DatumQuality Network Request an audit

Home / Guides / Wire-bond process audit

Guide

What a wire-bond process audit looks at

Wire bonding is where a general auditor and a process specialist see different things. These are the checks our auditors work through on a wire-bond line, with what good practice looks like and the gap we most often expect to find.

Doc. no.
DQN-GDE-01
Revision
A
Process
Wire bond
Status
Draft · pending specialist review
How to use this guide It describes method, not a checklist we impose. On an audit the requirement is always your specification and the supplier’s own control plan. Test methods and limits differ by customer and package; where we name a standard below, it’s one that’s commonly used, not one that applies by default.
  1. Bond program and parameter control

    We look at
    Whether the program on each bonder matches the released revision, who can change parameters, and how changes are approved and recorded.
    Good looks like
    Programs under revision control, edit access restricted by login, every change linked to an approved request.
    Common gap
    Parameters adjusted at the machine to clear a problem, and never written back into the released program.
  2. Capillary management

    We look at
    Capillary type against the program, life limits by touchdown count, and change records.
    Good looks like
    Life counters that reset only when a change is recorded, and the capillary lot traceable to the product bonded with it.
    Common gap
    Counters reset without a change, or capillary lot not recorded on the lot traveller.
  3. Wire material

    We look at
    Wire type and diameter against the bill of materials, storage conditions, shelf life once opened, and lot traceability.
    Good looks like
    Opened spools labelled with an expiry, and stored as the wire maker specifies; copper wire handled to limit oxidation.
    Common gap
    Partly used spools returned to stock without an opening date.
  4. Free air ball formation

    We look at
    How free air ball size and shape are checked, and when.
    Good looks like
    Checks after every capillary or wire change and after electronic flame-off adjustments, not only at set-up.
    Common gap
    Checks done at initial set-up only.
  5. Bond strength monitoring

    We look at
    Ball shear and wire pull frequency and sample size against the control plan, the test method, and whether failure modes are recorded as well as force.
    Good looks like
    Tests at the stated frequency on every shift, failure mode recorded for each pull, results charted. Commonly referenced methods include JESD22-B116 for ball shear and MIL-STD-883 Method 2011 for bond pull.
    Common gap
    Testing less often than the control plan says, as in the finding in our sample report.
  6. Test equipment

    We look at
    Calibration of shear and pull testers, how shear tool height is set, and whether the test itself has been through measurement system analysis.
    Good looks like
    Calibrated testers, a defined shear height set-up, and a gauge study on the test.
    Common gap
    The tester is calibrated but the test method has never been studied, so operator-to-operator variation is unknown.
  7. Reaction plan

    We look at
    What happens when a bond test fails: how far back product is held, and how it is dispositioned.
    Good looks like
    Hold everything bonded since the last conforming test, with a documented and approved disposition.
    Common gap
    Only the current magazine is held, not everything back to the last good test.
  8. Non-stick detection

    We look at
    Whether non-stick-on-pad and non-stick-on-lead detection is enabled and verified, and how operators respond to alarms.
    Good looks like
    Detection enabled and periodically verified, a written response procedure, and alarm counts trended.
    Common gap
    Detection sensitivity lowered or turned off to reduce stoppages.
  9. Pad damage and cratering

    We look at
    Whether pads are checked for cratering and damage at a defined frequency, especially with copper wire or thin pad metallisation.
    Good looks like
    A periodic cratering check, with results recorded and reviewed.
    Common gap
    Cratering checked only during qualification, not in production.
  10. Copper wire controls

    We look at
    Forming gas flow and how it is verified, oxidation control, aluminium splash checks, and how the copper process was qualified.
    Good looks like
    Gas flow verified, not just set; splash measured; a qualification that matches the customer’s requirements. AEC-Q006 is commonly referenced for automotive copper wire qualification.
    Common gap
    Gas flow set at installation and never verified.
  11. Heater block and work holder temperature

    We look at
    Whether bond-site temperature is measured, not just the set point displayed.
    Good looks like
    A periodic measurement with a calibrated probe, against a stated tolerance.
    Common gap
    Reliance on the controller display.
  12. Loop profile and wire sweep

    We look at
    How loop height is measured, whether that measurement has been validated, and how wire sweep after moulding is monitored.
    Good looks like
    A validated measurement method, and sweep checked after moulding with its own limits.
    Common gap
    The measuring equipment changed without the measurement being re-validated.
  13. Bonder-to-bonder matching

    We look at
    How a program is transferred between bonders, and how results are correlated.
    Good looks like
    A written matching method with acceptance criteria, used whenever a program moves to another machine.
    Common gap
    Matching depends on one experienced technician, with no written method.
  14. Maintenance and ultrasonic system

    We look at
    Preventive maintenance records, and calibration of the ultrasonic system and transducer.
    Good looks like
    Maintenance on schedule, ultrasonic calibration recorded, and a post-maintenance check before production restarts.
    Common gap
    Production restarts after maintenance without a bond check.
  15. Visual inspection after bonding

    We look at
    Inspection criteria and magnification against the customer’s specification, boundary samples, and inspector qualification.
    Good looks like
    Criteria at the station, boundary samples for each defect type, and inspectors who can explain them.
    Common gap
    Criteria that differ from the customer’s current specification revision.
  16. Operator qualification and set-up

    We look at
    Who is allowed to set up and adjust bonders, and whether their qualification is current.
    Good looks like
    A qualification matrix by task, with set-up restricted to qualified people.
    Common gap
    Qualification expired, while the person still performs set-ups.

Need a wire-bond line audited? Our VDA 6.3 and supplier audits can include an auditor with hands-on wire-bond experience. Start an audit request or see the VDA 6.3 process audit.