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.
Hi,
We have designed in the ISO7721 as a replacement alternative for Silicon Labs isolators. However, we did not manage to find any FIT related data from the online tool
http://www.ti.com/quality/docs/estimator.tsp#resultstable
A search for ISO7721, ISO7721FDWR yields no results.
We require details of the endurance test including number of samples assessed, number of test hours, failure rate, test temperature, etc,.... (ie, the usual results obtained from the online tool)
Can this be provided as soon as possible ?
Hi Christopher,
Thank you for your patience. See below:
DEVICE |
MTBF |
FIT RATE |
MTBF CONF LEVEL |
MTBF USAGE TEMP |
ACTIVATION ENERGY |
MTBF SAMPLE SIZE |
MTBF TEST TEMP |
MTBF NUM FAILS |
TEST DURATION |
ISO7721FDWR |
2.50E+09 |
0.4 |
60 |
55 |
0.7 |
47098 |
125 |
0 |
1000 |
Best regards,
Dan
Thank you for your reply Dan, really appreciate it.
One final confirmation in regards to your answer.
I see that it is stated "MTBF SAMPLE SIZE" to be 47098. Does it mean that in total, for this device silicon, 47098 samples were assessed at a test temperature of 125 degC for 1000 hours and there were 0 failures ? (ie , total equivalent number of test hours is 47098000 hours )
Hi Dan,
Would that not make the FIT 0.5 ? Because based on the data, there should be a FIT of 0.25 per die, and if like you mention, you cater for two dies, then the combined FIT should be 0.5, is it not ? Or is there some common mode failures that I am not aware of here (ie, packaging, isolation barrier, etc..)
Of course, 0.1 FIT is statistically insignificant, but I would like to have more insights on the thinking of TI regarding this peculiar case (ie, why 0.4 FIT instead of 0.5 FIT as per the test results)
Best
Christopher
Hi Christopher,
I talked this over with our quality engineer some more. We calculate a 0.2 FIT and double it for 0.4 FIT. He said that you can use the 0.5 FIT number if you like since your math leads to 0.25 instead of 0.2. Sorry I don't have a better answer than that for you.
Best regards,
Dan