INA240: INA240 vs INA240-Q1

Hi Guang,

is it true that the internal circuitry can have slight changes sometimes?

Kai

Thank you, Guang!

Kai

Hi Guang,

Guang Zhou said:

For INA240 which is the subject of this post, the commercial and automotive versions share identical circuit design, though they are products of completely separate manufacturing flows.

What about QC level, acceptance and inspections where 1 in 1000 parts or 1 in 100 are checked for precision?

Guang Zhou said:

QC, final test and acceptance criteria are part of the manufacturing flow.

The question was not answered as to what qualifies AEC-Q100 over that of non AEC-Q100 standard parts process assumed quantity being the common denominator. Quality control involves end product inspections. So I don't see how Final QC inspection can be part of manufacturing any part or should not be. 

What is AEC q100 qualified?

Guang Zhou said:

QC, final test and acceptance criteria are part of the manufacturing flow.

The question was not answered as to what qualifies AEC-Q100 over that of non AEC-Q100 standard parts process assumed quantity being the common denominator. Quality control involves end product inspections. So I don't see how Final QC inspection can be part of manufacturing any part or should not be. 

What is AEC q100 qualified?

Gl said:

the device has passed the specified stress tests and guarantees a certain level of quality/reliability

This typically means a certain quantity of devices has been tested and guaranteed, not every single device. The question again is how many INA240 are being tested in either case?

It would seem based on the quantity INA240 being tested further insures reliability and accuracy is being maintained. Accuracy is synonymous with the word quality.

• Accuracy:
– Gain:
– Gain Error: 0.20% (Maximum)
– Gain Drift: 2.5 ppm/°C (Maximum)

Hi GI,

Quality and reliability information is online; you can view it here and here. Below is a snippet of the information page:

The accuracy and other device performance parameters, including the ones you mentioned, are guaranteed as listed in the datasheet.

Regards, Guang

Hi Guang,

Guang Zhou said:

The accuracy and other device performance parameters, including the ones you mentioned, are guaranteed as listed in the datasheet.

So the datasheet is saying accuracy is guaranteed by design and not actually tested in any lot quantity even under AEC-Q100 inspections. The qualification standard does not seem to insure the accuracy of each 240 device is being maintained any better than any unqualified device. 

Hi GI,

Where is the datasheet “saying accuracy is guaranteed by design and not actually tested in any lot quantity even under AEC-Q100 inspections”?

Regards, Guang

Guang Zhou said:

Where is the datasheet “saying accuracy is guaranteed by design and not actually tested in any lot quantity even under AEC-Q100 inspections”?

It was a very simple question as to the quantity of devices being tested for accuracy you have not answered. AEC-Q100 TI web page does not give any details as to accuracy being tested. Also the Reliability web page information data was not available. Again accuracy is synonymous with quality control schemes in any testing scenario!

Guang Zhou said:

How we make sure they do is production secretes and will not be shared openly, and this information is irrelevant to end user.

Actually the quantity being batch tested in either production case insures a certain reliability is being maintained by numerical quantifiable example. That was the norm for decades so what changed? Simply saying or writing statements without quantifying how it was determined does not automatically make it a true statement or provide comparison focus for the parts shopper.

Why would anyone buy AEC-Q100 device over that of PWR unless the precision is better in one or the other. In electronics do we not strive to produce a higher level of accuracy in any circuit and select a device based on reliability maintained around the best accuracy being achieved for the $? The old saying goes you often get what you pay for. Not to infer or suggest the PWR package is not accurate or precision, perhaps to much so at times.

Hi Guang,

The reliability bath tub curve appears to be the same for either Q1 or PWR from what is stated, all TI devices expect a similar bath tub curve FIT region. Perhaps the web page has not been reworded to point out Q1 reliability testing extends the typical bath tub curve beyond PWR devices? Edit: Specifically the quantity being tested (SS/LOT) does that define a quantity that FIT the bath tub curve?

https://www.ti.com/qualificationsummary/qualsumm/home?actionId=2800&partNumber=INA240A1QPWRQ1

Otherwise there seems to be no difference in the bath tub curve shape drawn on reliability web page. And if a device is more reliable it should maintain higher degree of precision over time in the Q1 extended bath tub curve FIT region, versus PWR. Some how it does not sound plausible to expect the same precision can be maintained in either case if the tub curve Q1 differs from PWR. At some point on either side of the tub curve precision has to suffer and that is likely time or environment related as to how much to expect for Q1 versus PWR. If we are talking decade versus only a few years it makes sense to choose Q1 over PWR? 

https://www.ti.com/quality/docs/estimator.tsp?OPN=INA240A1QDRQ1

Explanation of Reliability curve does not include the Q1 qualification FIT.

https://www.ti.com/support-quality/reliability/reliability-terminology.html