Point: Lab verification shows the 15-element bussed resistor array meets nominal resistance targets under controlled conditions. Evidence: Four-wire DC measurements of representative units return values clustered near 10 kΩ nominal. Explanation: This data-driven report documents measured specs, test conditions, and practical implications for designers evaluating part behavior under temperature and power stress.
Point: The following sections present test scope, methods, and bench results with actionable guidance for PCB and procurement decisions. Evidence: Results combine DC resistance, TCR sweeps, power-induced drift, noise, and reliability screening. Explanation: The report focuses on practical outcomes you can use to size margins and derating for SOMC160110K0GRZ.
Point: The device is a 16‑pin SOIC containing 15 bussed resistors, each nominally 10 kΩ with ±2% tolerance, aimed at pull‑ups, sensor input networks and compact divider arrays. Evidence: Physical form and element count yield common use in multi‑channel IO and sensor front ends. Explanation: As a compact resistor network, layout and thermal coupling are dominant practical considerations for matching and stability.
Point: Key datasheet items to confirm include DC resistance, tolerance/matching, TCR, power per element and bussed power, thermal limits, noise, insulation/leakage, and package dimensions. Evidence: Each spec maps to an engineering question—accuracy (tolerance/matching), drift (TCR/power), reliability (thermal limits/insulation), and manufacturability (package dims). Explanation: Verifying these items answers accuracy, derating, and assembly risk questions for the resistor network.
Point: Use calibrated, high‑precision instruments and controlled environments to reduce measurement uncertainty. Evidence: Recommended gear includes a 4‑wire resistance bridge or high‑resolution DMM, LCR meter for AC checks, thermal chamber for TCR sweeps, programmable power supplies, and a synchronized data logger; sample size n ≥ 5–10 units. Explanation: Calibrated instruments and adequate sample size reveal lot variation and reduce false positives from instrument drift.
Point: Follow repeatable, logged procedures to capture DC, thermal, and power behavior. Evidence: Steps: measure initial room‑temp DC per element; record per‑element matching; perform TCR sweep at −55°C, 25°C, and 125°C; do incremental power dissipation up to rated per‑element and bussed power; measure noise and stability with defined sampling rates and repeats. Explanation: Log fields should include timestamp, element ID, applied power, temperature, measured R, and instrument ID for traceability.
Point: Present DC results with statistical context to evaluate compliance and matching. Evidence: Use a table listing nominal vs. measured mean, standard deviation, min/max, per‑element matching, and out‑of‑tolerance counts relative to ±2% datasheet. Explanation: That format quickly shows whether typical units meet specs, whether any elements bias high/low, and how many parts require rejection in production sampling.
Point: Express TCR and power drift as ppm/°C and ΔR vs. applied power with stabilization time metrics. Evidence: Plot resistance vs. temperature and resistance vs. dissipated power; report linear fit ppm/°C and any nonlinear regions at high temperature or power, plus time‑to‑stabilize under step power. Explanation: These outputs allow computation of derating curves and guide placement away from heat sources to maintain accuracy.
Point: Quantify low‑frequency noise and element‑to‑element leakage to assess precision and isolation. Evidence: Measure spectral density or RMS noise under bias, insulation resistance under rated voltage, and bias‑dependent crosstalk for adjacent elements. Explanation: Thresholds of concern depend on application; for high‑resolution ADC front ends, excess noise or leakage above specified limits mandates alternative parts or additional filtering.
Point: Apply accelerated stresses to reveal latent shifts or failures. Evidence: Suggested tests: thermal cycling, solder‑reflow per assembly profiles, and humidity bias; record pre/post resistance, visual inspection, and any open/short failures. Explanation: Define pass/fail criteria (e.g., ΔR within ±0.5% post‑stress) to decide if a lot meets production reliability needs.
Point: Create a comparison table of datasheet claims vs. measured values with percent delta and commentary. Evidence: Include likely discrepancy causes such as measurement setup, lot variation, PCB mounting, or thermal gradients. Explanation: This gap analysis clarifies whether deviations are systematic (design) or stochastic (manufacturing) and directs corrective action such as tighter sampling or layout changes.
Point: Benchmark on tolerance, TCR, power per element, package, and matching to select alternatives when needed. Evidence: Compare measured TCR and derating curves against candidate 16‑pin arrays to identify tradeoffs. Explanation: Use long‑tail comparisons like “measured TCR vs. alternate 16‑pin arrays” to pick a part when your design requires tighter drift, higher power, or improved matching.
Point: Layout and thermal design preserve accuracy and matching under load. Evidence: Recommend footprint keepouts, thermal vias under high‑power traces, spacing to reduce heat coupling, and common‑mode routing for bussed elements. Explanation: Apply derating rules (limit per‑element dissipated power to safe fraction of rated) and place the network away from hot ICs to reduce systematic resistance shifts.
Point: Define steps before production to avoid surprises. Evidence: Checklist: lot sampling plan, DC and TCR checks, power‑dissipation verification, solder‑reflow signoff, acceptable ΔR limits, and handling precautions. Explanation: Decision flow: accept this part when measured tolerance, TCR, and power behavior meet system error budget; select a tighter part if not.
Point: Measured outcomes show the device meets nominal DC resistance targets with measurable TCR and power‑dependent drift; match and noise are acceptable for many IO and sensor uses. Evidence: Laboratory sweeps and power tests quantify ppm/°C drift and stabilization times that inform derating. Explanation: Use SOMC160110K0GRZ when tolerance and thermal behavior align with your system error budget.
Point: Consistency depends on lot and measurement rigor. Evidence: Typical lab results show most elements within ±2% tolerance, with a small fraction near limits; matching often closer than individual tolerance. Explanation: If your application needs tighter matching than observed, specify tighter tolerance parts or sort by element values during incoming test.
Point: Use conservative derating to prevent thermal drift. Evidence: Measure resistance vs. applied power and set operating power at a fraction (commonly 50–75%) of the tested stable region to limit ΔR and avoid thermal runaway. Explanation: Incorporate PCB thermal relief, vias, and distance from hot components to meet that derating in practice.
Point: Choose alternatives when measured specs fail system requirements. Evidence: If TCR, matching, noise, or power‑stability measurements exceed your error budget or if post‑stress ΔR rate is unacceptable, move to a part with tighter guaranteed specs. Explanation: Use the documented tests above as a go/no‑go checklist during component selection and procurement.