STDA039 July   2026 F28377D-SEP , INA901-SP , SN54SLC8T245-SEP , TPS7A4501-SP , TPS7H1121-SEP , TPS7H1121-SP , TPS7H5020-SEP , TPS7H5020-SP , TPS7H6101-SEP

 

  1.   1
  2.   Abstract
  3. 1Introduction
  4. 2Space ‑ Electronics Design Landscape
  5. 3Importance of a Single Controlled Baseline
  6. 4The Steps to Take to Upscreen a COTS Device
    1. 4.1 Step 1 – Identifying the Candidates
    2. 4.2 Step 2 – Preparation for Single‑Event Effect (SEE) Testing (Opening)
    3. 4.3 Step 3 – Single‑Event Effect (SEE) Testing
    4. 4.4 Step 4 – Running TID Tests and Evaluating Radiation Lifetime
  7. 5Lead‑Time and Yield Responsibility
  8. 6Summary
  9. 7References

Step 3 – Single‑Event Effect (SEE) Testing

During actual SEE testing at 60MeV, the typical attrition pattern is:

  • ≅25 % of the remaining candidates fail outright.
  • ≅50 % pass but only with constraints (for example, limited voltage, temperature range, drifts, and so forth).
  • ≅25 % pass without any constraints, leaving usually three devices from the originally assumed five candidates for further evaluation.
Note: Power FETs or power devices in general have a significantly lower success probability.
TPS7H6101-SEP F28377D-SEP INA901-SP TPM9R00-SP TPS7H5020-SEP TPS7H5020-SP TPS7H1121-SP TPS7A4501-SP SN54SLC8T Power FETs (MOSFETs) or Power
                    Devices in General Have a Significantly Lower Success Probability Figure 4-2 Power FETs (MOSFETs) or Power Devices in General Have a Significantly Lower Success Probability

Further, complex ICs such as MCUs or ADCs—with many configuration options—require sophisticated test software. In practice a tradeoff must be made between the effort invested in developing a comprehensive test program and the time and residual risk incurred by incomplete test coverage. Typically, the test program ends up being rather use-case specific, which needs to be kept in mind if the results are considered for future designs and use cases as well.