Breaking News
Engineering Investigations

Controller PCB problem solved

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Simplifried
User Rank
Rookie
re: Controller PCB problem solved
Simplifried   1/25/2012 8:55:14 AM
NO RATINGS
Ravender, what prompted you to look for EMI?

WKetel
User Rank
Rookie
re: Controller PCB problem solved
WKetel   1/28/2012 1:03:37 AM
NO RATINGS
When everything else checks out right, then you look for noise, and often that noise is RFI. I wonder if his employers purchasing people approved the substitution of the "die-shrunk" parts as part of a cost reduction, or if the supplier just made the change to improve their profits. IN many cases it happens that "equivalent parts" are not close enough to function as required, and so problems arise when they are used. It was good detective work indeed.

AussieNeil
User Rank
Rookie
re: Controller PCB problem solved
AussieNeil   1/28/2012 3:14:42 AM
NO RATINGS
I've seen the same problem with a LM324 op amp die shrink. Reduced yield problems were directly correlated with a die shrink (and no, we weren't informed of the change). In this case, the die shrink was physically obvious (even if the electrical performance change wasn't immediately so) as the IC was bought in slice form and cut, glued and wire bonded into the module. In this case, poor layout practice was a factor (a non-inverting input track ran parallel to an output track for perhaps a couple of centimetres), but modules using the larger die didn't break into oscillation. Obviously the smaller transistors in the shrunk die had a higher cut-off frequency and the internal compensation probably didn't work with as much margin as in the larger, "electrically equivalent" IC. I can understand the op amp manufacturer's point of view in not informing us of the change given the part was electrically equivalent and the die shrink part would probably have been approved on the basis of a desktop review anyway...

sharps_eng
User Rank
Rookie
re: Controller PCB problem solved
sharps_eng   1/29/2012 9:28:30 AM
NO RATINGS
@AussieNeil: 'a non-inverting input track ran parallel to an output track for perhaps a couple of _centimetres_' ; doesn't seem like a die SHRINK to me...!?

Sanjib.A
User Rank
CEO
re: Controller PCB problem solved
Sanjib.A   1/29/2012 2:57:05 PM
NO RATINGS
If the manufacturer has not informed the change to a die-shrink part, I guess the chip specifications (mostly the timing specs) published in datasheet has not changed. In that case the only change was in the impedance (especially the inductance) of the package pins. Would this make such a huge impact on the board performance unless there was inherent design issue on board, which was on the border line?

pangliuliu
User Rank
Rookie
re: Controller PCB problem solved
pangliuliu   2/20/2012 6:59:29 AM
NO RATINGS
I'm wondering if a small die shrink: from 50nm to 40nm for the memory chip would lead to EMC issues (Radiated Emission?) The specification sheets are exactly same from the manufacturer.

Sanjib.A
User Rank
CEO
re: Controller PCB problem solved
Sanjib.A   2/26/2012 8:04:58 AM
NO RATINGS
Yes, such a small die shrink should not matter. So I guess it was a pre-existing quality issue, which was missed from previous qualification testing?

Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week