CD4051B: Significant device behavioural change masquerading as a non-issue between datasheet revisions

Part Number: CD4051B

Hi,

We are in the midst of a large production quality spill caused by an un-announced (to us) parameter change in a TI product.

Industry standard practice has been that PCNs announce minor deviations to existing performance levels, not make the updated part incompatible with prior products; that level of change has been treated as an EOL event for the prior part and a new part number for the revised part.

The part in question has been in our allowed manufacturer set (3 vendors) since 2017. The inexplicable change in Vil (details below) is the cause of our quality problem. It has not been detected until recently as our specific drive level still functions as normal in almost all situations, including production test fixtures. In extreme load cases we get a small number of unexpected failures that led to this analysis (Vil<=800mV for the new device, <=4V @ Vcc=15V for earlier product; drive level ~ 950mV normally, failure detected ~1V1).

We are not a military manufacturer and so do not sample validate the datasheet parameters of each device batch prior to loading - I doubt there are (m)any electronic assembly operations that still do this.

We are probably not the only customer you have harmed with this abjectly poor behaviour.

To assist with containing other latent failures, can you please list any other TI devices that went through a similar die shrink and ended up with changes in parameters.

Details:

In 2023, TI updated the long-running CD405xB device from rev. I to J. It looks like a die shrink with significant changes in operation, namely (comparing SCHS0471I to SCHS0471K):

a) Changed Quiescent Idd.
    TSSOP - Significantly increased from 5 to 60uA max 25C 5V,   typ from 40nA to 17uA).
    Note 1. Change actually on p6.
    Other packages – Only significantly increased Idd (@20V typ 25C from 80nA to 18uA).
    Note 1. Change actually on p11.

b) TSSOP - Increased the typ off channel leakage, x40. 
    Note 1. Change actually on p7.
    Other packages – no change (p12) 

c) TSSOP - Increased the max on channel leakage, x2.7. 
    Note 1. Change actually on p7.
    Other packages – no change (p12) 

d) TSSOP - Changed the Vil levels from CMOS ratioed to Vcc to fixed <800mV.
    Change is on p8.
    This is not an 'update', it is a NEW DEVICE;
   
This alone renders the device incompatible with some contemporaneous driving circuits in long-running production circuitry. IT IS NO LONGER COMPATIBLE with earlier CD4051 or current production OnSemi & ST equivalents.
    Other packages – no change (p14) 

e) TSSOP - Increased the max input current, x10. 
    Note 1. Change actually on p8
    Other packages – no change (p13) 

f) Stated Typ timing change, Inh-out turn off
    TSSOP - p9; no change in any max timing values
    Other packages – no change in any max timing values (typ, 15V up to 90ns) (p14) 

g) Updated ESD ratings
    All packages other than TSSOP, no change.
    TSSOP - Note 1

h) Updated typical characteristics
    Note 1. Change actually on p16; lost 5x channel resistance graphs

 

Note 1: This is not an 'update', it is a downgrade to a worse process.

 

Rev L consolidates datasheet double speak by stating that tables were consolidated across packages. THIS MOVES THE SIGNIFICANT DEGRADATION IN rev.J TSSOP PARAMETERS TO ALL DEVICES (a-h above).
This is not a consolidation or an 'update', it is a NEW DEVICE.

TI SHOULD HAVE EOLed CD405x devices in non-TSSOP packages at this point.

 

  • Hi,

    as a postscript, I found a related PCN for this change via Google (PCN20230906004.1.pdfPCN20230906004.1.pdf).

    I have no record of receiving it directly or from our manufacturing facilities - as noted earlier, prior to 2023 we were probably not useing significant TI stock as OnSemi was the primary vendor.

    On page 2, your quality team indicates no anticipated impact to form, fit, or function.

    You may wish to review your team's understanding of the word 'none'.

  • Hello George,

    Thank for the feedback here, we had a more recent PCN regarding these devices at 2025.
    See attached below.

     PCN 20250304001.1 NON NDA SDP.pdf

    This was done to fix the issues like the ones you mentioned from the first PCN. 

    With the current CD4051B units you have, are they gating your design or do you have a workaround?
    We can offer some samples of the newest PCN for you to verify and see if it resolves your issues. 

    Thanks,

    Nir 

  • Hi Nir,

     

    Thanks for the updated PCN.

     

    It does not address my issue, and it looks like TI is not aware of the change they caused.

    To hammer the point home, the reason I specify NXP/Nexperia, OnSemi and TI devices is that this set of vendors has been in business since the 1960's and have corporate quality awareness backed by rigorous quality systems that were created due to early issues in manufacturing and this type of behaviour. This example of surreptitious device change should NEVER have escaped a rigorous system. I may as have specified an unknown Chinese vendor's part with a 1 page datasheet.

     

    As detailed in my original post, the 300mm die variant is a different part to the original CD4051.

    • It has a TTL logic low valid level <=800mV.
    • The original part's logic low valid level was typical CMOS, ratioed to VCC, so <=4000mV @ 15V.

    Long production run, contemporaneous circuits using the CD4051 will not necessarily meet the <800mV Vil limit.

    TI has an entire range of other Muxes with Vil=800mV and assorted Vmax ratings that this die shrink outcome belongs to.

     

    PCN 20250304001.1 refers to revision N of the datasheet.

    My original post used revision O, and the Vil change is still listed.

    I just located a version of the N on Datasheets.org - Vil is the same as revision O

          As an aside, it is very annoying that searching the TI website for SCH047N or specific versions of other documents is not useful:
          https://www.ti.com/sitesearch/en-us/docs/universalsearch.tsp?langPref=en-US&nr=0&searchTerm=SCH047N#q=SCH047N

    The PCN qualification tables do not mention Vil.

    PCN 20250304001.1 does not address my concern.

    The electrical comparison tables in PCN 20250304001.1 look like excerpts from a larger dataset.

    If available, Vil characteristics from PCN trials or ongoing production data would assist us in quantifying the risk of latent field failures in our product, and would be greatly appreciated, eg:

    • Vil_Typ over Vcc, fixed Temp (to determine trend of Vil vs. Temperature).
    • Vil_Typ over Temperature, fixed Vcc (to determine trend of Vil vs. Temperature).
    • Actual per-device Vil histogram of a large number of production lots (to gauge our actual product margin)
    • TI's device margin on Vil_max over the datasheet specification of 800mV (to gauge our actual product margin)

     

    My final request from the original email is still open.

    Please provide a list of all other die shrink products that also incurred a datasheet parameter change.

  • Hello George,

    The goal of the new die variant is to update the design while maintaining the same operation capabilities as the old one. 
    Clearly for this case it was greatly missed, and then mostly fixed with another PCN. 

    There is no capability to acquire older datasheet revision externally, at least not within ti.com. 
    Other websites like you mentioned might have it, but only internally we can pull older revisions. 

    I have checked internally and it seems like the only information about Vil characteristics is what shown in the datasheet. 

    Since the goal of the die shrink initiative is to update the die while maintaining the same operation characteristics, there should be no changes between the datasheets. The case here is an anomaly. 
    If there are any changes in specifications, it will be found under the revision section of the datasheet. 

    It is not feasible from my side to provide such a list.  

    Right now my recommendation is to operate the devices according to the information available in the current datasheet.
    I know this is not ideal and they should be operated same as before, but unfortunately with this device it is not the case. 

    Another option is to use a voltage translator for the logic pins, but I don't know if it feasible from your side. 

    Thanks,

    Nir