• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 34 subscribers
  • Views 485 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.

SN65HVD233-EP: Test failure_Customer side troubleshooting resulted from this part

Kai Wen Yang
Prodigy 10 points
Part Number: SN65HVD233-EP

Hello Team,

We received a complain from our customer: x9 out of x9 PCAs that we built failed the test.
(Who is dedicated to oil energy services.)

After troubleshooting, the failure is from PN: SN65HVD233MDREP.
The test was passed after replacing the part with a new one.

Our customer discovered some white markings/residues and fracture-like traces on the package 
(We do also see the same white markings/residues on the raw material.)
Could you please help us verify what are these white markings/residues?
(It is just a cosmetic issue or it is something related to function?)
Much appreciated.

  • 0
    TI__Guru 74282 points

    Kai,

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Can you give a bit more details on when the failure occurred in the system? Was there a certain type of testing going on, or some kind of assembly happening?

    And the white markings I'm not sure about, I'll have to talk to our quality team about this. It's not something I've seen before. You said this is on the "raw material", does that mean the devices that haven't been used yet?

    Also, can you share the topside markings of the devices that failed?

    Regards,

    Eric Hackett 

  • 0 in reply to Eric Hackett
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hi Eric

    Thanks so much for your prompt reply.

    Please see below replies to each item:

    (1) When the failure occurred in the system?
    During functional heat test 150degC in the assembly (PCBA).

    (2) Was there certain type of testing on this component……? 
    Yes, assembly level. Testing transmission and reception of valid CAN message to check this CAN xceiver functionality over high temperature.
    The IC doesn’t provide reliable dominant signal (CANL seems pulled up instead of pulled down, resulting in recessive instead of expected dominant output).

    (3) ”raw material”, does that mean the devices that that haven’t been used?
    Yes, the first five pictures in the initial post are already mounted and the last one is the not-used part.
    We observed white residues close to the middle package seal on all of them. 
    (Some of them exhibited fracture-like traces.)

  • 0 in reply to Kai Wen Yang
    TI__Guru 74282 points

    Kai,

    Thanks for this message and thank you for your patience as TI was in a long holiday weekend.

    I understand the issue you're seeing, and it looks like CANL is shorting to CANH somehow while testing. Just so I understand the waveform screenshot from the oscilloscope, is the problematic waveform being driven by the damaged device, and then the correct signals are from other devices on the CAN bus? Or is the transceiver correcting after the heat is removed? Or what exactly is going on?

    Also, can you confirm the topside code on the IC? I want to work with our quality team to see if there is anything significant about this lot of devices. This kind of behavior is not expected from this device, so I'd like to understand a bit more before we go into debug efforts.

    Regards,

    Eric Hackett

  • 0 in reply to Eric Hackett
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hi Eric

    Apologize for late reply.

    The correct signals came from other healthy CAN device that blasted query to the damaged device.(The chamber temperature was kept stable around 150degC.)
    The damaged device always sent incorrect differential CAN waveform as seen in the photo.

    Regarding the topside code, H233EP 17M A8D5 and H233EP 84M AL3C are having low yield.

    We also identified the good one, H233EP 12M AKTF.




    Thank you

    Best regards,
    Kevin 

  • 0 in reply to Kai Wen Yang
    TI__Guru 74282 points

    Kevin,

    Thanks for this information, I just wanted to verify that these weren't counterfeit devices. I was able to locate the lot trace codes you provided in our system. The white markings are likely just a remnant of the assembly process and not related to the failure you are seeing.

    It does look like the CAN bus driver is getting damaged in a way that is causing a low-impedance path to VCC on CANH. If you would like, we could run failure analysis on one of the devices in question, you can initiate that process at our Product Return Portal. In the meantime, I'll give these lot trace codes to our quality engineer to see if there have been any other returns from these lots.

    Regards,

    Eric Hackett