• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 9 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 33 subscribers
  • Views 631 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

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.

TI Integrated Circuits

KATHIRAVAN RAMASAMY
Prodigy 10 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: AM26LS31

Recently we have done X-RAY analysis on TI G4 and None G4 Integrated Circuits found some deviations on mechanical properties while TI has confirmed previously both G4-None G4 is are same at performance and its can be interchangeable.

We need TI-experts to verify attached FA report and justify if both IC (G4-None G4 suffix) has interchangeable capabilities.  At current stage our customer are considering those TI-IC we had manufactured are at non-conformance materials. All stock are on-hold. We need clear declaration to UAI.

FA report are attached.

Thank you.

Regards,

Karthik 


0702.QAV-BHE-R21-256- Failure Analysis Report - BH Electronics.pdf

  • 0
    TI__Guru 74352 points

    Karthik,

    Just to confirm, this is confirming the AM26LS31 G4 vs. the AM26LS31 non-G4 silicon, correct? These are functionally the same device, but I'll look more into what the differences are between G4 and non-G4.

    Regards,

    Eric Hackett

  • 0 in reply to Eric Hackett
    TI__Guru 74352 points

    Karthik,

    I looked into this. G4 is the way that TI used to designate Pb-free (lead-free, Green) in a device's orderable part number, and G4 referred to the type of lead plating finish. More information can be found here. The non-G4 may have Pb in it, so you'll have to make the decision based on environmental regulations. The difference shows in the build materials, which you could see in the X-ray images.

    Because different materials are used, different assembly sites were used and why the leadframe structure is different.

    Regards,

    Eric Hackett 

  • 0 in reply to Eric Hackett
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hi Eric,

    Appreciated your reply's but yet my customer are consents if the deviations between both suffix (G4-NG4) are manufactured in such ways where the mechanical properties such as lead frame variance would have affecting their test performance since the value checked from both IC are at different reading.

    The difference reading on value has variance and my customer worried will affect their test performance since their end application are user for medical devices.

    At the same facts, my customer very concern since both IC suffix are at deviations would link to counterfeits product. They also need us to justify from physical part if there is any origin manufacturer TI-marking aside the  printing on labels.  

    Thanks 

    Regards,

    Kathiravan

  • 0 in reply to KATHIRAVAN RAMASAMY
    TI__Guru 74352 points

    Kathiravan,

    Has the customer seen variations in device performance? This wasn't mentioned previously.

    When TI goes through changes in package/assembly site, thorough testing is performed to verify that there aren't significant differences based on the datasheet specification of the device in terms of electrical parameters. If the deviations are too great, then the specification is changed or the process is changed. In this case, this G4 was designated when lead was still included on devices to differentiate between lead-free and devices that had lead in them. All TI materials are lead-free now, so the G4 suffix is irrelevant, and therefore not used on newer devices.

    Differences in function and performance would have been documented when this change was made, if they existed, likely in the form of a datasheet update. If the customer is seeing significant differences in performance between the G4 and non-G4, please let me know what those are and we can address them.

    Regards,

    Eric Hackett

  • 0 in reply to Eric Hackett
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hi Eric,

    Refer the attachments which had analyzed with my customer.

    Customer were consents need clarification on the wire bonding using Al wire Vs Au and the IC differences observed between G4 and Non-G4 option.

    Thank you.

    Regards,

    Karthik


    Comparison studies on TI Line driver IC G4.pdf

  • 0 in reply to KATHIRAVAN RAMASAMY
    TI__Guru 74352 points

    Karthik,

    Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. While functionally these devices will be the same, it's clear through these tests electrical parameter differences exist between these two different part numbers. I'm going to bring this to our quality team and get back to you.

    Regards,

    Eric Hackett 

  • 0 in reply to Eric Hackett
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hi Eric,

    I yet to get reply for my inquiry posted on the June 25,2021,

    We need to resolve this matter because our customer hold all our goods until get solid evidence to Use As the G4 IC since both IC G4-None G4 are approved for interchangeable.

    Thanks.

    Regards,

    Karthik

  • 0 in reply to KATHIRAVAN RAMASAMY
    TI__Guru 74352 points

    Karthik,

    My apologies for the extreme delay here. Can you give more details on how the impedance and current consumption tests were performed? The slight deviations in impedance are more than I would expect, but still not too surprising given the change in materials. And above 2M ohms is high enough impedance in most cases where the actual effects of the difference will be negligible. 

    The current consumption is almost double though, and that should not be the case between a non-G4 and a G4 unit. In the mean time, I'm having the quality team continue to check and make sure these devices are from valid lots. Again, my apologies for the delay.

    Regards,

    Eric Hackett 

  • 0 in reply to Eric Hackett
    TI__Guru 74352 points

    Karthik,

    After looking at this closer with the quality team, we believe the G4 unit is counterfeit. As you pointed out earlier in the thread, the marking is different than what you'd expect from a G4 unit. For a G4 unit, the top marking should be "26C31Q" and when we look this lot up in the system, it does not exist, nor does the location code match where these devices are assembled and tested.

    Can you please get from the customer where they ordered the G4 units? And when they received them? You can also report this at Anti-counterfeit | Quality policies & procedures.

    Regards,

    Eric Hackett