SN65HVD1050: SN65HVD1050 data sheet change esd parameter value

Thank you Clemens,

it's a good intuition the difference between bus and logic pins.

But the problem is that I have some old ICs that never fail but the news ones always fail.

I also don't undestand if the standard regulatory references are equivalent or not.

Marco,

What kind of ESD testing is being performed? Clemens is correct in that this is just a datasheet error, but I'm curious what kind of testing is being performed that is now failing. The ESD rating of this device hasn't changed.

Regards,

Eric Hackett 

Hi Eric,

thank you for your interest to our problem.

Transceivers fail on 12Vdc short circuit test because, to be compliant to emc regulatory, needs 51 uH commom-mode choke (see SLLA271–January 2008).

I referred to the ESD specifications because I did not find other parameters to evaluate the pulse transition protection, I imagine provided by internal diodes.

Recent lots fail with 12/14/16 Volts; I used some with "2CK CLZ1" and " 2CK CR8V" marking code, 

But I keep some old ones marked "44T-AKHR" that don't break under the same conditions and above. I tested up to 35V and noticed a particular behavior exceeding 20V: the pulse transient generated by the common mode coil goes down permanently from 70V to 40V, as passing from a "soft" to a "strong" clamping, without compromising the operation of the old line driver.

A simple solution could be the substitution with  the12KV equivalent device, but now we are looking for an answer for our customer claim.

Ciao,

Marco Pivetti

The SN65HVD1050 is rated for up to 200 V with the ISO 7637 test pulses (see the absolute maximum ratings). If your transients have more energy than those, you have to change your board (see SLLA271).

As far as I can see, the die has not changed recently; PCN 20181217000A.2 and PCN 20211123000.2 introduced the roughened lead frame and changed the mold compound.

Yes, I meant all the parameters of the table specifying esd ratings.

I thought the differences between the old (2010) and new (2015) data sheets explained the different behaviour between the old and current devices I tested.

This is not a recent problem, if PCN existed it would be older than those indicated in the 2018 and 2021 PCNs.

Thank you

Marco,

ESD protection won't necessarily indicate protection against voltage transients like a DC short with a CMC. Clemens is correct that the ISO7637 pulse rating will be more indicative for this kind of testing, but even with this we have seen problems with the CAN bus short and CMC testing in older CAN transceivers. 

The markings on the older devices indicate a make in April of 2014, the newer devices indicate 2022 in December, and as Clemens said there weren't any design changes in that time. Can you provide a picture of both sets of devices?

Regards,

Eric Hackett 

Eric,

I explained myself badly, I mentioned the ESD specification only because their values changed between old and new data sheets; I agree with Clemens who explained it as a misprint in revision C and also for ISO763 pulses.

My older devices are marked 2014, Clemens said they haven't been changed recently, and the PCNs he listed (20181217000A.2 and 20211123000.2) I think are 2018 and 2021.

Thank you

Sorry for my insistence

Marco,

No worries, and understood on the ESD point. Let me check the codes you gave to make sure these are indeed the same device. There are multiple versions of this device - SN65HVD1050, SN65HVD1050A, and the SN65HVDA1050A - and I want to make sure what you have are all the same part number. I'll get back to you with a response by the end of business CST 09/27/2023.

Regards,

Eric Hackett 

Eric

The order code is SN65HVD1050DR and the device marking is VP1050.

Explicitly, to solve my problem I would need to figure out if my team neglected a PCN for this transceiver.

Marco Pivetti

Marco,

Sorry for the late reply, but understood. I checked the lot trace codes of both devices just in case, and they are in fact the right part number. Searching through the PCNs again, others I found that are older (from 2009 and 2010) are about the redesign of the initialization circuit, and update of the datasheet to reflect absolute maximum ratings on the logic-level pins. 

You said this is an older problem that you have seen though, so besides the 2014 devices, have you seen it on anything older? The PCNs I listed clearly don't have any effect on the devices you have on hand.

Regards,

Eric Hackett