdy of Navy Crane* reported that funding for updates and upgrades to SD-18 has been approved and is imminent (and is also limited). His group is examining structure changes to improve usability. For example, he recommended updating the sections on passives and derating and uprating, and adding sections on lessons learned and design guidelines, G-12 diminishing manufacturer sources and material shortages (DMSMS), flat panel displays (to be added by AMCOM), and ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) wire guidance. Due to limited funding, this list will need to be prioritized.

*Joe Chapman*, *Consultant to DoD Defense Standardization Program Office
(Greg Saunders)* presented an overview of the Aerospace Qualified
Electronic Component (AQEC) concept aided by *John Fink* (Honeywell).
Joe introduced the AQEC "definition"; the technology change concept of
stepwise introduction of generations of basic functional parts
(processors, memories, field programmable gate arrays \[FPGAs\] and
application-specific integrated circuits \[ASICs\], etc.); and the AQEC
process flow. An interesting statement was that neutron radiation
effects are rapidly emerging as a major issue for ground level
applications of some COTS part types.

## Task Group Reports

For the RGA report, the Task Group agenda is as follows:

-   Review case studies and manufacturers' data.

-   Address correlation and reproducibility.

-   Address calibration.

-   Address leak testing and hermeticity and their effects on RGA,
    particularly for small packages.

It is not clear whether the Corona Test Method task should continue. It
has been requested by NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), but ability to
work on the task has diminished. Discussions need to continue with
*David Beverly of JSC* and be reported to the Space Working Group on
January 14, 2004.

In a discussion by *Anduin Touw of Boeing Satellite Systems* during the
presentation by the National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative
(NEMI), the question arose whether there is a need for a white paper on
alternatives to pure tin for lead-free plating.

The task to develop MIL-STD-1580C needs stimulation, as it has gone
dormant. It is needed to fill the gaps that were left in Revision B.
There was discussion of adding some guidance on destructive physical
analysis (DPA) (e.g., which parts should undergo DPA) to the space parts
guidelines; *Mark Porter, General Dynamics,* agreed to follow up on
this.

A draft of the Long-Term Storage task was issued for review. Comments
are required by March 31, 2004. This task will involve a cooperative
effort with the experienced resources at White Sands. A large volume of
industry and Government documents on this subject were reviewed and used
in preparation of the draft. Comments should include replacement text to
speed incorporation of changes into the draft.

**Note:** It was disclosed that the [only]{.underline} Texas Instruments
(TI) facility that does assembly and particle impact noise detection
(PIND) testing for the packages identified in Government/Industry Data
Exchange Program (GIDEP) Alert CE9-A-04-02 is in Thailand. The Alert
does not make this clear. The Thailand facility is not owned by TI;
rather, it is owned by a contractor with a QML V certified line. There
have been problems with their PIND testing in the past (soon after their
original certification).

# **Residual Gas Analysis (RGA) Workshop, January 13, 2004**

*Tom Rossiter of Oneida* asserted that moisture content might not be
"constant" because reactions with hydrogen, oxygen, and organics may be
occurring. RGA produces information on other materials such as argon and
hydrocarbons, but no requirements or limits for these materials are
specified.

The current test method can allow a 20% failure rate. The original
intent was to prevent premature "wear-out" failures due to internal
moisture; the suggested objective was to assure that parts do not fail
from excessive internal moisture. The test labs, not DSCC, are
responsible for developing robust, accurate, reproducible test
procedures.

Today, the majority of the population in the lot is under control and
meets 5,000 ppm, but now there are leak test "escapes," which are random
in nature and may exceed 5,000 ppm. These can constitute 20% of the
population.

Oneida has never been asked for a calibration curve. All labs are very
different in equipment procedures and calibration approach. Oneida
considers 5,000 ppm to be a suitable limit, as most failures they see
are very high (15,000+ ppm). Oneida recommends a process monitor;
Telcordia requires an 11/0 A/R plan at 5,000 ppm.

*John Pernicka of Pernicka* maintained that packages contained
components of atmospheric air but not leak test residues (helium and
fluorocarbons). The process is controlled carefully to produce samples
of two similar packages (double sealed, a lid on top and bottom), with
one lot of packages having a thicker nickel-plated layer than the other.
RGA results showed an O~2~ to Ar ratio of 20:1 (air?) but low H~2~.

An experiment revealed parts that have moisture close to 5,000 ppm, high
O~2~ content, and a 20:1 oxygen/argon ratio, and no helium or
fluorocarbons, but the extracted gas volume was high. All of this
suggests a "leaker," but the reason for the lack of helium is unclear
(it could indicate a one-way leaker). Packages with anomalous results
were cross-sectioned through the seals (this gives four point samples of
the seals because of the two lids). One part showed what appears to be
the first documented example of a one-way leaker. It was a long, narrow
separation between the nickel and the base metal. The root cause was a
defective seam sealer that provided an occasionally lower-than-optimum
pressure that allowed minute blow-out between the nickel plating and the
base metal. This leak is stress sensitive, and it is suspected that
helium bombing pressure squeezed it shut, hence the \<100 ppm helium.

Other samples showed very high moisture, oxygen, and gas volume, but no
helium or fluorocarbons. Yet others showed low moisture but high oxygen
and volume extracted but no helium or fluorocarbons. Pernicka checked
all of the controls and calibrations to try to identify any error that
could have caused the results, but no errors were found.

**Note:** The current specification states that values of elements below
100 ppm do not have to be recorded, so in the discussion above, no
helium means \<100 ppm. One Pernicka recommendation is to have all
values recorded to assist in diagnosis.

# *Tom Hood of DSCC* reported on DSCC's "round robin" testing to assess lab-tolab variability for Residual Gas Analysis (RGA). Tom showed on a 0.1 cc package that was sealed with a controlled atmosphere of 2,850 ppm of moisture. After correcting process weaknesses, an average of 2,890 ppm, with a sigma of 80 ppm, was achieved on a six-piece sample of empty packages. This is excellent consistency of both the process to produce the samples and the performance of RGA. Unfortunately, only three samples of these 0.1 cc packages could be supplied to each of the six labs being assessed because a number of parts could not be sealed satisfactorily. DSCC has continued to improve their process and Tom plans to do 1.0 cc packages next (in the next week or so); 0.01 cc will be tried once experience on the "easier" package sizes has been accumulated.

# On the topic of improved helium leak detection, *John Pernicka* stated that cumulative helium leak detection overcomes deficiencies with current fine and gross tests. This was an impressive presentation that unfortunately had to be seen to be appreciated. Finally, there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel for RGA and hermeticity for small packages.

**Note**: We need to send John some UB style (surface mount) packages to
test, especially for gross leaks, if we still have any at GSFC.

## JEDEC 13.2 Meeting, January 14, 2004

*Larry Harzstark of Aerospace* reported that a major U.S. Air Force
contractor is requiring that their internal and sub-contractor
procurements require full M38535 testing for their microcircuits
procured for space flight applications. They are insecure with test
optimization. This was followed by a spirited discussion concerning the
question of when a multi-chip module is a hybrid and vice versa.
Currently there are a few hybrids QML'd under M38535 and some multi-chip
modules under M38534. There are considerable differences between the
specifications; 38535 generally is considered more rigorous than 38534.
The rule that DSCC uses is that parts containing only chips from the
same Federal Supply Class (5962) are considered multi-chip modules and
come under 38535, and parts containing devices from multiple FSCs are
considered hybrids covered by 38534.

**Note:** Later it was disclosed that DSCC has also allowed "single
element" hybrids, which are discretes "qualified" and supplied to
M38534. This is disturbing because M38534 is not intended to do a good
job on discretes!

Regarding test optimization, M883 with a C compliancy mark gets all
testing and no other mark. If an 883 part has a Q mark, it is a Class Q
part with an 883 part number. Extensive changes have been made to M883
Draft Revision F. These include updates to TM1014 to reflect improved
laser technology for optical leak-testing equipment. DSCC has provided a
very good summary of the changes that should make change review much
more efficient. The discussion of test optimization shows that most
people understand what is needed to operate test optimization
responsibly; however, there is no single consistent approach.

*Brent Rhoton* indicated that there was a JEDEC Guidelines document,
JEP121, for optimization, and it is referenced in 38535. The 38535
reference is in a note in paragraph 3.1. It does not appear that JEP121
is being used by any party to the process. A Task Group was formed to
review JEP121 to see whether it needs updating and to examine how it
should be referenced to be more effective in 38535.

Regarding criteria for crossing wires, advanced packages with high pin
counts, especially multi-tier styles, may not meet current criteria that
were relevant to older packages years ago. Aeroflex proposed changes to
meet their needs some time ago. NASA and Aerospace have provided input
for modifications and a request for more information. JC-13.2 agreed to
pursue development of improved language for 883.

On the topic of hermeticity, there is optimism that progress is being
made based on Pernicka's presentation during the RGA workshop. NASA
asked whether optical leak testing works for UA and UB surface mount
packages. Experience in JC-13.2 is that it does not, but the equipment
manufacturer claims that it does. We need to provide samples for an
evaluation.

# **G-12 Space Parts Subcommittee Meeting, January 14, 2004**

*Mark Porter of General Dynamics* related that his company has an
in-house project that does not allow test optimization and requires DPA
even on very expensive parts. His management has asked what can be done
to prevent any EEE parts failures.

*John Ingram-Cotten of Aerospace* said that U.S. Air Force (AF) Space
and Missile Systems Center (SMC) needs improved standards for such
things as parts management. They would prefer to use an NGS such as
AIAA-R-100, but stronger and more robust. There are elements within SMC
that would like to resurrect MIL-STD-1546 and 1547, but these documents
are very outdated; many of the standards they reference no longer exist
and may or may not have an NGS substitute. Even if an NGS does exist, it
is probably too weak to meet SMC needs.

*Ray Monnin of DSCC* cited that for MIL-STD-883 TM 1019, enhanced
low-dose rate sensitivity (ELDRS) requirements are still being discussed
and argued, but it has been decided to test parts to current
requirements. The proposal is to add two new device types, 61 for tested
for ELDRS and passed, 071 for tested and found to have no ELDRS effect,
in addition to type 01, which is tested at high dose rate. This would
provide clarity of the part's capability but would add many new part
numbers. This system caused considerable confusion in the meeting. The
recommendation is to not de-list those who do not choose to do ELDRS
testing; otherwise, it was unclear as to what was decided.

*Mike Maher National Semiconductor (Chair of JC-13.4 Radiation
Sub-Committee of National Semiconductor*) discussed the extensive
testing at Navy Crane to try to understand the fundamentals behind
ELDRS. ASTM 1892 provides copious information on ELDRS, as well as
guidelines. JC-10 is working on radiation definitions. Several JEDEC
actions are being held up waiting for the JC-10 definitions document.

Accelerated methods for ELDRS are being investigated, but at this time
they have the merit to determine whether a part may be at risk for
ELDRS. However, the unaccelerated test is still needed for accurate
characterization.

*John Kaellberg of the European Space Agency (ESA)* stated that the
ECSS-Q60-01 ESA Preferred Parts List has been issued. The derating and
End of Life document, ECSS-Q60-12, is ready for imminent release. ECSS
documents and parts stock information are available through the ESCIES
Web site.

ESA is working to develop a second source for MOSFETs (other than
International Rectifier).

ESA has sent out a questionnaire on lead-free to European suppliers to
determine what they plan to do. ESA is exempt from the European legal
activities and so does not have to go lead-free, but like NASA, they
anticipate having to use lead-free parts and assemblies.

ESSCON, which should have occurred in Lisbon this year, has encountered
difficulties and will be postponed to 2005.

Galileosat (a large global positioning system \[GPS\]), ESA's
largest-ever project, has established rules to prevent EEE parts from
export restrictions and other impediments to supply. ESA is trying to
avoid International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrictions.

## Summary of Action Items

1.  A Task Group is needed to develop a flow for plastic transistors.

2.  It must be determined whether we need to provide support to JEDEC
    more regularly.

3.  Access to public domain NASA advisories needs to be done via the
    NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program/NASA Electronic
    Parts Assurance Group (NEPAG) Web site.

4.  For the RGA report, the Task Group must review case studies and
    manufacturers' data and address correlation and reproducibility;
    calibration; and leak testing and hermeticity and their effects on
    RGA, particularly for small packages.

5.  Regarding continuation of the Corona Test Method task, discussions
    need to continue with David Beverly of JSC and be reported to the
    Space Working Group

6.  Regarding the task involving MIL-STD-1580C, there was discussion of
    adding some guidance on destructive physical analysis (DPA) (e.g.,
    which parts should undergo DPA) to the space parts guidelines; Mark
    Porter agreed to follow up on this.

7.  Comments on the draft of the Long-Term Storage task are required by
    March 31, 2004. Comments should include replacement text to speed
    their incorporation into the draft.

8.  Tom Hood of DSCC plans to test 1.0 cc packages (in the next week or
    so); 0.01 cc will be tried once experience on the "easier" package
    sizes has been accumulated.

9.  We need to send John Pernicka some UB packages to test, especially
    for gross leaks, if we still have them.

10. The Task Group needs to review JEP121 to see whether it needs
    updating and to examine how it should be referenced to be more
    effective in M38535.

11. Regarding criteria for crossing wires, JC-13.2 agreed to pursue
    development of improved language for 883.

12. Regarding NASA's question of whether optical leak testing works for
    UA and UB packages, we need to provide samples for an evaluation.