Screening for Counterfeit Electronic Parts

Bhanu Sood and Diganta Das
Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering (CALCE)
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Maryland, College Park, MD USA

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.

In this chapter, we discuss the type of parts used to create counterfeits and the defects/degradations inherent in these parts due to the nature of the sources they come from, proposed inspection standards, and limitations of these standards. The processes used to modify the packaging of these parts to create counterfeits are then discussed along with the traces left behind from each of the processes. We then present a systematic methodology for detecting signs of possible part modifications to determine the risk of a part or part lot being counterfeit.

Often there is damage inherent in parts that are used to create counterfeits. The damage may result from improper handling, storage, or packing procedures, as in the case of new or excess inventories or overruns. Damage may also occur when parts are reclaimed from assembled printed circuit boards. Parts may also have failed even before they were counterfeited, as in the case of parts that are scrapped by the part manufacturer during quality control (QC) checks. Parts may be counterfeited using processes such as relabeling, refurbishing, and repackaging, each of which leaves behind traces in some form or other.

A systematic methodology for detecting counterfeit parts has been presented in the paper. The methodology consists of external visual inspection, marking permanency tests, X-ray inspection, and material evaluation and characterization, followed by identification of defects or degradations that may have been induced during the counterfeiting process, and die-marking inspection. This methodology helps in detecting signs of possible part modifications to determine the risk of a part or part lot being counterfeit. Table 5 summarizes the methodology and tools.

Not that it would eliminate the need, but It seems to me the use of DNA marking would help reduce the need for many of these expensive, cumbersome, time consuming and often destructive tests at both ends of the supply chain... let alone establish provenance.