MIL-PRF Hybrid QML Status SPWG 2017

Transcription

1 MIL-PRF Hybrid QML Status SPWG 2017 Dr. Jeffrey H. Sokol The Aerospace Corporation Senior Engineering Specialist Parts, Materials and Processes Dept. Electronics and Sensors Division April 4-5, The Aerospace Corporation

2 Agenda Topics of Discussion Hybrid Status Hybrid Specification Revision Status MIL-PRF MIL-STD-883 MIL-STD JC-13/G-12 Task Groups Hybrid Concerns Feedback from SPWG Audience 2

3 Purpose: MIL-PRF Hybrid Status Latest QML (QPDSIS) is dated 9 FEB 2017 Number of Certified Class H/K Manufacturing Sites/Lines: 40 H Level: 40 K Level: 21 Cobham (Plainview), Broadcom (formally Avago), API Technologies RF/Microwave & Microelectronics (Marlborough), API Microelectronics, Ltd. (UK), Crane Electronics, DDC, DDC/API Technologies Corp RF2M (UK), IR (San Jose), IR (Leominster), L3 Communications (Cincinnati), MSK Products (Anaren), Micropac-Custom, Micropac-Opto, Micropac- Power, Mercury (formally Microsemi) Memory & Storage Sol ns, Microsemi HPG, Natel (Carson City), Natel Engineering, Teledyne Microwave, Teledyne Microelectronics, VPT/Delta, RHA Level: 7 Crane, MSK Products, Cobham (Plainview), VPT, Microsemi HPG, IR (San Jose) & IR (Leominster) 3

4 Specification Status MIL-PRF Revision J Dated 13 March 2015 MIL-STD-883 Revision K, Change Notice 1 Dated 20 July 2016 MIL-STD Revision A, Change Notice 2 Dated 19 August

5 MIL-PRF General Specification for Hybrids FSC: 5962, Revision J dated 13 March 2015 The following major changes were made in this revision: Paragraph , electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitivity identifier, has revised footnotes. Class 1A may only be verified at 250V and not at 499V. Paragraph C , Qualification to electrostatic discharge sensitivity (ESDS) classes, was revised to add an alternate method for classifying devices as Class 0 or 1A as a function of meeting 250V only. Table C-Xc, Group C Testing, subgroup 5 (ESD) was changed to incorporate alternate method in C Paragraph D.8.5, Qualification to electrostatic discharge sensitivity (ESDS) classes, was changed to be congruent with C for non-hermetic devices. No new information since 2016 SPWG 5

6 MIL-PRF-38534, Cont d Major changes, cont d: Table D-XVI, Group C testing for cavity and non-cavity nonhermetic PI/QML testing, was changed to incorporate alternate method in D.8.5. E.5.2.bb, Class I, major changes (ESD), was changed to indicate a part number change. In addition a note defining why a die manufacturer change, concerning ESD, is considered a major change for Class K even if it is the same part number. Table E-1 bb, Testing guidelines for major product/process changes (ESD) added C5 for PI. Appendix G, Radiation Hardness Assurance (RHA) Requirements for Hybrid Microcircuits and Multichip Modules was completely rewritten. No new information since 2016 SPWG

7 MIL-PRF-38534, Cont d Major changes, cont d: Added new Appendix D for Non-hermetic Device Technologies Changed paragraph E.5.2.j under Class 1 major changes to reflect the element attach and/or mass distribution details for magnetics, stacked elements, insulated wires, flex circuit or high profile elements. Changed Table E-I j to reflect change in paragraph E.5.2.j. In major change column changed Increase in element area from QML listing to Change in element attach area or a change in the distribution of the component mass relative to the area of attachment. In explanation for recommended test guideline column added This affects the attach interface. Before first sentence. No new information since 2016 SPWG 7

8 MIL-STD-883 Test Method FSC: 5962, Revision K dated April 25, 2016 and Change Notice 1 dated July 20, 2016 The following changes were added in Rev K and CN1 that may impact hybrids TM 1005, Steady State Life (6 changes) TM 1010, Temperature Cycle Cycling (2 changes) TM 1014, Seal (significant rewrite) TM 1015, Burn-in (4 changes) TM 1018, Internal Gas Analysis (significant rewrite) TM 1034, Dye Penetrant Test (2 changes) TM 2001, Constant Acceleration (4 changes) TM 2003, Solderability (rewrite as standalone method not dependent on J- STD-002) TM 2009, External Visual (7 changes) 8

9 JC-13/G-12 Task Groups JC-13 Digital vs. Film X-ray TM & Requirements Requirements for real-time X-ray such as dose, time, etc. that are not of issue with film. JC-13/G12 Leak Rate Issues in 883 & 750 MS883, TM1014 leak rate issues concerning tightening Class V limits. JC-13/G12 RGA MS883, TM1018 RGA requirements discussion to revise to be nearly congruent with MS750. JC-13.1 MIL-PRF slash sheet specification for combined TID and Neutron effects and incorporation of ELDRS requirements in MS750, TM JC-13.4 Subcommittee Meeting (Radiation Effects and RHA) 9

10 JC-13/G-12 Task Groups (Cont d) JC-13.5 TG 172 QML Requirements Review and revision of MP38534 QML requirements. Group C is being revised to improve QML & PI flows. Class K periodicity for QML Group C. JC-13.5 MP38534 Element Evaluation Requirements Review Requirements being revised to meet TOR and G-11 requirements. Revised package requirements. G-12 Radiation RHA Subcommittee Meeting JC-13 X-ray Seal Void Criteria Methodology and criteria to determine how the 75% voiding requirement is to be verified. JC-13.2 considering requesting that 75% voiding requirement be relaxed to allow for 95% voiding. 10

11 Hybrid Concerns Class K does not require Group C for every lot. Group C Periodic Inspection (PI) is inadequate and has been improperly used for qualification. Revised Group C and PI requirements should address this. Present Element Evaluation tests all elements as though they are ICs or ceramic capacitors. Discrete semiconductors and Passives are incorrectly tested. New JEDEC proposed element evaluation requirements will address this for Class K. JEP142, Obtaining and Accepting Material for Use in Hybrid/MCM Products guidelines may not be equal to and does not replace Element Evaluation requirements. Selection of die is uncontrolled. Commercial die treated same as QML controlled die. New JEDEC proposed element evaluation requirements will address this for Class K. 11

12 Hybrid Concerns (Cont d) Sample size does not appear to be based upon a statistically significant criteria for either Element Evaluation or device qualification pass/fail criteria. New element evaluation requirements will address this for Class K. Element Evaluation for microcircuits and semiconductors burn-in and Life Test may not achieve adequate junction temperatures, nor adequate parametric coverage. Hybrid manufacturer s customers are not requiring MP3835 compliant devices This is leading to inadequate production of MP3835 compliant Class K devices being produced which can lead to manufacturer decertification for Class K by DLA which will impact the industrial base. 12

13 Hybrid Concerns (Cont d) Very high DPA failure rate observed. Is this really a high reliability part? 2016 SPWG DPA presentation showed a failure rate of 34.1% for 2015 vs. 34.7% for During Hybrid burn-in and life test, not all parts junction temperatures may meet the requirements of MIL- STD-883, Method What does this imply about the reliability of the hybrid? So called qualified QML product that does not meet the analyses requirements of E.4.2. In particular, the lack of a worst case analysis that establishes the Conformance Inspection limits. 13

14 Feedback from SPWG Audience All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners. 14