![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.93125in" height="0.8006944444444445in"}
![](media/image2.png){width="1.0611111111111111in"
height="0.6409722222222223in"}

Package Qualification Testing Results

Performed on the 5 Part Types in the NEPP/NEPAG PEMS Study

FY '03 Work

> Author: R. David Gerke
>
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>
> <david.gerke@jpl.nasa.gov>
>
> 818-393-6372
>
> Reviewed By: Jeannette Plante
>
> Dynamic Range Corp. (GSFC)
>
> <jfplante@pop500.gsfc.nasa.gov>
>
> 301-286-7437

[**http://nepp.nasa.gov**](http://nepp.nasa.gov/)

> Date: February 2004

1.  **Executive Summary**

A group each of the five NEPP/NEPAG parts were subjected to
Qualification Testing (Temperature Cycling and HAST). Prior to the
Qualification Testing each part was preconditioned (to simulate the
assembly process) to JESD22-A113C "Preconditioning of Nonhermetic
Surface Mount Devices Prior to Reliability Testing". The temperature
cycle testing was conducted according to MIL-STD 883 condition C (-65
^o^C to + 150 ^o^C) for 1000 cycles. There were two (2) read points; one
at 500 cycles and the other at 1000 cycles. The HAST test was conducted
in accordance of JESD22-A110-B which states the following conditions:
130 ± 2 ^o^C, 85 % ± 5 RH, and 33.3 psia for 96 +/- 2 hours.

All parts were electrically tested at Room Temperature (RT) to the
manufacturer's data sheet with testing for both gross and parametric
functionality. The test houses kept control units for comparison to
tested devices. Also, all parts were tested in the "as received"
condition from the vendor with no additional screening or testing (with
the exception of initial electrical testing to insure that each part is
electrically good prior to the qualification flow testing).

The purpose of this evaluation is to take the parts in the "as-received"
condition from each vendor with no additional screening or testing and
subject them to preconditioning and qualification stresses that are
similar to those used by the manufacturer in their qualification
testing, the results of which are reported to customers. The results
from this evaluation, on as-received unscreened parts, will be compared
and contrasted to future (FY '04) work that will be performed on the
same part types that have been through a screening flow. The premise
behind this study is that all parts should go through this
preconditioning and qualification stress flow and pass with no failures
with parts straight from the vendor as the vendors of the 5 part types
claim that their parts can withstand these types of stresses. The
Moisture Sensitivity Level Evaluation (previously reported -- Part 1 of
2) showed that not all of the part types met the MSL rating that was
quoted by their respective manufacturer.

There were failures resulting from the qualification stresses in 2 part
types, one set of failures in temperature cycle testing and the other
set of failures were in the HAST testing. Also, there was a functional
failure during the preconditioning stage of the flow. The results will
be summarized by assigning a level of concern as indicated below for
each step of the testing:

-   The Qualification Test Results including;

    -   Precondition overall assessment, low high

    -   Temperature Cycle Results, and low high

    -   HAST Results, low high

-   The final page contains the Overall scoring for each Part Type with
    some reference to the MSL testing (report 1 of 2 reported in
    February 2004) and some conclusions/observations.

######## **Evaluation Details**

a.  **Introduction**

The JESD22-A113C Test Method establishes an industry standard
preconditioning flow for non-hermetic solid state SMDs (surface mount
devices) that is representative of a typical industry multiple solder
reflow operation. SMDs are subjected to the appropriate preconditioning
sequence of the specification by the semiconductor manufacturer prior to
being submitted to specific in-house reliability testing (qualification
and reliability monitoring) to evaluate long term reliability (which
might be impacted by solder reflow). The reliability numbers published
by the manufacturers reflect a composite of stresses which include those
from both the preconditioning test flow and the qualification test flow.
This Qualification Validation is one portion of the overall
packaging-related test plan which is a subset evaluation of the larger
NEPP/NEPAG PEMS study.

#### Preconditioning: Test Conditions and Results

#### 

### In order to subject the parts to the proper precondition, the vendors of the 5 different part types had to disclose the moisture sensitivity level (MSL) to which they have qualified their respective PEMS devices. A memo submitted to the NEPP/NEPAG team, dated November 20, 2002 and authored by Jeannette Plante, summarized each respective vendor's quoted moisture sensitivity levels of each of the five part types. The information was obtained by website review as well as email correspondence with Quality Assurance Personnel from the respective manufacturers, as necessary. Two of the part types are manufactured with lead-free plating on the leads and were stated as able to pass the test condition simulating a higher solder reflow temperature. The JESD22-A113 Specification covers the differences between peak reflow-temperatures for tin-lead and lead-free solders. For small body devices (which these parts qualify as) the peak solder reflow temperatures are: tin-lead solder  240 +0/-5°C and the lead-free solder  250 +0/-5°C (temperatures are to be measured at the topside of the part). The reflow method chosen for this evaluation was convection reflow as it is the preferred method called out by JESD22-A113 and it is the most representative reflow method used by volume assembly manufacturers. Since this is a "Package" Evaluation, room temperature electrical tests were performed (per JESD22-A113C). A more in-depth look at the Packaging Stresses effect on the Electrical Performance of these devices will follow in FY'04.

### 

### The evaluated parts are listed below in Table 1 with their reported MSL rating:

### 

### Table 1: Test Samples and Their Manufacturer MSL and Lead Finish Ratings.

###  

+-------+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+--------+------------+
| *     | *   | *   | *  | #      |           | **Lead | # Re       |
| *Part | *Sa | *Ve | *M | Moistu |           | Fi     | flow Tempe |
| T     | mpl | ndo | SL | re Con |           | nish** | rature\*\* |
| ype** | e** | r** | ** | dition |           |        |            |
|       |     |     |    |        |           |        |            |
|       | *   |     |    | Time   |           |        |            |
|       | *Si |     |    | (      |           |        |            |
|       | ze\ |     |    | hours) |           |        |            |
|       | *** |     |    | Cond   |           |        |            |
|       |     |     |    | itions |           |        |            |
+-------+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+--------+------------+
| A/D   | 24  | A   | 1  | #      | 85 °C/85% | Lea    | # 2        |
|       |     |     |    |  168 ( | RH        | d-free | 50 +0/-5°C |
|       |     |     |    | +5/-0) |           |        |            |
+-------+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+--------+------------+
| M     | 24  | B   | 1  | #      | 85 °C/85% | Ti     | # 2        |
| ultip |     |     |    |  168 ( | RH        | n-lead | 40 +0/-5°C |
| lexer |     |     |    | +5/-0) |           |        |            |
+-------+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+--------+------------+
| Op    | 24  | C   | 1  | #      | 85 °C/85% | Ti     | # 2        |
| Amp   |     |     |    |  168 ( | RH        | n-lead | 40 +0/-5°C |
|       |     |     |    | +5/-0) |           |        |            |
+-------+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+--------+------------+
| Refe  | 24  | D   | 1  | #      | 85 °C/85% | Lea    | # 2        |
| rence |     |     |    |  168 ( | RH        | d-free | 50 +0/-5°C |
|       |     |     |    | +5/-0) |           |        |            |
+-------+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+--------+------------+
| Ampl  | 24  | E   | 3  | 192    | 30 °C/60% | Ti     | # 2        |
| ifier |     |     |    | (      | RH        | n-lead | 40 +0/-5°C |
|       |     |     |    | +5/-0) |           |        |            |
+-------+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+--------+------------+

# \* Sample size of 22 units were needed, to be split into 2 samples of 11 each; there were 2 spares

> \*\* Per JEDEC JESD22-A113C Specification flow

A sample of 24 units for each of the 5 part types were selected and
tested to the JEDEC JESD22-A113C Specification test flow as follows:

1\. **Serialization**, added for the NEPP/NEPAG investigation

2\. **Initial Electrical Test,** Test appropriate electrical parameters,
e.g., data sheet values. Replace any devices that fail to meet

this requirement.

3\. **Initial Inspection,** 40X visual (required)

4\. **CSAM** (C-Mode Scanning Acoustic Microscopy), added for the
NEPP/NEPAG investigation.

5\. **Temperature Cycling**, (-40 +0/-10) °C to (60 °C +10/-0) °C per
JESD22-A104 to simulate the shipping of the devices from

the manufacturers to distributors, etc.

6\. **Bake,** 24 hours minimum at 125 +5/-0°C.

## 7. Moisture Soak, Level 1  85^o^C/85%RH for 168 hours +5/-0, Level 3  30^o^C/60%RH for 192 hours +5/-0.

8\. **Reflow,** Not sooner than 15 minutes and not longer than 4 hours
after removal from the temperature/humidity chamber, subject the sample
to 3 cycles of the appropriate reflow conditions. For details see
Appendix A.

9\. **Flux Application,** After the reflow solder cycles are completed,
allow the devices to cool at room ambient for 15

minutes minimum. Apply an activated water soluble flux to the device
leads by bulk immersion of the entire parts in flux at

room ambient for 10 seconds minimum.

10\. **Cleaning,** Clean devices externally using multiple agitated
deionized water rinses. No waiting time is required between flux

application and cleaning.

11\. **Drying,** Devices should be dried at room ambient prior to
submission to reliability testing.

11\. **Final Electrical Test,** Test appropriate electrical parameters,
e.g., data sheet values.

12\. **Final Acoustic Microscopy,** added for the NEPP/NEPAG
investigation.

The details of JEDEC JESD22-A113C and the reflow profiles used in this
evaluation are presented in Appendix A. The results of this part of the
evaluation are presented next in Table 2. There was one failure out of a
total of 120 devices (5 part types x 24 devices/part type). The device
failure was a functional reject, a hard failure, for which the cause of
the failure was not determined. In JESD22-A113C, an electrical failure
at the end of the flow could be attributed to the part type failing the
MSL level unless otherwise proven by failure analysis. From the
NEPP/NEPAG report entitled "Moisture Sensitivity Level (MSL) Packaging
Evaluation" it was documented that the A/D part from Vendor A indeed did
not pass the MSL level 1 that was claimed by Vendor A. It was beyond the
scope of this evaluation to investigate the devices at a lower MSL --
one that was perhaps more appropriate for the device. The solution for
this issue was to use one of the spare devices and substitute it for the
failed device and continue the testing.

**Table 2:** Electrical Performance Summary following the
Pre-conditioning Flow

+-------+------+-----+----+-----+-----+---------+--------+----------+
| *     | **   | *   | *  | **L | *   | **Ele   |        | **Final  |
| *Part | Samp | *Ve | *M | ead | *Di | ctrical |        | Asse     |
| T     | le** | ndo | SL | Fi  | e** | Test    |        | ssment** |
| ype** |      | r** | ** | nis |     | (RT)**  |        |          |
|       | **   |     |    | h** | **  |         |        |          |
|       | Size |     |    |     | Coa | (       |        |          |
|       | \*** |     |    |     | t** | Rejects |        |          |
|       |      |     |    |     |     | /Total) |        |          |
|       |      |     |    |     |     |         |        |          |
|       |      |     |    |     |     | Fun     |        |          |
|       |      |     |    |     |     | ctional |        |          |
|       |      |     |    |     |     | Par     |        |          |
|       |      |     |    |     |     | ametric |        |          |
+-------+------+-----+----+-----+-----+---------+--------+----------+
| A/D   | 24   | A   | 1  | P   | no  | 1/24    | 0/24   | fail     |
|       |      |     |    | b-f |     |         |        |          |
|       |      |     |    | ree |     |         |        |          |
+-------+------+-----+----+-----+-----+---------+--------+----------+
| M     | 24   | B   | 1  | Ti  | no  | 0/24    | 0/24   | pass     |
| ultip |      |     |    | n-l |     |         |        |          |
| lexer |      |     |    | ead |     |         |        |          |
+-------+------+-----+----+-----+-----+---------+--------+----------+
| Op    | 24   | C   | 1  | Ti  | yes | 0/24    | 0/24   | pass     |
| Amp   |      |     |    | n-l |     |         |        |          |
|       |      |     |    | ead |     |         |        |          |
+-------+------+-----+----+-----+-----+---------+--------+----------+
| Refe  | 24   | D   | 1  | P   | yes | 0/24    | 0/24   | pass     |
| rence |      |     |    | b-f |     |         |        |          |
|       |      |     |    | ree |     |         |        |          |
+-------+------+-----+----+-----+-----+---------+--------+----------+
| Ampl  | 24   | E   | 3  | Ti  | no  | 0/24    | 0/24   | pass     |
| ifier |      |     |    | n-l |     |         |        |          |
|       |      |     |    | ead |     |         |        |          |
+-------+------+-----+----+-----+-----+---------+--------+----------+

> \* Total number of parts required was 22, 2 parts were spares.

As can be seen in Table 2, one part exhibited a functional failure. The
A/D part from Vendor A, failed the functional test following the
preconditioning step. A spare part was substituted for the functional
failed A/D part that the evaluation could continue with a full set of
devices. The cause of the failure is not known at this time.

#### Temperature Cycling: Test Conditions and Results

The temperature cycle testing was conducted according to MIL-STD 883
condition C (-65 ^o^C to + 150 ^o^C) for 1000 cycles. There were two (2)
read points; one at 500 cycles and the other at 1000 cycles. The
Reference part from Vendor D had failures in both read points of
temperature cycles. There were 7 failures after 500 cycles and all
devices failed at the 1000 cycle read point. The results of the
temperature cycle testing are shown below in Table 3. As of the writing
of this report, no F/A has been conducted on these parts. Failure
analyses of parametric failures are very difficult to resolve because
the part is still functioning but has drifted out of the manufacturer's
specification limits. This part type's parameter that drifted beyond the
manufacturer's limits was VOS.

**Table 3:** Overview of Temperature Cycle Results

+----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+
| **Part   | **   | **500   |         | **1000  |         | **Final   |
| Type**   | Vend | T/C     |         | T/C     |         | Ass       |
|          | or** | Read    |         | Read    |         | essment** |
|          |      | Point** |         | Point** |         |           |
|          |      |         |         |         |         |           |
|          |      | **Ele   |         | **Ele   |         |           |
|          |      | ctrical |         | ctrical |         |           |
|          |      | Test    |         | Test    |         |           |
|          |      | (RT)**  |         | (RT)**  |         |           |
|          |      |         |         |         |         |           |
|          |      | (       |         | (       |         |           |
|          |      | Rejects |         | Rejects |         |           |
|          |      | /Total) |         | /Total) |         |           |
|          |      |         |         |         |         |           |
|          |      | Fun     |         | Fun     |         |           |
|          |      | ctional |         | ctional |         |           |
|          |      | Par     |         | Par     |         |           |
|          |      | ametric |         | ametric |         |           |
+----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+
| A/D      | A    | 0/11    | 0/11    | 0/11    | 0/11    | pass      |
+----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Mul      | B    | 0/11    | 0/11    | 0/11    | 0/11    | pass      |
| tiplexer |      |         |         |         |         |           |
+----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Op Amp   | C    | 0/11    | 0/11    | 0/11    | 0/11    | pass      |
+----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+
| R        | D    | 0/11    | 7/11    | 0/11    | 11/11   | fail      |
| eference |      |         |         |         |         |           |
+----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+
| A        | E    | 0/11    | 0/11    | 0/11    | 0/11    | pass      |
| mplifier |      |         |         |         |         |           |
+----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+

#### HAST: Test Conditions and Results

The HAST test was conducted in accordance of JESD22-A110-B which states
the following conditions: 130 ± 2 ^o^C, 85 % ± 5 RH, and 33.3 psia for
96 +/- 2 hours. The Op Amp from Vendor C exhibited 11 failures out of 11
possible devices following the HAST test. The parameter that drifted
beyond the manufacturer's specification limits was V~out~. A quick
destructive physical analysis (DPA) was conducted on one of the failures
looking for signs of corrosion. No signs of corrosion were found. So, it
is thought that corrosion is not the mechanism that is shifting the
parameter. Like the parametric failures in the temperature cycle
testing, the cause is a very difficult thing to determine.

> **Table 4:** HAST Results

+-------------+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Part      | **V     | **96 Hrs.    |              | **Final      |
| Type**      | endor** | HAST Read    |              | Assessment** |
|             |         | Point**      |              |              |
|             |         |              |              |              |
|             |         | **Electrical |              |              |
|             |         | Test (RT)**  |              |              |
|             |         |              |              |              |
|             |         | (Re          |              |              |
|             |         | jects/Total) |              |              |
|             |         |              |              |              |
|             |         | Functional   |              |              |
|             |         | Parametric   |              |              |
+-------------+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| A/D         | A       | 0/11         | 0/11         | pass         |
+-------------+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Multiplexer | B       | 0/11         | 0/11         | pass         |
+-------------+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Op Amp      | C       | 0/11         | 11/11        | fail         |
+-------------+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Reference   | D       | 0/11         | 0/11         | pass         |
+-------------+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Amplifier   | E       | 0/11         | 0/11         | pass         |
+-------------+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

#### Discussion and Conclusions

The results in Tables 3 and 4 suggest that some of the parts performed
as was stated by the manufacturers and some did not. Since each part
type represents a different vendor and wafer fab process, there are no
similarities that stand out as obvious contributors to the shifts in
performance. However it is interesting to note that both non-compliant
part types did have a die coating placed on at assembly prior to the
molding process. Generally, the addition of a die coat is thought of as
a performance enhancer, and in these cases was likely used as an
assembly yield enhancer but in this case, it did not perform in that
way. In addition to the parametric failures, there was also a functional
failure from Vendor A following the preconditioning stressing. All of
these failures suggest that the use of PEMS requires quality and
reliability validation through screening and qualification testing
performed by the user, prior to using the parts.

In order for JESD22-A113C to be completed to the "letter of the law",
the IPC/JEDEC J-STD-020B Specification entitled "Moisture/Reflow
Sensitivity Classification for Nonhermetic Solid State Surface Mount
Devices" should be evaluated for the devices under test (DUT). The
NEPP/NEPAG Report entitled "Moisture Sensitivity Level (MSL) Packaging
Evaluation" submitted in February 2004 covers that area of
investigation. In that report, the MSL testing showed that Vendors A, B
and C did not pass the Level 1 rating claimed by the manufacturers as
those 3 part types did not pass the CSAM inspection portion of the test.
Even though those parts did not pass the CSAM inspection portion of the
test, all of the parts did pass the electrical test portion. It was
decided to use the stated MSL levels for this evaluation to investigate
the possible ramifications of trusting the vendors and handling the
parts per their instructions and study parts in the "as-received"
condition. As stated earlier, Packaging Qualification Work in FY'04 will
study the effects of screening on the results of the pre-conditioning
flow.

#### 

The results of the two Packaging Evaluations performed (in FY'03) on the
5 part types selected by the NEPP/NEPAG team suggest that a carefully
thought-out screening flow should be employed on PEMS as only 2 part
types out of 5 total part types passed all of the Qualification Level
testing (this report). Also in the previously reported work entitled
"Moisture Sensitivity Level (MSL) Packaging Evaluation" submitted in
February 2004, only 2 part types passed the MSL testing. Table 5 shows
the roll-up summary of the MSL testing and the Package Qualification
Testing performed so far.

> Table 5. Roll-up Table of all Packaging Test Results

*Electrical Test results include Functional (F) and Parametric (P).*

+-------+-----+-----+----------+----------+---------+-------+-------+
|       |     |     | MSL      | Quali    |         |       | Final |
|       |     |     | Ev       | fication |         |       |       |
|       |     |     | aluation | Testing  |         |       | Asses |
|       |     |     |          |          |         |       | sment |
|       |     |     | (Report  | (Report  |         |       |       |
|       |     |     | 1 of 2)  | 2 of 2   |         |       |       |
|       |     |     |          | -- this  |         |       |       |
|       |     |     |          | report)  |         |       |       |
+-------+-----+-----+----------+----------+---------+-------+-------+
| *     | *   | *   | **O      | P        | HAST    | T     | All   |
| *Part | *Ve | *MS | verall** | recondit |         | emper |       |
| T     | ndo | L** |          | ioning\* |         | ature | Te    |
| ype** | r** |     |          |          |         |       | sting |
|       |     | *   |          |          |         | Cycle |       |
|       |     | *Ve |          |          |         |       |       |
|       |     | ndo |          |          |         |       |       |
|       |     | r** |          |          |         |       |       |
|       |     |     |          |          |         |       |       |
|       |     | *   |          |          |         |       |       |
|       |     | *Ra |          |          |         |       |       |
|       |     | tin |          |          |         |       |       |
|       |     | g** |          |          |         |       |       |
+-------+-----+-----+----------+----------+---------+-------+-------+
| A/D   | A   | 1   | fail     | fail (F) | pass    | pass  | fail  |
+-------+-----+-----+----------+----------+---------+-------+-------+
| M     | B   | 1   | fail     | pass     | pass    | pass  | fail  |
| ultip |     |     |          |          |         |       |       |
| lexer |     |     |          |          |         |       |       |
+-------+-----+-----+----------+----------+---------+-------+-------+
| Op    | C   | 1   | fail     | pass     | fail    | pass  | fail  |
| Amp   |     |     |          |          | (P)     |       |       |
+-------+-----+-----+----------+----------+---------+-------+-------+
| Refe  | D   | 1   | pass     | pass     | pass    | fail  | fail  |
| rence |     |     |          |          |         | (P)   |       |
+-------+-----+-----+----------+----------+---------+-------+-------+
| Ampl  | E   | 3   | pass     | pass     | pass    | pass  | pass  |
| ifier |     |     |          |          |         |       |       |
+-------+-----+-----+----------+----------+---------+-------+-------+

*\* Note: CSAM inspection was also performed as an additional step and
the results were identical to the MSL CSAM inspections (i.e. the same
part types failed). It is not a requirement of preconditioning to
perform CSAM inspection; therefore it is not reported here.*

As can be seen in Table 5, only 1 part type passed all of the package
level testing; the Amplifier manufactured by Vendor E. That is, the
Amplifier Part has a pass (or a green box) all the way across in Table
5. Every other part type failed at least one test or precondition. It is
noteworthy that Vendor E elected to rate their part type as an MSL of
Level 3 rather than push for a higher rating of 2. All of the other
vendors rated their parts as MSL Level 1, the highest level available -
nearly equivalent to hermetic parts with regards to environmental
exposure to moisture on the production floor. A large number of CSAM
delamination failures were noted throughout both packaging evaluations
for the MSL Level 1 parts. Since it was beyond the scope of these
evaluations to investigate the reliability of the parts should an MSL
Level 2 be specified by the vendors, no further work was performed.
However, given the fact that Vendor E with their recommendation of MSL
Level 3, was the only part type to pass all testing, it could be
concluded that the vendors of the other part types were over zealous in
their rating their respective part types as MSL Level 1. It is
noteworthy that Vendor B failed CSAM inspection but passed all other
electrical performance testing, including all qualification testing. For
this part, there was no strong correlation between CSAM inspection and
reliability (T/C and HAST).

Nearly all electrical failures (with the exception of the precondition
failure of Vendor A) were parametric failures. The parts functioned but
still failed the data sheet specifications. It is hoped that the FY'04
package level testing on screened parts would screen out weak parts and
pass similar Packaging Level testing.

***[Appendix A.]{.underline}***

b.  **Reflow Conditions:**

The conditions from the JESD22-A113C Specification state that the solder
reflow occur not sooner than 15 minutes and not longer than 4 hours
after removal from the temperature/humidity chamber, subject the sample
to 3 cycles of the appropriate reflow conditions as defined in Table A-1
and Figure A-1. If the timing between removal from the
temperature/humidity chamber and initial reflow cannot be met then the
parts must be rebaked and resoaked . The time between reflows shall be 5
minutes minimum and 60 minutes maximum.

**Table A-1:** Reflow conditions from the JESD22-A113C Specification

![](media/image3.png){width="6.5625in" height="5.875in"}

![](media/image4.png){width="6.495833333333334in"
height="3.823611111111111in"}

***Figure A-1:*** Graphic representation of the reflow conditions from
the IPC JESD22-A113C Specification

c.  **Profiles used in this Evaluation**

The convection reflow profiles were performed in a 5 zone Heller (100%)
convection (production worthy) furnace. Particular care was exercised
for furnace loading and to simulate the conditions used for the
evaluation parts. The parts were 'reflowed' on PWB material or pallets
and a thermocouple was mounted on top of similar parts to obtain the
correct profiles. JESD22-A113C specifies that the temperature is to be
measured at the top of the parts as the heat contacts the outside
surfaces prior to penetrating to the inside of the part.

Representative profiles used in this evaluation are shown below in
Figures A-3 and A-4 for the tin-lead and lead-free parts, respectively.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image5.png){width="6.896527777777778in"
  height="3.2840277777777778in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

***Figure A-2:*** Furnace profile used for parts with tin-lead
lead-finish. The peak top-side component temperature was 238.1 ^o^C
which meets the specification for small bodied components of between 235
^o^C and 240 ^o^C.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image6.png){width="6.895833333333333in"
  height="3.2493055555555554in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

***Figure A-3:*** Furnace profile used for parts with tin-lead
lead-finish. The peak top-side component temperature was 248.9 ^o^C
which meets the specification for small bodied components of between 245
^o^C and 250 ^o^C.