ERAI Recommendations for Screening for Nonconforming and
Suspect/Fraudulent/Counterfeit Parts
Counterfeit electronic parts have become a significant cause of worry in the electronics part supply
chain. Most of the counterfeit parts detected in the electronics industry are either new or surplus parts
or salvaged scrap parts. The packaging of these parts is altered to modify their identity or to disguise
the effects of salvaging. The modification can be as simple as the removal of old marking and then adding
new marking, or as complicated as recovery of a die and repackaging. (Source: Screening for Counterfeit
Electronic Parts - Bhanu Sood and Diganta Das - Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering)
The presence of the below noted nonconforming conditions may indicate the part being inspected has
been subjected to relabeling, refurbishing, and/or repackaging, processes synonymous with counterfeiting.
To download this form in PDF format
click here.
Documentation, Packaging & Shipping Inspection Revealed:
Product was not shipped in the original manufacturer’s packaging
Parts were packaged in third party/generic reel
Parts were packaged in third party/generic tray
Parts were packaged in third party/generic tube
Product was improperly packaged
Not in ESD (ANSI/ESDS20.20) packaging
Not moisture protected (J-STD-020)
Moisture indicator missing
Desiccant missing or damaged
HIC indicates humidity
Mishandled/damaged, and/or nonconforming packaging materials
Factory seal tape has been cut or is damaged
Trays are warped, cracked, bent or damaged
Trays are not properly banded
Tubes are warped, cracked, bent or damaged
Reels are warped, cracked, bent or damaged
Cut and/or damaged carrier tape or empty pockets
Tears and/or puncture holes in bag
Erroneous OCM Logo (e.g. manufacturer’s logo on label or packaging is absent or does not match that shown on their website or previous shipments)
Generic packaging
Poor syntax, misspelled words, alterations or changes to the packaging
Packaging is imprinted with the incorrect manufacturer name or logo
Label
Lot and/or date codes do not align with product discontinuation notices/last time buy and/or ship dates (e.g. parts were discontinued in 2000 but suspect shipment is marked with 2013 date codes)
Part number, lot and/or date codes and/or COO on label do not match the part number, lot and/or date codes and/or COO on the parts
Lot and/or date codes, serial numbers, etc. on label are invalid
Bar code mismatch (e.g. bar code symbols do not match the human-readable printed part data)
Generic third party label(s)
Poor syntax, misspelled words, alterations or changes to the documentation (e.g. hand written notes, modifications, etc.)
Label is not consistent with a known genuine factory label
Label is torn, damaged and/or barcode is unreadable
The quantity of parts packaged in the tube, reel or tray is different than the quantity noted on the label
Inconsistent part orientation
Product inconsistently or incorrectly aligned within a single reel
Product inconsistently or incorrectly aligned within a single tray
Product inconsistently or incorrectly aligned within a single tube
Multiple lot and/or date codes within a single lot
More than one part number or part type within a single lot
BGA Lead External Visual Inspection Revealed:
Evidence of refurbishing present
Inconsistent ball formation (non-uniform size and shape of solder spheres and/or columns)
Parts failed co-planarity testing
Scratches on substrate beneath lead spheres (i.e. balls)
Excessive, uneven or non-uniform plating or thickness
Discoloration and/or poor or excessive solder coverage (e.g. plating flaking off leads)
Excess flux and/or solder paste present on substrate
Objective evidence and/or acknowledgement the parts have been refurbished/retinned
Evidence of improper handling and/or storage present
Missing and/or damaged lead spheres (i.e. balls)
Flattened spheres or misaligned columns
Oxidation and/or corrosion visible
Dirt, residue and/or foreign contamination on substrate and/or solder spheres
Lead External Visual Inspection Revealed:
Incorrect construction
Lead/pin count, formation, finish or type of lead (DIP, SMB, Gull Wing, etc.) is not consistent with the datasheet
Pin or terminal layout and/or count is not consistent with the datasheet
Evidence of refurbishing/retinning present
Evidence of lead reattachment, rework, etc.
Solder splash, excess solder, solder tails, solder paste, and/or solder bridges
Lack of exposed base metal at the lead tip
Lack of tooling marks
Discoloration and/or poor or excessive solder coverage (e.g. voids, pitting, plating flaking off leads, orange peel texture)
Prior solder reflow and/or excessive, uneven or non-uniform plating or thickness (e.g. evidence of refurbishing)
Objective evidence and/or acknowledgement the parts have been refurbished/retinned
Evidence of prior use present
Insertion marks, brush marks and/or scratches on inside and/or outside of leads
Missing, bent, trimmed, cracked and/or non-planar leads
Inconsistent lead shape, length, style, etc.
Leads failed co-planarity testing
Damaged leads, threads, etc.
Evidence of improper handling/storage present
Discoloration, dirt or residues
Oxidation and/or corrosion visible
Exposed copper visible
Leads failed co-planarity testing
Tin whiskers visible
Part Markings External Visual Inspection Revealed:
Part markings are suspect
Inconsistent part marking styles (e.g. fonts) within a homogeneous lot
Inconsistent part markings (e.g. COO present or not present) and/or styles (e.g. fonts) when suspect part is compared to a known good part
Incorrect or inconsistent part number and/or part markings (e.g. serialization, color)
Parts are marked with an invalid date and/or lot code
Inconsistent part marking location (e.g. orientation) within a homogeneous lot
Inconsistent backside markings within a homogeneous lot
Inconsistent COO markings within a homogeneous lot (e.g. different COOs)
COO markings display inconsistent alphanumeric orientation within a homogenous lot (e.g. inconsistent font size, spacing and/or placement)
Logo distorted or inconsistent with Intellectual Property Holder’s logo
Previous marking partially visible on the surface (e.g. ghost markings)
Poor quality markings (e.g. blurred, lack of clarity or sharpness etc.)
Polarity indicator is suspect (e.g. inconsistently aligned, running through the indents, is inconsistent in color, width or length, etc.)
Poor quality marking (e.g. burn holes present indicative of aftermarket laser mark equipment)
Device Package External Visual Inspection Revealed:
Evidence of tampering present
Package dimensions (e.g. thickness, width, height, etc.) and/or weight are inconsistent with the manufacturer’s specifications (Method 2016 of MIL-STD-883 or equivalent)
Inconsistent or incorrect package construction
Die size, shape and/or placement inconsistent within a homogenous lot
Inconsistent surface texture (e.g. color discrepancy between the top, bottom and/or side of the part)
Pin 1, orientation marks, etc. not present when presence is called for on manufacturer’s datasheet
Inconsistent package indents, texture, shape, size, depth and/or placement (e.g. mold pin, pin 1 indicator, ejector pin or COO stamp)
Unidirectional abrasions (e.g. directional sanding)
Differences in the corner radius between the top and bottom surfaces (e.g. evidence of sanding)
Evidence of part surface alteration (e.g. microblasting, sand blasting, acid etching, lapping, etc.)
Exposed bond wires due to excessive surface alteration (e.g. directional sanding, microblasting, acid etching, etc.)
Secondary coating/blacktopping visible on the leads, substrate, etc.
Visible secondary coating/blacktopping cascading over the side of the part (e.g. overspray, overflow)
Secondary coating/blacktopping in and around the surface indent (e.g. pin 1 indicator, mold indent, etc.)
Scratches in and around the surface indent (e.g. pin 1 indicator, mold indent, etc.)
Evidence of prior use and/or improper handling and storage present
Test marks and/or glue, adhesives or other residues on the surface of the package or substrate
Evidence of color fade, stains, blotches, scratches, cracks or visible damage such as burn marks, pit marks or chipouts on the part surface of substrate
Foreign debris, contamination, and/or corrosion visible on the part surface or substrate
Remarking & Resurfacing Testing Revealed:
Parts Failed Solvent Test for Remarking (Marking Permanency Testing - MPT)
Part markings were removed using three (3) parts mineral spirits (CAS Registry Number 9072-35-9) with one (1) part isopropyl alcohol (CAS Registry Number: 67-63-0), or Method
2015 of MIL-STD-883 or equivalent.
Original part markings visible after test
Directional sanding marks visible after test
Previous part markings (e.g. ghost markings) visible after test
Difference in surface texture visible after test
Parts Failed Resistance To Solvents (RTS) - Acetone
Surface material was removed using acetone (e.g. CAS Registry Number 67-64-1)
Original part markings visible after test
Directional sanding marks visible after test
Previous part markings (e.g. ghost markings) visible after test
Difference in surface texture visible after test
Parts Failed Resistance To Solvents (RTS) - Uresolve
Surface material was removed using Uresolve
Original part markings visible after test
Directional sanding marks visible after test
Previous part markings (e.g. ghost markings) visible after test
Difference in surface texture visible after test
Parts Failed Heated Chemical Test (HCT) aka Heated Solvents Test
Surface material was removed using 1-Methyl 2-Pyrrolidinone (CAS Registry Number: 872-50-4)
Original part markings visible after test
Directional sanding marks visible after test
Previous part markings (e.g. ghost markings) visible after test
Difference in surface texture visible after test
Parts Failed Dynasolve 750 or equivalent test
Surface material removed using Dynasolve 750 or equivalent
Original part markings visible after test
Directional sanding marks visible after test
Previous part markings (e.g. ghost markings) visible after test
Difference in surface texture visible after test
Mechanical Scraping (e.g. Scrape Test, Scratch Test) Revealed:
Evidence of tampering present
Secondary coating/blacktopping lifted during test
Directional sanding marks visible after test
Previous part markings (e.g. ghost markings) visible after test
Difference in surface texture visible after test
Radiological (X-ray) Inspection Revealed:
Evidence of tampering present
Die not present
Die size, shape and/or placement inconsistent within a homogenous lot
Inconsistent internal construction within a homogeneous lot
Inconsistent and/or incorrect internal construction when compared to a known authentic part
Die size and/or shape inconsistent when compared to a known authentic part
Lead frame construction inconsistent within a homogenous lot
Lead frame construction inconsistent when compared to a known authentic part
Bond wire construction inconsistent within a homogeneous lot
Bond wire construction inconsistent when compared to a known authentic part
Evidence of double wire bonding throughout a lot not consistent with repair
Nonconforming condition(s) present
Extraneous matter (e.g. die attach, burrs, ball bonds, delamination)
Die attach incorrect (e.g. voids traverse die, misalignment)
Bond wires broken or missing
Evidence of double wire bonding due to possible repair
Bond wires traverse (e.g. bond wires touch)
Delamination visible
Lead Finish Evaluation (XRF or EDS/EDX) Revealed:
Nonconforming condition(s) present
Incorrect lead finish composition (e.g. presence or absence of lead (Pb) or other constituent elements)
Decapsulation Internal Analysis (a.k.a. delidding, decap) Revealed:
Evidence of tampering present
Die not present
Inconsistent or incorrect die marking or die construction
Die markings do not correspond with the component part number or the component markings
Die markings do not match those identified in the manufacturer’s datasheet
Scribe marks, surface scratches, voiding, corrosion, contamination, chipouts and/or cracks visible
Incorrect die map layout
Bond wires broken or missing
Inconsistencies identified during cross-section analysis in comparison to a known good device
Inconsistencies identified during cross-section analysis within a homogenous lot
Scanning Acoustic Microscopy (SAM) Revealed:
Nonconforming condition(s) present
Delamination detected
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy Revealed:
Nonconforming condition(s) present
Inconsistent surface composition
Inconsistent ink marking composition
Ionic or organic contaminants detected
Surface coating, chemical film, or other materials associated with part surface cleaning or alteration detected
C-Mode Scanning Acoustic Microscopy (CSAM) Revealed:
Nonconforming condition(s) present
Delamination detected
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Revealed:
Evidence of tampering present
Surface texture is inconsistent within a homogenous lot
Surface texture is inconsistent when compared to a known authentic part
Particle media detected indicative of microblasting
Reflection Electron Microscopy (REM) Revealed:
Nonconforming condition(s) present
Microstructure is inconsistent when compared to a known authentic part
XRF Analysis Revealed:
Nonconforming condition(s) present
Positive bias element error detected
Solderability Testing Revealed:
Parts Failed Solderability Testing
Terminations did not exhibit a minimum continuous solder coating of 95%
Electrical Testing Revealed:
Parts Failed Electrical Testing
Root Cause Specified
Recommended Reading: