• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 33 subscribers
  • Views 812 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.

TPD4E05U06: Footprint compatibility with ESD3v3u4ULC

Saqib Mohammad
Expert 4040 points
Part Number: TPD4E05U06
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TPD4E02B04

Hello Team,

I wanted to confirm if the TPD4E05U06 would be compatible with the ESD3V3U4ULC - everything seems to check out except the only difference was that on the TI part there is a gap in the GND pads, vs. the other part there is one continuous GND pad - the layout would be the same "flow through" routing, but is there any concerns with the solder mask/paste filling the gap and causing some electrical issue down the line?

Thank you for your input!

Best

  • 0
    TI__Genius 12410 points

    Hello,

    As far as the footprint goes there is no problem using them on the same footprint. I do not see a problem with having the extra solder mask in between because those pins are shorted together anyways.

    However, I do have a question on why would you use the TPD4E05U06 in place of the ESD3V3U4ULC instead of the TPD4E02B04 which has a working voltage of 3.6 V which is same as the ESD3V3U4ULC.

    Regards,

    Cameron

  • 0 in reply to Cameron Phillips
    TI__Expert 4040 points
    Hello Cameron,

    There is no particular reason why the TPD4E05U06 was being considered, mostly because of familiarity of the device and cost, Is there any concern with using this device? would it function well if used in place of the ESD3v3, or would the 02B04 be preferred due to the matching working voltage specs?

    thanks!

    Best,
    Saqib
  • 0 in reply to Saqib Mohammad
    TI__Genius 12410 points
    Saqib,
    The TPD4E05U06 would work in the system because the working voltage is higher but I do not know if it will provide enough protection for the device being protected. I would recommend TPD4E02B04 for a more robust protection.
    Regards,
    Cameron