MINUTES OF MEETING # 106
JC – 13.5 Subcommittee on Hybrid, RF/ Microwave, and MCM Technology
February 8, 2012
Las Vegas NV
1.0
CALL TO ORDER/INTRODUCTIONS:
Chairman Daniel Miller called the meeting to order on Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at
10:00AM.
1.1
All present introduced themselves and the organization each represented.
1.2
The attendance sign-in form and the JEDEC roster were passed out for sign-in and
confirmation of the roster log by initialing next to the names listed.
1.3
The JC-13.5 Executive Committee consists of:
Dan Miller
Chairman
Open
Vice Chair
Open
Minutes/Secretary
2.0
MEETING RULES, ANTITRUST AND SCOPE:
Chairman Dan Miller reviewed the following meeting rules:
- No tape recorders are allowed in the meetings.
- No discussion on pricing allowed.
- Guests may attend one meeting by prior agreement with chairman.
- No smoking allowed in the meeting rooms.
- All persons in attendance must sign the attendance roster.
- All task group chairpersons are required to supply a written task group report and
include a list of attendees/membership of task group.
- Electronic copies (prefer Microsoft Office format) of all presentation materials/handouts
are to be provided to the secretary.
- Companies will be designated as inactive if not represented by a voting
member/alternate for three consecutive meetings.
- Cell phones in the meeting rooms are to be placed in "silent mode" to minimize
disruptions.
- Rules for forming a task group and setting up of task group meetings were reviewed.
Antitrust Guideline
JEDEC_Antitrust_Gui
delines_021011b.ppt
120211:llh:3/9/12
JC-13.5 Subcommittee Hybrid, RF/Microwave, and MCM Technology Scope:
Provides technical support and develops standards concerning hybrid microcircuits,
rf/microwave, and multi-chip module (MCM) technologies for commercial, industrial,
military, and space applications. Activities also include the generation of terms and
definitions, review of specifications, establishment of new specification criteria, and
maintenance of existing criteria relating to hybrid, rf/microwave, and MCM
technologies. To accomplish these functions, the subcommittee maintains liaison with
and utilizes technical information from other JEDEC committees, government agencies,
industry, various professional organizations, participating members, and guests.
3.0
QUORUM VALIDATION
3.1
A Quorum was achieved on February 8, 2012 with 15 members present.
3.2
Members Active: 28
Requirement for Quorum Validation: 15
3.2.1
The new Master Attendance Sheet is formatted to list all member companies and the
name of each representative present at this meeting. An X in the appropriate column
indicates attendance at each Task Group meeting and the joint JC-13.5/G-12 meeting.
Please contact Dan Miller with corrections or comments.
MEMBER COMPANY
ATTENDEE
TELEPHONE
TG and GENERAL ATTENDANCE
E-MAIL
158
169
170
172
13.5/G-12
8-Feb
Avago Technologies
Beauchesne, Debbi
408-435-4143
debbi.beauchesne@avagotech.com
x
x
x
x
Avago Technologies
Sinclair, Shelley
408-435-4120
shelley.sinclair@avagotech.com
x
x
x
x
BAE Systems
Mann, Robert
850-664-6581
robert.w.mann@baesystems.com
x
BAE Systems
Nixon, Paul
703-367-1378
paul.nixon@baesystems.com
x
BAE Systems
Lawrence, Reed
703-367-2450
reed.lawrence@baesystem.com
Crane
Irwin, Stacy
425-895-5038
stacy.irwin@crane-eg.com
x
Crane
Bradshaw, Ron
425-895-4030
ron.bradshaw@crane-eg.com
x
Data Device Corp.
Young, John
631-567-5600
young@ddc-web.com
x
Hi-Rel Microelectronics/STS
Heddlesten, Michael
408-764-5500
mheddlesten@hirelmicro.com
International Rectifier
Gustason, Cora
978-466-5532
cgustas1@irf.com
International Rectifier
Lisiewicz,Dean
978-514-6482
dlisiewicz@irf.com
International Rectifier
Rains, Granville
408-450-5886
grains1@irf.com
IsoVAC Engineering
Neff, George
818-552-6200
radiflo@aol.com
x
Linear Technology
Sana Rezgui
408-432-1900 2280
srezgui@linear.com
x
M.S. Kennedy
Miller, Dan
315-701-6751 212
d.miller@mskennedy.com
x
x
x
x
x
Micropac Industries
Keathly, Jim
972-272-3571 1205
jkeathly@micropac.com
x
x
x
x
x
Micross Components
Wares, Allen
512-339-1188 7138
allen.wares@micross.com
x
x
Minco
Morris, Mike
512-339-3465
mike.morris@mincotech.com
x
x
x
Mini-Systems
Minh, Tran
508-695-2000
mtran@mini-systeminc.com
x
x
x
x
x
Miteq Inc.
Rosen, Allan
631-439-9456
arosen@miteq.com
x
x
x
x
x
NorCom Systems
Green, Tom
610-730-3224
tgreen1@ptd.net
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Northrop Grumman
Born, Brad
410-279-9053
bradford.born@ngc.com
Northrop Grumman
Moffett, James
801-525-3472
james.moffett@ngc.com
ON Semiconductor
Glines, Eddie
208-234-6689
eddie.glines@onsemi.com
Oneida Research Services, Inc
Buckley, Carrie
315-736-5480
cabuckley@ors-labs.com
Sinclair Mfg.
Freund, David
508-222-7440
dfreund@sinclairmfg.com
Tektronix Component Solutions
Chin, Carlton
407-678-6900
carlton.chin@tektronix.com
Tektronix Component Solutions
Sequeira, Pravin
407-678-6900 343
pravin.gregory.sequeria@tektronix.com
x
x
x
x
Teledyne Cougar
Maciel, Dory
408-522-0449
dmaciel@teledyne.com
x
x
x
x
Teledyne Micro
Bennett, Evon
310-574-2004
ebennett@teledyne.com
x
x
x
x
Texas Instruments
Tanguay, Dennis
406-721-3509
dennis.tanguay@ti.com
x
US Army AMCOM/RDEC/Eng
Jarvis, Jeff
256-842-0160
jeff.jarvis@us.army.mil
US Army AMCOM/RDEC/Eng
Moore, Michael
256-842-1962
richard.moore27@us.army.mil
x
x
VPT Inc.
Graham, Shawn
540-552-5000 7566
sgraham@vpt-inc.com
x
x
VPT Inc.
Ullman, Todd
540-552-5000
tullman@vpt-inc.com
x
x
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
GUEST/ COMPANY
ATTENDEE
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
TASK GROUPS ATTENDED/MEETING ATTENDANCE
158
169
170
172
13.5/G-12
8-Feb
x
Aeroflex Colo Spgs
Hafer, Craig
719-594-8319
craig.hafer@aeroflex.com
Aerospace Corporation
Adams, John
Meshel, David
310-621-4312
703-808-5469
john.r.adams@aero.org
david.meshel@aero.org
Aerospace Corporation
Sokol, Jeff
310-336-2116
jeffrey.h.sokol@aero.org
Aerospace Corporation
Harzstark, Larry
Hesse, Paul
310-336-5883
310-336-2003
lawrence.i.harzstark@aero.org
paul.h.hesse@aero.org
Peters, David
310-336-5937
david.m.peters@aero.org
Aerospace Corporation
Johnson, Mark
505-872-6292
mark.a.johnson@aero.org
x
Aerospace Corporation
Turflinger, Tom
571-307-3715
thomas.l.turflinger@aero.org
x
Aerospace Corporation
Aerospace Corporation
Aerospace Corporation
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Analog Devices
Boeing
Boeing Satellite
Boeing-JSC
Corfin Industries
DLA Land & Maritime
Decker, Tom
336-605-4216
tom.decker@analog.com
Sutherland, David
Touw, Anduin
310-662-7521
703-455-6865
david.a.sunderland@boeing.com
anduin.e.touw@boeing.com
Roopwah, Kinn
281-226-6749
kinn.roopwah@boeing.com
Tyler,Don
603-893-9900
dtyler@corfin.com
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Buben, Joe
614-692-0592
joseph.buben@dla.mil
DLA Land & Maritime
Rodenbeck, Joseph
614-692-1090
joseph.rodenbeck@dla.mil
E2V Semiconductors
Gaillard, Oliver
33476583308
oliver.gaillard@ezv.com
x
General Dynamics
413-494-2488
509-325-5800
james.flynn@gd-ais.com
cedric@hrlabs.com
x
Hi-Rel labs
Flynn, Jim
Devaney, Cedric
Integrity Apps. Inc.
Nejad, Reza
614-595-8398
rnejad@intergrity.apps.com
International Rectifier
Boisvert, Andy
978-514-6456
aboisve1@irf.com
Intersil Corporation
van Vonno, Nick
321-724-7546
nvanvonn@intersil.com
JPL/NASA
Barnes, Chuck
818-354-4467
charles.e.barnes@jpl.nasa.gov
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
JPL/NASA
Scheick, Leif
818-354-3272
leif.z.scheick@jpl.nasa.gov
L-3 CE
L-3 CE
Bjelac, Nick
Lake, Dan
513-573-6587
513-573-6209
nicholas.bjelac@l-3com.com
dan.lake@l-3com.com
x
Lockheed Martin
Syfko, Dave
651-456-2374
david.r.syfko@lmco.com
x
Lockheed Martin
Watts, Josh
972-603-9255
nolan.watts.III@lmco.com
Micropac
Perna, Ted
972-272-3571
tperna@micropac.com
NASA-JSC
Faller, Carlton
281-483-4290
carlton.s.faller@nasa,gov
NASA
LaBel,Ken
301-288-8936
Ken.label@nasa.gov
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NASA GSFC
Panashchenko, Lyudmyla
301-286-1616
lyudmyla.p@nasa.gov
x
NASA LARC
Majewicz, Peter
757-864-4474
peter.majewicz@nasa.gov
x
NASA/JPL
Agarwal,Shri
818-354-5598
shri.g.agarwal@nasa.gov
NASA/MSFC
McManus, Patrick
Pressnell, Kathy
256-544-3383
256-544-7329
patrick.d.mcmanus@nasa.gov
kathy.r.pressnell@nasa.gov
x
x
x
x
x
x
NASA/MSFC
x
Fujii,Toshi
650-872-1155
tfujii@nasam.com
Navy Crane
Gray, Josh
812-854-3346
joshua.a.gray@navy.mil
x
mark.w.savage@navy.mil
x
Savage, Mark
812-854-6927
x
x
x
NASAM
Navy Crane
x
x
x
x
x
x
NEC Corporation
Gomi, Robin
978-742-8104
robin.gomi@necam.com
x
Northrop Grumman
410-993-6350
703-808-6882
nick.andrews@ngc.com
david.laird@nro.mil
x
NRO
Andrews, Nick
Laird, David
NRO
Manaktala, Hersh
703-808-6905
hersh.manaktala@nro.mil
x
x
x
Orbital Sciences Corp,
Raytheon
Marcinko, Tom
Hester, Tom
480-722-3270
310-616-8324
marcinko.tom@orbital.com
thomas.j. hester@raytheon.com
x
Rockwell Collins
Nirschel, John
319-295-3111
jwnirsch@rockwellcollins.com
x
Six Sigma
408-956-0100 x141
408-956-0100
minerva@solderquik.com
russ@solderquik.com
x
Six Sigma
Cruz, Minerva
Winslow,Russ
Teledyne Cougar
Textron Systems
Cox, Bill
Kwong, Joe
408-522-0460
978-657-1415
wjcox@teledyne.com
jkwong@systems.textron.com
TI
Rhoton, Brent
903-868-6451
brent@ti.com
x
United Launch Alliance
Kysela,George
303-269-7172
george.j.kysela@ulalaunch.com
x
UMass Lowell
Regan, Tom
978-934-3598
thomas.regan@uml.edu
USAF
Stibitz, Mark
478-327-3057
mark.stibitz@robins.af.mil
Vanderbilt University
Dodds, Nathaniel
615-934-3656
nathaniel.dodds@vanderbilt.edu
WPAB Air Force
Franklin, Calenia
937-636-2641
calenia.franklin@wpatb.af.mil
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4.0
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIR.
4.1
JC-13.0 Scope - JC-13 is responsible for standardizing quality and reliability
methodologies for solid state products used in military, space, and other environments
requiring special-use condition capabilities beyond standard commercial practices. This
includes long-term reliability and/or special screening requirements.
Its purpose is to provide the member companies and their customers with uniform, costeffective, proven, customer-accepted methodologies for specifying and evaluating
special-use products, with the end goal of enhancing the performance and reliability of
those products. Activities include the development, coordination, and maintenance of
standards documents regarding product quality and reliability, validation systems, and
process management.
The committee also contributes to similar and related documents that are generated and
maintained by other organizations. To accomplish this charter, the committee maintains
liaisons with customers, other JEDEC committees, government agencies, and interested
parties that have special application needs.
4.2
The Chairman’s Summary presented at the JC-13 Committee Meeting can be found in the
JC-13.0 meeting minutes.
4.3
Each Task Group Chairperson shall write a task group report, provide the original to the
Secretary, and maintain a copy. All task group reports shall include a copy of
EIA/JEDEC sign in log. The minutes shall include all information on the EIA/JEDEC
sign in log.
4.4
The JC-13 Executive Committee will schedule task group meetings such that key task
groups do not overlap. Task group chairpersons shall meet with the JC-13.5 Chair to
determine if a task group meeting time slot is required and how much time is required.
4.5
Aerospace update:
-
-
-
-
-
TOR 5235 Rev B in review. Aerospace met with primes and reviewed hybrids,
enhanced EE (considering what TG158 is working on as a compromise), reduction of
QCI testing and radiation testing at the hybrid level only are still a concern.
Aerospace is shooting for a March 2012 release of the revised TOR document.
Government funding is being reduced which may affect on site DLA audits of nonspace related companies/parts by Aerospace.
38535 column concerns – column attach for hermetics, Gp D testing, solderability
testing, electrical test post column attach, column rework allowances and column
pull testing are all being reviewed.
38535 Class Y
38535 New Technology interpretation – need to perform activation energy and (not
or) 4000 hr life test (H.3.1.9.c). If devices pass 4000 hour life test, it does not
provide activation energy data. Need to look at physics of failure.
38535 minimum BI is 125C ambient with no allowance of a lower BI temperature.
Hybrids are allowed to receive BI at a lower temperature for a longer period of time
in accordance with the regression table in TM 1005.
Hermeticity testing in TM 1014 may be required training for DLA and other Kr85
auditors.
38534 radiation testing should always be done at the element level, not just at the
hybrid level.
38534 element evaluation TG 158 tables may be accepted by Aerospace. This would
remove the enhanced EE requirements from the TOR.
4.6
J-STD-002 DLA audit findings summary with JC-13.5 Chair response to JC-13.0 chair.
J-STD-002C with
Amd 1 DLA concerns.docx
4.7
Cora Gustason of IR volunteered to be the JC-13.5 Nomination Chair and nominated Dan
Miller to continue as JC-13.5 Chair. The motion was seconded by Evon Bennett. All in
attendance approved Dan Miller to continue as the Chair of the JC-13.5 Subcommittee..
4.8
MIL-STD-883, Soldering Iron data request as a result from hybrid audits:
Inputs and comments from DLA:
- Where did 350 degrees come from? Most parts are solderable at 235 deg C, so yes,
the iron needs to be hotter than 235 but 350 can cause issues.
- TM 2036 resistance to soldering heat condition A, soldering iron requires
temperature to be maintained at 350 C +/- 10 under load. Data from two hybrid
companies show the iron temperature drops quickly out of this temperature when
loaded (See response from Micross below) although input from JC-13.2 suggests
that the temperature can be maintained.
- Data needs to show:
1. Type of iron(s) used,
2. Type of load applied (iron applied to lead on non-metalized board with solder
applied or other).
3. Type of lead (LCC, lead type and size for worse case)
4. Time under load (4-5 s per test method)
5. Temperature reduction observed.
6. How the iron temperature is monitored (thermocouple screwed into tip, feedback
from soldering station, or other, data logged or observed).
Based on an audit result, Micross supplied data supporting a change to the soldering iron
temperature.
Micross Resistance
to Solder Heat 28 LCC.pdf
The requirement to maintain a soldering iron temperature at 350 degrees under load
apparently is not doable. For various reasons, the application of a load draws down the
tip temperature sufficiently to reduce temperatures below 350C. For this reason, DLA
would like to consider removing the phrase "under load" from the test method (TM-2036,
for condition A, Soldering Iron) unless data supports keeping as is.
DLA will obtain data from JC-13.2 companies and requested that input be forwarded to
Joe Rodenbeck or Joe Buben such that the test method can reflect actual test conditions.
4.9
JEDEC announced the release of JEP160, LONG-TERM STORAGE GUIDELINES
FOR ELECTRONIC SOLID-STATE WAFERS, DICE, AND DEVICES, published
November 2011. This document is now available free of charge on the JEDEC website
at:
http://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/JEP160.pdf
This publication examines the LTS requirements of wafers, dice, and packaged
solid-state devices. The user should evaluate and choose the best practices to ensure their
product will maintain as-received device integrity and minimize age- and storage-related
degradation effects.
4.10
JEDEC announced the release of JEP122G, FAILURE MECHANISMS AND MODELS
FOR SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES, published October 2011. This document is now
available free of charge on the JEDEC website at:
http://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/JEP122G.pdf
This publication provides a list of failure mechanisms and their associated activation
energies or acceleration factors that may be used in making system failure rate
estimations when the only available data is based on tests performed at accelerated stress
test conditions. The method to be used is the Sum-of-the-Failure-Rates method. This
publication also provides guidance in the selection of reliability modeling parameters,
namely functional form, apparent thermal activation energy values and sensitivity to
stresses such as power supply voltage, substrate current, current density, gate voltage,
relative humidity, temperature cycling range, mobile ion concentration, etc.
4.11
JEDEC announced the release of JESD48C, PRODUCT DISCONTINUANCE:,
published December 2011. This document is now available free of charge on the JEDEC
website at:
http://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/JESD48C.pdf
This standard establishes the requirements for timely customer notification of planned
product discontinuance, which will assist customers in managing end-of-life supply, or to
transition on-going requirements to alternate products.
4.12
JEDEC announced the release of, JEP144A, GUIDELINE FOR INTERNAL GAS
ANALYSIS FOR MICROELECTRONIC PACKAGES, published November 2011. This
document is now available free of charge on the JEDEC website at:
http://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/JEP144A.pdf
This guideline is applicable to hermetically sealed microelectronic components
(including discrete semiconductors, monolithic and hybrid microcircuits). Specific cases
with unique packaging, materials, or environmental constraints may not find all of the
following information and procedures applicable.
4.13
JEDEC announced the release of JM21Q, JEDEC Manual of Organization and
Procedure, published November 2011. This document is now available free of charge on
the JEDEC website at:
http://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/JM21Q.
4.14
JEDEC announced the release of JESD625B, REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING
ELECTROSTATIC-DISCHARGE-SENSITIVE
(ESDS)
DEVICES,
published
December 2011. This document is now available free of charge on the JEDEC website at:
http://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/JESD625B.pdf
This standard establishes the minimum requirements for Electrostatic Discharge (ESD)
control methods and materials used to protect electronic devices that are susceptible to
damage or degradation from electrostatic discharge (ESD). The passage of a static charge
through an electrostatic-discharge-sensitive (ESDS) device can result in catastrophic
failure or performance degradation of the part.
4.15
JEDEC announced the release of JESD46D, CUSTOMER NOTIFICATION OF
PRODUCT/PROCESS CHANGES BY SOLID-STATE SUPPLIERS, published
December 2011. This document is now available free of charge on the JEDEC website at:
http://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/JESD46D.pdf
This standard establishes procedures to notify customers of semiconductor product and
process changes. Requirements include: documentation; procedures for classification,
notification and customer response; content; and records. Documentation of a suppliers
change notification system should set clear and understandable expectations for both the
originators of the change and their end customers.
4.16
The Technical Session on Thursday, February 9, in Las Vegas, will address, "Tin
Whisker Self Mitigation in Surface Mount Components." The speaker will be Tom
Hester from Raytheon.
Abstract: This report provides the findings of a lengthy study of soldering electronic
components with pure tin solder finishes while using lead (Pb) containing solder for the
attachment. The work was intended to test validity of rules designed to predict which
components could be self-mitigating for risk of tin whisker growth after soldering with
leaded solder. The results have suggested that a rule based upon a sum of the horizontal
and vertical dimensions of a termination be used for predicting tin whisker
self-mitigation.
4.17
G-12 Meetings held this week:
MIL-STD-1580 DPA (G-12/G-11) – Currently in coordination and will begin review of
resistors, capacitors, IC’s and MIL-PRF-123 vs 1580. SMC will need to agree on all
changes associated with 1580.
Outside lab suitability including DPA labs – Task group meeting cancelled.
Lead free issue and identity impact guideline – Recommend Class V devices use MILPRF-123 and Class Q use MIL-PRF-55681 capacitors. BME and PME style capacitors
are being up-screened for high-rel applications and require a standard up screen outline.
Ref TG 158 minutes for more info concerning BME and PME caps. See G-12 meeting
minutes for additional information.
Passive requirements for 38535 (G-12/G11) - See G-12 meeting minutes
Counterfeit mitigation – See G-12 meeting minutes for additional information
Comments from May 2011 meeting:
- AS5553 very rigid for hybrid manufacturers
- Recommend that all hybrid elements be purchased from OEM/authorized
distributors. This is a major problem for old die elements in stock at distributors. In
many cases the die distributor is not authorized and paperwork may not exist from
the OEM.
- If die come in without paperwork, should a photo be taken and sent to the OEM for
validation? Not likely to work for some material that could be over 20 years old and
manufactures may not even make the elements now (i.e. Motorola).
- Are the elements stored correctly? Hybrid manufactures are encouraged to visit the
die distributors.
- Eastern States purchased ELMO stock so paperwork may not exist or got lost in the
transfer.
-
-
Aerospace recommends using a Class K element evaluation if elements are from an
unknown source or no paperwork exists. This idea was not supported by JC-13.5.
Many PO’s flowed down to hybrid manufactures have counterfeit clauses which
changes the way hybrids mfg can quote orders. Many checks and possible customer
sign offs may be required. This process will be very labor intensive and changes the
way JC-13.5 members will do business.
It is recommended that customers sign off on the hybrid mfg counterfeit plan such
that each will have coverage.
JC-13.5 needs to generate a universal plan such that industry can buy off for the
unique situation.
Could JC-13.5 get a letter from DLA addressing the unique situation?
Comments from October 2011 meeting:
- Draft of AS6081 (generated in G-19) was sent out prior to the meeting and is
recommended that JC-13.5 review the document. This document may be of use to
hybrid manufacturers due to the unique situations listed above. It was pointed out
that G-12 and Aerospace would not accept the document.
AS6081 Draft
2011-09-20.pdf
-
-
-
G-12 and Aerospace do not accept the use of AS6081 although G-12 does
recommend use of its own document. JC-13.5 is not sure if this G-12 document is
flowed down on PO’s.
JC-13.5 again stated problems associated with purchasing microcircuit and
semiconductor die from OEM and authorized distributors can be a major issue. This
is mostly a problem with older heritage designs that require the use of the die and
cannot change due to performance issues.
A member of JC-13.5 stated that the problem should be addressed during contract
review prior to acceptance of the PO.
Comments from February 2012 meetingCrane position: It is very difficult for hybrid manufacturers to meet AS5553
because we buy bare die and there is not always an authorized distributor in the
supply chain that we can use. Sometimes the die manufacturer is out of business and
we are feeding off of old inventories. We need to push back on this or else we may
get stuck in arguments over taking exceptions during contract reviews and sales
order conversions. JC-13.5 needs an exception response that will make sense for
hybrid manufacturers that can be included in AS5553 and AS6081. A good case for
an exception to using an authorized distributor can be made from the incoming visual
inspection that is performed on the bare die. Hybrid manufacturers prevent the use of
counterfeit die because if the die topology, geometry, and/or manufacturer's mark is
not shown as one of the approved devices in the SCD, it will be rejected.
G-12 Report from February 2012 meeting: G-12 to update GEIA counterfeit
document to meet the new mandated DOD requirements for counterfeit parts. Stacy
Irwin from Crane and Brad Born from NG will take an active role in supporting the
task group and will voice JC-13.5 needs into the document.
MIL-STD-3018 with Change 1 Incorporated
A Change Notice was issued for MIL-STD-3018. See the attached link for the Parts
Management standard which incorporates Change Notice 1.
http://www.landandmaritime.dla.mil/downloads/psmc/documents/MIL_STD_3018.pdf
It includes a requirement concerning counterfeit. TG members should review the
document and send any comments to Jim Crum at DLA, Ph 614-692-0542.
4.18
JC-13.0 Meetings held this week:
TM 1014 Leak testing - TG 11-01 TG summary Kyle Carpenter from DLA provided an overview –
Overview of TM 1071: why did it change?
- Smaller packages required it
- Leak test techniques improvements
- Pass old leak test rates but fail IGA.
- Exchange rate improvement with tighter limits
- .001cc package volume needed a better test although not perfect when tested at a L
rate of 5x10-10 (230 day exchange rate at this limit) vs 2.5 days with the old L rate.
- Improved IGA results with tighter leak limits
Changes to TM 1071.9 (finalized 1/3/12) [latest revision] was reviewed. Members are
encouraged to review this TM and determine if TM 1014 should be updated to be the
same.
Pat McCord discussed a leak test issue and is having devices re-tested by Isovac to weed
out failures. There was a concern with IGA results if hermetic failures are not detected.
Isovac was able to obtain repeatable test results for hermeticity. Pat McCord reported
~10-15% pass TM 1014 but fail Kr-85. Data will be presented at the next meeting.
George Neff discussed radioisotope red dye leak test which is currently in TM1071.9.
Red dye testing is used for detecting large gross leaks. The test process was presented.
Since the Kr-85 gas test may not detect gross failures (gas escapes before test is
performed), the red dye test may be required to be performed 100% of the time on all
parts. There was discussion to insert a minimum TBD internal volume limit for devices
that will require the 100% red dye test.
Ron Bradshaw discussed part II of the 3000 hybrids where 26 devices failed Kr-85 leak
test and 4 out of 26 showed shifted electrical parameters. The 4 devices are currently at
NASA for analysis.
The TG chair would like to know the yield percentage of failures in the factory and where
they failed. The TG would also like devices for testing.
TM 2012 Digital vs film X-Ray requirements Agenda:
Agenda Las Vegas
2011.docx
Summary from TG meeting:
TG is still discussing training requirements.
Need minimum X-Ray equipment requirements defined.
Define minimum training requirements for the TM?
Remove NAS410 training guideline from TM and insert into 38534?
Latest mark up of TM 2012 presented from TG chair:
Jim Proposal
METHOD 2012 Combined.docx
Overlapping device definitions in 38534 and 38535TG is working on open issues discussed from the previous meeting
TG is considering adding a level playing field for single die hybrids to meet the 38535
screening and QCI requirements.
Need to define what devices/product are in the gray area.
Jeff Sokol comment – a hybrid should be a device where two different actives work
together and adding passives with an active is not a hybrid. This would be a major change
of a hybrid definition.
Boeing – maybe a new class for single die hybrids should be developed? Need to look at
the testing and QCI requirements to define the different device types.
4.19
JC-13.1 Meetings held this week:
Structural ID for stacked die – See JC-13.1 meeting minutes
MIL-STD-750 Test methods and slash sheets – See JC-13.1 meeting minutes
4.20
JC-13.2 Meetings held this week:
Electronic parameters and Burn-In standardization – See JC-13.2 meeting minutes
5004/5005 vs 38535 table consolidation – See JC-13.2 meeting minutes
4.21
JC-13.4 Meetings held this week:
Subcommittee test methods meeting – See JC-13.4 meeting minutes
4.22
JC-13.6 Meetings held this week:
Subcommittee meeting status – The JC-13.6 Subcommittee may become inactive and
SAE may take over as the lead for optical and associated technology standards. G-12 will
also consider taking an active role. See JC-13.6 meeting minutes for additional
information.
4.23
NASA discussion points from February meeting:
- X-ray of packages with tungsten in the 3D mode. Side view is best to see tungsten.
- Packaged diode dimensions out of spec due to solder-tinned leads.
- Kr-85 sensitivity (count) specs cannot be met in the test method.
- No minimum RH % specified. A company is currently using 20% which is too low,
although ionizers and constant ESD monitors are being used. Humidity level is not
specified.
- 38535 BI temp at 125C is required and the regression table cannot be used for
microcircuits. Regression table can be used for hybrids.
- Future of the MIL system. Many SCDs still being developed, certified companies are
not getting qualified and are not generating SMDs, SCDs not controlled by DLA,
NASA is using more commercial devices, SMDs are using obsolete technology and
new technology is not being put into SMDs.
-
-
-
4.24
Counterfeits in GIDEP system. Many reports in 2011 with more than double the
amount from previous years. 2012 has 14 GIDEP reports to date. AS6081 is written
for trusted sources which NASA supports but is not sure how well it will work. Third
party certification of the trusted source is key, but is an open issue.
Commercial parts. NASA needs to reduce cost but commercial parts are not as
reliable. Need assurance of using commercial parts without additional cost is
unlikely. COTS vs MIL part tables are in the NASA presentation.
Lead free electronics are here to stay. Need to continue mitigation of lead free issues.
Wet slug tantalum caps contain sulfuric acid.
Medical syringes may use silicone lubricants on the plungers. This will contaminate
the epoxy!!
The following JEDEC standards require a three-year review by the formulating
committee and shall be reviewed by the JC-13.5 Subcommittee. The subcommittee will
take action to:
a.
b.
c.
Reaffirm it as a JEDEC standard.
Recommend its revision and re-issuance as a JEDEC standard or publication; or
Recommend its rescission
The following documents are ready for a five year review:
No open documents require review
5.0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5.1
The minutes require a change as Mike Morris is listed under Mini-Systems and not Minco in the
attendance list. An ‘as amended’ motion was made on February 8, 2012 by Dan Miller and
seconded by Shawn Graham to approve the minutes of Meeting #105 held in Columbus, OH in
October 2011.
The ‘as amended’ motion was approved unanimously.
6.0
GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPORT
6.1
MIL-STD-883 Change Review was presented by DLA at a joint meeting:
MIL-STD-883 future changes that are currently in the works:
883 Change
883 Draft Change
Summary 2-3-2012.doc
Pages.pdf
6.2
Joe Buben presented a summary of QML and SMD status at the joint JC-13.5/G-12 meeting.
JEDEC Feb , 2012
Hybrid PowerPoint Brief From J Buben.ppt
7.0
TASK GROUP REPORTS / STATUS
7.1
Task Group: 158-104
Task Group Title: Review of MIL-PRF-38534 Element Evaluation Requirements.
Task Chairman: Evon Bennett
Task Report: Evon Bennett
Ballot No: ---------Ballot Response: ---------Charter: To review and update element evaluation requirements of MIL-PRF-38534.
Task Group Report Summary:
The meeting was called to order, introductions made, and a brief review of the October minutes
took place. The meeting focused on feedback received from G-11, Aerospace, DLA and other
interested parties for both Active & Passive Element Evaluation Tables.
Discussion and review of actions assigned and reflected in the October minutes took place. The
following are outstanding or require additional attention:
a. For all tables, eliminate the MIL-PRF-38534 reference paragraphs when not specifically
called out as a test requirement in the standard’s text.
b. Magnetics: Simple inductors, not potted and with open construction. Why require burn-in or
x-ray? Review with Marco Garcia (G-11 Committee Chair) and determine if a provision
should be added.
G-11/Aerospace Feedback:
1. Five recommendations were made and each was addressed. Two need additional discussion
with G-11.
a. BME/PME capacitors. Get G-11’s formal position on BME/PMEs. Aerospace
published paper needs to be reviewed for their recommendations.
TOR-2011 8506-93 Position on base metal electrode BME multilayer ceramic capacitors for space applications.pdf
b.
On tantalums, what is G-11’s position on the use of polymers?
DLA Collective Feedback:
1.
2.
3.
Feedback provided for Ceramic Chip Caps., Solid Tantalums and Parallel Plate Cap. Each
recommendation was addressed.
The task group in general retained the increased temperature range and sample sizes based on
compromises reached previously with Aerospace relative to their TOR.
For Tantalums, the issue of a mounted sample or 100% un-mounted being thermal shocked
needs to be reviewed with G-11. DLA feels one is not a substitute for the other.
Vishay Feedback:
1.
A table was provided for Solid Tantalum Capacitors. It was felt that the only difference was a
change in the sequence of tests and number of subgroups (5 vs. 7).
2. We will insure that there is a clear distinction between up-screening requiring the tests
identified and manufacturers providing QPL compliant material not needing them.
Air force Feedback:
Air force acknowledged receipt of the tables and will address them in committee this week.
Miscellaneous:
Task group chair (Evon B.) met with the G-11 Committee on Thursday morning to discuss the
various EE Tables. We have agreed on some key issues and discussed positions on BME/PME.
G-11 will provide a formal statement on BME/PME. Temperatures and number of cycles were a
big concern and will be re-evaluated. G-11 will continue to review the EE Tables and provide
feedback in the near future. A coordination meeting is needed between Aerospace, G-11 and
TG158 to address possible conflicts with TOR, EE Tables & Component PRF Specs.
Active EE Table
0211.xls
7.2
Active EE Table
0212.xlsx
Task Group: 160-105
Task Group Title: Update of MIL-STD-883, TM2032, Passive Element Inspection
Task Chairman: Felix Santilli
Task Report: Dan Miller
Ballot No: ------------Ballot Response: --------------Charter: To review and update MIL-STD-883 Method 2032, Passive Element Inspection
Task Group Summary Report:
The approved test method was sent to DLA and will be incorporated into MIL-STD-883. The task
group will remain open until the test method is in MIL-STD-883. DLA requested that a word
version of the test method be sent to DLA. Dan Miller will provide.
7.3
Task Group: 164-905
Task Group Title: Update TM 2017 Internal Visual Inspection
Task Chairman: Tom Green
Task Report: Tom Green
Ballot No: JC-13.5-11-292
Ballot Response:
Charter: Review and update MIL-STD-883 TM 2017.
Task Group Summary Report:
Tom Green presented the status of the inspection document where DLA and NASA continue to
provide additional input (new eutectic and solder visual criteria). The test method will be updated
based on the input and a final review will be performed at the May meeting.
7.4
Task Group 166-107
Task Group Title: MIL-PRF-38534 Appendix G Update
Task Chairman: Dan Miller / Reed Lawrence
Task Report: Dan Miller
Ballot No: -----------Ballot Response: ----------Charter: To review and update Appendix G of MIL-PRF-38534.
Task Group Summary Report:
A task group meeting was held to review the DLA updated Appendix based on the JC-13.5 draft
proposal. The appendix was reformatted, clarified and tables added. The tables will also be part of
future SMDs for RAD hybrid devices. The table additions will specify what radiation tests are
performed, radiation levels, analysis performed and whether the radiation testing was performed at
the element level, hybrid level or combination of both. An example of a SMD format was also
reviewed at the task group meeting where the tables and associated paragraphs describing what the
device is designed and tested to.
Task group members and JC-13.4 are requested to review the proposed appendix and DLA topics
and supply comments to DLA so that a new draft can be sent to members prior to the May
meeting.
Appendix G proposal
from DLA 111101.pdf
7.5
topics for RAD TG in
Vegas..docx
Task Group 167-907
Task Group Title: MIL-STD-883 Test Method 2004 Update
Task Chairman: Dan Miller
Task Report: Dan Miller
Ballot No: JC-13.5-11-471
Ballot Response: 11 Approve, 1 Approve with comment, 1 No vote, 2 Abstentions
Charter: To review and update Test Method 2004 of MIL-STD-883 and also insert a test
condition for testing the plating of flexible and semi-flexible leads.
Task Group Summary Report:
Balloted test method:
TM2004 balloted
2011.pdf
The ‘approve with comment vote’ and the ‘no vote’ comments are as follows:
BAE Systems represented by Paul Nixon, email: paul.nixon@baesystems.com voted "Approve
content with comments"
Comments: Suggest adding clarification that this test method does not apply for ball grid array
(BGA) or column grid array (CGA) devices.
Sinclair Manufacturing Company represented by David Federschneider, email:
dfederschneider@sinclairmfg.com voted "Do not approve content"
Comments: SMC recommends omitting entire Test Condition E, Lead Plating Integrity section
for the following reasons:
-Plating acceptance criteria is already covered in MIL STD plating specs and the rejection criteria
in 3.4 is in conflict with those specifications.
-Procedure is open ended. Bend radius, pin size, pin material & plating type are not specified.
See attached for background and suggested change:
Response to Sinclair
no vote.docx
The subcommittee reviewed the plating adhesion test background and the proposed reject criteria.
Sinclair agreed to the revised reject criteria and Dan Miller made a motion to re-ballot the Lead
Integrity test method. The motion was seconded by Dave Freund of Sinclair Manufacturing.
7.6
Task Group 168-908
Task Group Title: Class H Reject Criteria for PIND Test
Task Chairman: Jennifer Douglas
Task Report: Dan Miller
Ballot No: JC-13.5-11-300A
Ballot Response: 9 Approve, 1 Approve with comment, 4 No votes and 4 Abstentions
Charter: Review the PIND test reject criteria in MIL-PRF-38534.
Task Group Summary Report:
Ballot material:
Nov 2011 Ballot
Report multiple tallies
material DB11300A.pdf of votes-ballot.htm
MIL-PRF-38534 PIND test reject criteria was balloted and received four no votes. After review of
the ballot material, it was determined that the wrong proposal was sent out for ballot. The proposal
agreed to at the Columbus meeting was confirmed and will be sent out for ballot. The reject
criteria will allow a maximum sample size of 32 devices if the reject rate is greater than 25% (with
a cause/corrective action/disposition) provided the lot passes two additional PIND test runs with
no failures.
Dan Miller made a motion to re-ballot the proposal from the October meeting and was seconded
by Evon Bennett.
PIND test reject criteria from the last meeting minutes:
PIND TEST
110525pn.docx
7.7
Task Group 169-101
Task Group Title: Sub-Assembly Element Evaluation
Task Chairman: Jim Keathly
Task Report: Jim Keathly
Ballot No: ------Ballot Response: --------Charter: Review and incorporate sub-assembly element evaluation into MIL-PRF-38534
Task Group Summary Report

Rev. J dated Oct. 10, 2011 was reviewed:
SUBASSEMBLY REV J
Revised Oct 10 2011.docx

Option to allow IGA testing when 5011 testing is not available was discussed at length.
Concern is with ionic contaminants not defined by IGA. An informational listing of 5011
compliant materials was provided from the DLA web site:
IH5011Mat_110811.
pdf



7.8
Agreement reached to review with DLA, NASA and Loctite to see if the subject epoxy
overcoat can meet 5011 requirements.
Discussion on concern about epoxy overcoat creating stress on bonds.
o Agreement reached to perform 100 cycles of Temp. Cycle to MIL-STD-883 TM
1010 cond. C on encapsulated devices.
o If un-encapsulated devices are used, only 10 cycles of temperature cycle will be
required for both Class H and K.
Rev. K of the proposal will be issued for review implementing all of the above discussions
and be ready for review and possible vote for ballot at May meeting.
Task Group 170-510
Task Group Title: ESD Classification and Testing
Task Chairman: Dan Miller
Task Report: Dan Miller
Ballot No: JC-13.5-11-472
Ballot Response: 8 approve, 1 approve with comment, 1 no vote
Charter: Review and update ESD classification, testing and ESD major change criteria in MILPRF-38534.
Task Group Summary Report:
Original balloted version:
ESD Proposal G.docx
The ‘approve with comment vote’ and ‘no vote’ comments are as follows:
C-MAC Microcircuits Limited represented by David Lawn, email: davidlawn@cmac.com voted
"Approve content with comments"
Comment: Is it the intention that the hybrid is "marked with a note that the device was not tested
above 250V"? The wording of the amendment certainly seems to require this. If so, this will be an
issue on many smaller devices. I would prefer that the information is included on datasheets,
SMDs, C of Cs, etc., rather than on the hybrid.
BAE Systems represented by Paul Nixon, email: paul.nixon@baesystems.com voted "Do not
approve content"
Comments:
1- C.6.3.3.4 should allow for ESD classification testing to actual classification levels per method
3015. Right now it reads to only test at 250V and classify as either Class 0 or Class 1A. This 250V
test should be an allowed alternate to full method 3015 classification testing.
2- The note under major change criteria section in E.5.2.bb should state "Note: Same element part
number from a different manufacturer is not considered a major change if the element has the
same or better ESD classification for each different manufacturer. If the manufacturer
classification is unknown, then it may default to Class 0 without performing ESD testing or
analysis."
BAE rewrote the proposal and the TG chair sent to membership prior to the February meeting for
comment.
The proposal is as follows:
ESD Proposal I.docx
One comment was received from Microsemi where there is discussion to include additional ESD
levels below 250V due to ESD sensitivity of certain products. The marked up of the proposal is as
follows:
ESD Proposal I (3
RDB).docx
The task group met and reviewed the ballot results to ESD testing and classification for MIL-PRF38534. The one no vote contained two suggestions and one was resolved by revising the proposal
to allow testing all categories or test at 250V only. The other no vote involved the major change
criteria where if a manufacturer is changed, should ESD testing be required again? A lengthy
discussion continued in the joint JC-13.5/G-12 meeting and in the subsequent JC-13.5 meeting to
determine if it could be limited to Class K elements only. The JC-13.5 Subcommittee agreed to
keep the wording as is without change.
Dan Miller made a motion to re-ballot the ESD proposal prior to the May meeting. The motion
was seconded by Shawn Graham, and approved unanimously.
7.9
Task Group 171-511
Task Group Title: Bond strength failure code
Task Chairman: Dan Miller
Task Report: Dan Miller
Ballot No: ------Ballot Response: --------Charter: To update and standardize the destruct bond pull codes in TM 2011
Task Group Summary Report:
The current specification, as used by labs when performing DPA, does not provide the detail and
consistency necessary to determine the actual break point. The JC-13.5 Subcommittee reviewed
the IR input and agreed to move forward with the proposal. Bo Raines and Cora Gustason shall
work together to compile the ballot information and will send it to the membership prior to the
ballot process.
The Subcommittee approved a motion to ballot the TM 2011 destruct codes proposal prior to the
May meeting.
DBP Diagram &
codes.pdf
In addition to the diagram, the following statement shall be added to account for other bonding
methods (i.e. reverse bonding):
Regardless of the wire configuration, the destruct codes listed shall be used to identify the destruct
break location.
7.10
Task Group 170-510
Task Group Title: QML Requirement Review
Task Chairman: Cora Gustason
Task Report: Cora Gustason
Ballot No: ------Ballot Response: --------Charter: To define the rework processes for qualification for each of the key rework processes
and implement as part of section C.7 for Appendix C of MIL-PRF-38534. The key rework
processes for qualification are as follows:
a. Die/passive component attachment methods.
b. Substrate attachment methods.
c. Wire bond methods.
d. De-lid and reseal methods.
Task Group Summary Report:
The task group meeting was held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 from 8 AM to 10AM. There were
12 members, 3 alternates and 16 guests in attendance.
A brief review of the previous minutes from JC-13.5 Subcommittee Meeting pertaining to QML
rework was conducted. Additionally, section C.7 Qualification from MIL-PRF-38534 Appendix C
was reviewed for content and topic discussion.
The meeting focused on the requirements set forth in section C.7 and the following issues were
identified by the group attendees:






Difficulty in interpretation of the specification and the breakdown of each section for
clarification would make the specification easier to read and interpret by the user
community.
Combining rework with qualification is confusing and difficult to maintain creating a
massive complicated table in order to meet the specification requirements.
Rework vs non-rework
o The intention is to redefine rework requirements as a documented process for
similar methods as initial qualification has already been performed and
qualified.
Examples of failures seen in the past:
o Attachment problems with passives i.e., capacitors & inductors
What can be qualified by similarity and what cannot:
o Guidelines for process/materials/design
Aerospace suggested review of its Photonic Standard as a guideline/reference for

qualification flow (section C.6) versus periodic inspection (section C.7)
4 key rework processes were identified:
o Die/passive component attachment
o Substrate attachment
o Wire bond Rework
o Seal /de-lid Rework
The charter was determined by the team to maintain focus of the task group and broken down into
four individual subgroups. Completion of the subgroup triggers a preliminary draft to be
distributed among the user community in order to provide feedback and optimize the requirements
of the specification.
Die/passive component attachment tasks identified from the task group meeting:
1. Epoxy attachment die/passive components
a. Removal Method
b. Method of dispensing
i. Manual vs. Automatic
ii. Tool used to apply the epoxy
c. Method of placement
i. Manual vs. Automatic
d. Criteria of rework
i. Staking vs. not staking
2. Solder Attachment die/components
a. Removal Method
b. Method of dispensing
i. Manual vs. Automatic
ii. Tool used to apply/dispense the solder
c. Method of placement
i. Manual vs. Automatic
d. Criteria of rework
i. Staking vs. not staking
8.0
PRESENTATION:
No presentations were given.
9.0
OLD BUSINESS:
9.1
The following items are old business items that will be addressed in the future. These items are
placeholders for potential future task groups.
Review and update MIL-STD-883 TM2009 when JESD9 is completed.
Definitions review between MIL-PRF-38534 and JEDEC documents.
Review and update MIL-PRF-38534 Design Guidelines – Items that should be considered are
vacuum, pressure, materials that may affect solder pre-conditioning, de-rating and WCA.
Review and update MIL-PRF-38534 De-rating criteria – The G-12 de-rating guideline does not
address hybrids.
The EP study of 38534 in the works?
Update major change table for non-hermetic devices. – Appendix D is now in 38534
Update qualification section of Appendix C (reference Appendix D proposal).
Will MIL-HDBK-103 specify new ESD levels and solder pre-condition conditions?
Thermal analysis may not be taking attach voiding into account
Review DLA proposed changes to wire pull at QML qualification. Requirements clarify the intent
but many more production devices will be destroyed to meet the minimum number of wires
required.
Consider adding an adhesion of lead finish test to the package element evaluation process. Lead
plating can crack if the wrong nickel plating is used. Lead Integrity TG added this to the charter.

















Package positioning for salt atmosphere TM 1009 is not clear, resulting in parts wrongly
positioned for salt fog exposure. Sinclair stated that positioning is critical.
A question was raised concerning bond pull of magnetic copper wires. Some magnetic copper
wires are welded and a pull test should be performed to verify the weld interface.
Shipping hybrids to a compliant SCD requires devices to be marked with the applicable compliant
marking (CK, CH, CE).
Bond pull for production machine set up should use the same element materials as the production
lot. In-line group B may not be sufficient to cover all manufacturing materials and may not be
suited to simulate end of line group B testing.
Solder Seal X-Ray interpretation was presented for JC-13.5 Subcommittee comment. It was
suggested by the presenter that the solder seal fillet be included with the design seal width. Real
time X-ray is showing more voids than ever seen using film techniques. Are good parts being
rejected? TG set up to address real time X-Ray.
NASA discussion points at held at previous G-12 meetings:
-
Single die hybrids. Need clear guidelines.
Multichip microcircuits. Need clear guidelines.
New technology for 38535.
Class Y Non-Hermetic microcircuits.
CHLD and Krypton 85 correlation test results due next meeting.
TM 1014 should follow TM 1071.
GIDEP PCNs are not alerts or advisories.
Does a package isolation test method exist? Yes, TM 1003
Die attach of discreet devices could have hot spots and still pass current X-Ray or
CSAM criteria
Krypton 85 exposure when performing RGA or DPA. RGA equipment
contamination.
DLA audit comments:
o SMDs are rare and SCDs are common.
o Common documentation problems.
o Group C testing over temperature.
o SMD and data sheet electrical test differences.
o Test software not the same for SMD and data sheet products.
o Ta vs Tc for space level devices. NASA prefers Tc.
o Consider adding additional requirements for microcircuit hybrids built to
MIL-PRF-38534 that would be the same as MIL-PRF-38535 Class V. Items
that should be considered are wafer lot acceptance, lot specific QCI, larger
QCI sample size and development of a SMD.
-

Consider allowing temperature cycle or thermal shock for package element evaluation.
JC-13.5 Oct 2010 Discussion:
-
Thermal shock is a good shock test for glass to metal seals.
There is no correlation information data available showing the difference between
thermal shock and temperature cycle at a temperature range of -65 to 150C.
Thermal shock could open glass to metal seals but the liquid can also plug the
leaks.
Temperature cycle would not cause plugs in leak sites.
One hour stabilization bake after thermal shock may not be sufficient to remove
all liquid from the thermal shock test.
Many talks have revolved around removing thermal shock testing to prevent
plugging of leaks of a seal hybrid device. The same should hold true for package
evaluation.
A vacuum bake for a certain amount of time in lieu of the one hour bake may
remove the liquid from potential leak sites.
It was requested that marginal packages be supplied so both thermal shock and
-
temperature cycle could be performed and leak tested.
Developing a perfect test for packages may not be possible due to leak site
variations and size but can be improved.
JC-13.5 Feb 2012 Discussion:

During the joint JC-13.5/G-12 meeting, Pat McCord presented six 38535 SMDs where a 38534
SMD also exists.
Part types where
Identical Devices exist.doc
JC-13.5/G-12 Oct 2010 Discussion:
- A JC-13.0 task group was formed at the JC-13.0 general meeting to review the
duplication is more detail.
- Why was this allowed?
- Normally microcircuit hybrids are generated when a 38535 source does not exist.
- Can the 38534 SMD call out the 38535 SMD part number?
JC-13.5 Feb 2011 Discussion:
- Discussed at the JC-13 task group meeting. See notes in the announcement
section herein.
JC-13.5 May 2011 Discussion:
- See notes in the announcement section and JC-13.2 meeting minutes.
JC-13.5 Oct 2011 Discussion:
- See notes in the announcement section and JC-13.2 meeting minutes.
JC-13.5 Feb 2012 Discussion:
- See notes in the announcement section and JC-13.2 meeting minutes.

Jeff Jarvis recommends the following changes to MIL-PRF-38534 Appendix D:
1. Preconditioning should apply to all packages including SMT (flip chip device with underfill and
mounted to the next assembly). If a SMT device is mounted to an assembly (no matter what the seal is),
then the SMT should see the pre-conditioning, even if it is just an epoxy attach, but especially if it involves
a reflow oven or hood or air knives or a soldering iron. If it involves attaching wires or braids (19500 talks
about this some) to assemble it at the next level, then the SMT device should be preconditioned.
2. The sequence for Group C cavity and non cavity is missing the second 100 temperature cycles.
3. The open construction should have the same flow as the open cavity for moisture and cycling with a note
that unless the open construction will be in a hermetic enclosure (which is implied since temperature cycle
calls out a nitrogen atmosphere). As predicted in committee meetings, some people are making open
devices without regard for the next higher assembly, and, as a result, they are not putting them through
appropriate testing. Since the temperature cycle requirements state the chamber is supposed to be in
nitrogen, the implication is the next higher assembly is expected to be a dry nitrogen environment. If the
next higher assembly is not in a hermetic dry nitrogen atmosphere, then the test is not valid. Therefore,
state it in the open construction paragraph that the flow developed in this spec is intended for a dry nitrogen
environment at the next assembly level?
4. If the level "L" number of temp cycles is twice that of the level "F" for the cavity and non cavity device,
would it not make sense in the open device to have level "L" twice the number of cycles as level "F" also?
5. If moisture is not used in the open device flow, then the cycling by itself is totally out of bed with 38535,
for hermetic and non hermetic, 38534 hermetic (-65C to +150C 100 cycles for hermetic construction),
automotive AEC (Q100, 1000 cycles -55C to +125C), and JESD 47 (see attached). If the open device is not
attached to something, then it is just a die by itself and it should be meeting known good die requirements.
If it is attached to a substrate or daughter board, then it has interfaces and it should meet typical device
temperature cycling. We believe that if you put the moisture in sequence with the 200 cycles (100 then
100), then 200 cycles is good for most applications, but if you don’t, then 200 cycles (and certainly 100
cycles) is not adequate to evaluate non hermetic devices of any construction type for most military
applications.
JESD47G-01.pdf
As written, the Army would not accept any levels for any construction for most of our applications, but
would use Class F for ground systems requiring 5 or 7 years life or for non-tactical hardware.
Comments: JC-13.5 does agree that open construction non-hermetic devices could be removed from
Appendix D as this type of device is not common and would normally be controlled via a SCD. The only
advantage would be to be to keep as is and use the spec as a guideline. Further review of the comments is
required by JC-13.5.

As a result of the TM 2004 task group meeting, it was determined that lead plating is not
part of the reject criteria, and it is recommended that criteria be specified in the MILPRF-38534 package element evaluation process to verify the lead plating integrity. TM
2025, Adhesion of lead finish or updating TM 2004 should be reviewed by committee for
possible inclusion into the package evaluation process.
Comments: See task group meeting minutes herein. Ron Bradshaw made a motion to
update the charter of TG 167 to include a test condition for lead plating. The motion was
seconded by Evon Bennett, and approved with 8 yes votes and 3 abstentions.

During the JC-13 meeting about overlapping device definitions for 38535 and 38534, it
was suggested from JC-13.2 to remove the allowance for hybrid manufacturers to build
single die hybrids. It was also suggested that if a single die hybrid is to be built, 38534
should have flows similar to 5004 and 5005.
Comments: JC-13.5 initial thought is to not remove the allowance currently in 38534. It
was inserted into 38534 to fill a void in the market when obsolescence and customer
packaging is required. Aerospace would support inserting a single die hybrid if 38535
type requirements were inserted into 38534.
10.0
NEW BUSINESS
-
It was requested that subcommittee chairs release meeting minutes and agendas
as soon as possible so that companies can fund support.
-
Joe Buben from DLA requested methods for removing device marking. Options
include erasing or solvents to remove the part marking. Caution should be taken
when erasing marking from a gold plated surface as the gold will be thinned.
-
It was requested that task group chairs submitting a ballot onto the JEDEC voting
machine also provide a copy of the material to be balloted to Joe Buben at DLA
and Anduin Touw, G-12 Chair.
-
No other new business items will be discussed until current task groups are
completed. JC-13.5 currently has a list of potential actions to work on.
11.0
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Future Meeting
Dates212.ppt
12.0
ADJOURNMENT
Dan Miller made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 4:00 PM on February 8, 2012 and Bo Raines
seconded the motion.
Reviewed / corrected and authorized for release:
3/8/12
Daniel Miller, Chairman
3/8/12
Date of Legal Approval
This meeting was conducted in accordance with JEDEC Legal Guides and JEDEC Manual of
Organization and Procedure.
Disclaimer: All Liaison Reports, Government Reports, Technical Reports, Task Group Reports and
general meeting minutes contained herein are believed to be accurate, but the accuracy or completeness
thereof is not guaranteed.