Explosion of 74HC14 IC in Old Stock

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the unexpected explosion of a 74HC14 integrated circuit during testing, focusing on potential causes, preventative measures, and the implications of using older stock components. Participants explore various hypotheses related to electrical damage, manufacturing defects, and the effects of long-term storage on the chips.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reports an explosion of a 74HC14 IC upon power application, describing the incident in detail.
  • Some participants suggest that the chip may have been inserted incorrectly or previously damaged, while others propose manufacturing defects as a possible cause.
  • Concerns are raised about the "popcorn effect" due to long-term storage, which could lead to degradation and potential short circuits.
  • A participant mentions the importance of checking other chips from the same batch for cracks and suggests baking the remaining stock before use.
  • Discussion includes the need for current-limiting measures when powering up old circuits to prevent damage.
  • Another participant shares an experience with oxidized leads causing intermittent failures in a different batch of prototypes, drawing parallels to the current situation.
  • Some participants question whether the chip was simply defective from the start, while others consider the possibility of initial overshoot during power application as a contributing factor.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the cause of the explosion, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the potential for manufacturing defects or damage due to improper handling, while others emphasize the need for further investigation into the condition of the remaining chips.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the age of the components, storage conditions, and the potential for electrical damage, but do not resolve these issues. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the exact cause of the incident.

trurle
Messages
508
Reaction score
207
TL;DR
Searching mechanism and prevention for observed anomaly with rapid unscheduled disassembly of 74HC14 IC
Recently i am trying to put in use a stock of old 74x series microchips manufactured around ~2000 AD.

Unfortunately, one of microchips 74HC14 (hex schmitt trigger inverter) in SOIC-14 package have exploded in test setup in the moment the power was applied.
Loud "popping" sound, flash of blue light, and corner of package around pin 14 (Vdd), measuring around 2mm, shattered. Exposed lead frame from pins 14 and 13 has no visible damage. Chip appears to be "open circuit" for supply current afterward though.

Did anybody experienced similar behavior before? Any ways to avoid it?

Operating conditions were "normal" - AC-DC voltage converter with 5V output (which turned out to be still ok after incident), and either weak pull-ups or ground ties at schmitt trigger inputs.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Most likely was inserted in the socket backwards.

2nd most likely, had been previously damaged electrically.

3rd most likely, replace 'backwards', above, with 'incorrectly.'

4th most likely, (the generic answer) manufacturing defect. (This one is especially useful when you don't want to take blame. :wink:)

Cheers,
Tom
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn, DaveE and trurle
Tom.G said:
Most likely was inserted in the socket backwards.

2nd most likely, had been previously damaged electrically.

3rd most likely, replace 'backwards', above, with 'incorrectly.'

4th most likely, (the generic answer) manufacturing defect. (This one is especially useful when you don't want to take blame. :wink:)

Cheers,
Tom
This is SOIC, not DIP. Connected by reflow soldering without socket.
I checked the orientation and soldering. All pins were connected correctly. This leave electrical (ESD?) damage or manufacturing defect as possible culprits. Never before observed ESD damage to lead to actual explosion though. Usually it results in just non-responsive input.
 
Singular event or it happened for more than one IC the similar way?
It may be:
- accident
- since it is from an older stock, maybe popcorn effect? Usually it is just popping, but long term storage might lead to degradation too (=> short circuit => bond wires acts as fuses). Maybe worth checking the other chips from the same stock for cracks.
 
Rive said:
Singular event or it happened for more than one IC the similar way?
It may be:
- accident
- since it is from an older stock, maybe popcorn effect? Usually it is just popping, but long term storage might lead to degradation too (=> short circuit => bond wires acts as fuses). Maybe worth checking the other chips from the same stock for cracks.
Singular event in the batch of 5 prototypes.
Regarding popcorn effect - possible indeed. The storage conditions were far from optimal, and duration was too long. Popcorn effect would be more likely at reflow rather than at functional test stage though..
 
trurle said:
Summary:: Searching mechanism and prevention for observed anomaly with rapid unscheduled disassembly of 74HC14 IC

AC-DC voltage converter with 5V output (which turned out to be still ok after incident)
What kind of supply? Does it have current-limit capability? Maybe when bringing up old circuits (or even new ones) for the first time, turn the current-limit down and slowly ramp up the voltage to 5V while monitoring the current to look for any issues. That's usually how we first bring up new ASIC prototypes...
 
trurle said:
Popcorn effect would be more likely at reflow rather than at functional test stage though..
For the 'pop' part, yes. But it can blow only/if it's powered up. I would check the other ones for cracks and try to find a way to bake the remaining stock before use anyway.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: trurle
berkeman said:
What kind of supply? Does it have current-limit capability? Maybe when bringing up old circuits (or even new ones) for the first time, turn the current-limit down and slowly ramp up the voltage to 5V while monitoring the current to look for any issues. That's usually how we first bring up new ASIC prototypes...
Current limiter on 700mA is present, but it is not controllable (hardwired inside power brick). I indeed tested 1st prototype only with workbench power supply at low current limit (20 mA) and it has no issues.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Another thing to consider is oxidized leads, we had built a batch of prototypes with 1 year old MCU's that were apparently not sealed properly, everything looked ok till we powered units up and they would randomly roman candle on us. Mind you the MCU didn't blow, it popped the power modules it was driving.

Turned out the problem was oxidized leads on the SMT package combined with a not so aggressive flux meant some of the leads "looked" soldered, but were barely connected and would disconnect with minimal coercion causing many very strange failures till we identified the problem was various MCU leads not connecting properly intermittently.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: trurle
  • #10
essenmein said:
Another thing to consider is oxidized leads, we had built a batch of prototypes with 1 year old MCU's that were apparently not sealed properly, everything looked ok till we powered units up and they would randomly roman candle on us. Mind you the MCU didn't blow, it popped the power modules it was driving.

Turned out the problem was oxidized leads on the SMT package combined with a not so aggressive flux meant some of the leads "looked" soldered, but were barely connected and would disconnect with minimal coercion causing many very strange failures till we identified the problem was various MCU leads not connecting properly intermittently.
Yes, problem with oxidized leads (cold joints) do happen. Usually "roman candle" happens when chips are driven while power rails are disconnected. I think it can be ruled out for my particular case because all inputs of exploded chip were connected through series 1 MOhm resistors.
Anyway, will try to make more prototypes in February after parts will arrive.
 
  • #11
If there are such large impedance's to the I/O then it probably was just a dead chip to begin with, what's that rule, have to fail at the same thing three times to ensure you have a statistically significant result? Another thing to check though is if turning on the supply causes an initial overshoot or something that may have cooked it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: trurle
  • #12
essenmein said:
If there are such large impedance's to the I/O then it probably was just a dead chip to begin with, what's that rule, have to fail at the same thing three times to ensure you have a statistically significant result? Another thing to check though is if turning on the supply causes an initial overshoot or something that may have cooked it.
The second prototype batch of 3 (including reworked power supply brick of module which contained exploded chip) have survived qualification. Therefore, the preliminary decision is "a singular accident due dead chip".
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Asymptotic and berkeman