This thread has been locked.
If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.
Part Number: SM320F2812-EP
I need SEE related information for the following part.
More specifically I need the SEE cross-section (cm2)
A similar Ti part with a published SEE cross-section will work as well.
Was the actual part SEU tested or was a similar part tested?
Was the part tested with protons or neutrons?
In reply to Wade VonBergen:
In reply to Casey Irvin:
"Energy>10MeV:the flux for 8202 feet altitude and 60° latitude is 200 n/cm2/h.1MeV<Energy<10MeVDue to lower SEE thresholds of smaller geometry devices (generally below 100 nm) for these devices whencalculating SEE rates the flux of neutrons between 1 and 10 MeV should be added to the 6000 n/cm2 per hourThe flux for 8202 feet altitude and 60° latitude is 348 n/cm2/h."
The 10MeV neutron cut-off came from the original JEDEC JESD89 and 89A. At the time of the A revision we discussed extending neutron flux down to 1MeV but there was not enough data to justify doing that. Fully agree that as the critical charge has dropped it makes sense to drop the min neutron energy to 1 or 2 MeV. There is a JESD89B revision coming soon and they may drop it in there but until then Emin is 10MeV.
During the discussions we did a rough calculation and found that assuming Emin ~ 10MeV then NYC sea-level is ~ 13 n/cm2-hr. Dropping the Emin to 1MeV gave a flux of about 20 n/cm2-hr. Not a huge change.
Using the JEDEC specified tool that we set up for calculating neutron fluxes (www.seutest.com/.../FluxCalculator.cgi) with the 10MeV cutoff, for your conditions alt:8202 feet and 60 N latitude I get: 7.83 x 13 n/cm2-hr ~ 101 n/cm2-hr if you assume conservatively that you double the flux by dropping Emin to 1MeV you get 202 n/cm2-hr. Hope this helps. Rob
In reply to Robert Baumann:
Robert, thank you for your answers to this, I am working with Casey on this project.
Can you state what the cross sectional area of the component is and with the comparison to the customer calculated flux value of 348n/cm2/h, is a lower calculated flux number for the component better or worse? Does a flux of 348n/cm2/h mean that a part of 202n/cm2/hr will not survive?
All content and materials on this site are provided "as is". TI and its respective suppliers and providers of content make no representations about the suitability of these materials for any purpose and disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to these materials, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement of any third party intellectual property right. TI and its respective suppliers and providers of content make no representations about the suitability of these materials for any purpose and disclaim all warranties and conditions with respect to these materials. No license, either express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise, is granted by TI. Use of the information on this site may require a license from a third party, or a license from TI.
TI is a global semiconductor design and manufacturing company. Innovate with 100,000+ analog ICs andembedded processors, along with software, tools and the industry’s largest sales/support staff.