• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 8 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 49 subscribers
  • Views 305 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

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.

Original question:

[FAQ] How do I ask a technical question on E2E™︎ support forums?

TL074: CDR

Mohd Nasir bin Nawi
Prodigy 10 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TL072, LM324B

Tool/software:

Our team found failure more than 50% at ICT. After checked the differences between passed and failed board and found difference at this part number TL074CDR.

Kindly help to check with supplier. We observed different marking on the component body between the pass and fail components. We need TI to please advise on the difference/ changes between these 2 IC’s. Please treat this as urgent case as we are having high failures and possible shipment delinquency if not resolved at the soonest.

Body marking on passed board

Body marking on failed board

Incoming history:

Item

Manufacturing Part #

Supplier

Packing Size

Receipt Number

Order Number

Receiving Date

Date Code

AGIH-VR-1826-1622

TL074CDR

SP7U1436X

1250

WR6276888

70GL17208

10/9/2024 10:14

2433

AGIH-VR-1826-1622

TL074CDR

SP7U1436X

1250

WR6276888

70GL17208

10/9/2024 10:14

2433
  • 0
    Guru 298340 points

    Both markings look OK (the TL072 is made at multiple assembly sites).

    Independently from the marking, a new die was introduced; see PCN# 20221219006.1. The guaranteed datasheet limits have not changed, but it is possible that your test relies on characteristics beyond these limits. Please specify exactly what test conditions you're using and what the pass/fail criteria is. (One obvious change is that the new die supports a wider output voltage range; if this is your test problem, just increase the limits.)

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 23598 points

    Mohd,

    I agree with Clemens  comments about the marking looking ok as well as the PCN.  Additionally, I will point out the TI Anti-counterfeit policy. The key point of this policy is that the devices need to be purchased from an authorized distributors.  Assuming you purchase through an authorized distributor, you should not have a concern regarding counterfeit devices.  If you provide more detail on the specific issue (failure) you are having we can take a closer look in try to identify the problem. 

    Best regards, Art

  • 0 in reply to Clemens Ladisch
    Prodigy 10 points

    MPN# TL074CD Failure.pdf

    Hi, above file I share you the failure occur at our site and our analysis for this issue. 

    The failure we got at in circuit test is at analog test. The readings obtained is around 0.98~1.4 V. While the upper limit is 5.88V and lower limit is 5.32V.

    This failure is more than 75% drift from our initial test setup. We cannot afford to widen the limit as the limit reading is too wide from the original. Please also specify the output

    voltage range that you mentioned wider than initial part.

  • 0 in reply to Mohd Nasir bin Nawi
    Guru 298340 points

    Are U14 and U15 actually powered? I'd guess they are not, and the new clamping diodes from the input pins to V+ clamp the Lx_MONITOR signals.

    The LM324B would have overvoltage-tolerant inputs.

  • 0 in reply to Mohd Nasir bin Nawi
    TI__Mastermind 23598 points

    Mohd,

    The device was updated with a die that includes ESD protection diodes on the input and output.  The old die did not have these.  See image below of the new arrangement.  It isn't clear to me how your test is done, but I think the addition of the ESD diodes is likely the difference.  This change should not impact normal operation of the device so I think Clemens is correct and perhaps you are doing an unpowered test.  If the test does have power applied, please specify the input signal and supply voltages.

    best regards, Art

  • 0 in reply to Art Kay
    Prodigy 10 points

    Yes, we do unpowered test here. But the part itself has different reading when measured raw part between leads compared to good part.

    Are these differences caused by the die?

    Good Raw Part Measurement (OLD)

    Bad Raw Part Measurement (NEW)

     

     

    Pin 1 to 11(-15v)

    1.400v

    Pin 1 to 11(-15v)

    0.813v

    Pin 2 to 11(-15v)

    0.672v

    Pin 2 to 11(-15v)

    0.850v

    Pin 3 to 11(-15v)

    0.673v

    Pin 3 to 11(-15v)

    0.849v

    Pin 4 to 11(-15v)

    0.579v

    Pin 4 to 11(-15v)

    0.678v

    Pin 5 to 11(-15v)

    0.673v

    Pin 5 to 11(-15v)

    0.849v

    Pin 6 to 11(-15v)

    0.671v

    Pin 6 to 11(-15v)

    0.849v

    Pin 7 to 11(-15v)

    1.401v

    Pin 7 to 11(-15v)

    0.813v

    Pin 8 to 11(-15v)

    1.404v

    Pin 8 to 11(-15v)

    0.813v

    Pin 9 to 11(-15v)

    0.671v

    Pin 9 to 11(-15v)

    0.804v

    Pin 10 to 11(-15v)

    0.673v

    Pin 10 to 11(-15v)

    0.848v

    Pin 11(-15v)

    GND -15v

    Pin 11(-15v)

    GND -15v

    Pin 12 to 11(-15v)

    0.674v

    Pin 12 to 11(-15v)

    0.849v

    Pin 13 to 11(-15v)

    0.672v

    Pin 13 to 11(-15v)

    0.849v

    Pin 14 to 11(-15v)

    1.403v

    Pin 14 to 11(-15v)

    0.813v

     

    One of the failures occurred is at CR49 (refer circuit below). The testing will measure the reading at node L1_Monitor (connected to TL074CDR) to ACOM.

    For this test, our nominal value should be around 5.6V. However using the new part, we get around 1.4V which shows 75% drift in reading compared to the original nominal.

    Are these differences also caused by the die?

  • 0 in reply to Mohd Nasir bin Nawi
    TI__Mastermind 23598 points

    Mohd,

    1. The two die are different but have similar performance.  That is how the data sheet limits did not change by the introduction of the new die.
    2. The diode measurements in the powered off condition are not meaningful.  The old die did not have ESD protection diodes and the new die does have ESD diodes.  The ESD protection diodes will not impact the normal operation of the device.  They will only make it more robust against ESD.  The vast majority of op amps have ESD diodes, only very old devices do not have these structures. For future posts please focus on the powered operation of the op amp and not powered down ESD diode measurements.
    3. For your actual application the two devices should act the same.  I understand that in your case they do not.  In order for me to help you debug this issue, you will have to show a full schematic with measured input voltages, power supply voltages, and output voltages.  Also, let me know the expectation for the output signal versus the input signal.  With all this information I can calculate and simulate the circuit, but I cannot do that when you only show a portion of the circuit.  Make sure when you provide the circuit that all the component values are legible.

    Sorry for the difficulty you are having and I hope we can resolve them soon.  

    Best regards, Art

  • 0 in reply to Art Kay
    Guru 298340 points

    You did not mention any failures during actual operation. If only the ICT fails, then you just need to change the test limits.