Technical Inquiry (ASM330LHH vs ASM330LHHXG1)

[yhlee]

Hello

We are currently using the ASM330LHH in our product and conducting ATP (Acceptance Test Procedure). During the thermal cycling/temperature test phase of the ATP, we have observed significant fluctuations and instability in the sensor outputs.

To resolve this issue, we are considering migrating to the ASM330LHHXG1.

While we have already reviewed the standard datasheets for both parts, we would like to request additional engineering insights or internal test data regarding their temperature stability. Specifically, we would appreciate your guidance on the following:

1. Does the ASM330LHHXG1 feature any hardware, packaging, or calibration improvements that provide better thermal stability or lower thermal drift compared to the standard ASM330LHH?
2. Have there been any reported cases or internal ST data showing that the ASM330LHHXG1 delivers more stable and repeatable results under stressful temperature environments like ATP?
3. Beyond the datasheet specifications, are there any specific PCB layout, stress-relief, or software compensation guidelines you recommend minimizing temperature-induced output fluctuations for these sensors?

Thank you for your support, and we look forward to your professional advice.

Best regards,

[Federica Bossi]

Hi ​@yhlee ,

1. At this time, we do not have any public indication of a specific hardware, packaging, or factory-calibration change in the ASM330LHHXG1 that would inherently improve thermal stability or reduce thermal drift versus the standard ASM330LHH.
   If tighter thermal behavior is required, the most effective approach is typically unit-by-unit calibration over the full operating temperature range.

2. Based on the published datasheet specifications, the temperature drift performance is the same for both devices. 

3. Beyond the standard recommendations in the datasheet, the main best practices to minimize temperature-induced output variation are to:

   • follow the recommended land pattern and assembly profile,
   • place the sensor away from heat sources and strong thermal gradients,
   • minimize PCB warpage and mechanical stress around the package,
   • avoid board bending, stiffeners, and excessive local constraints,
   • and, if needed, apply temperature-based software compensation derived from characterization of the final assembly.

[yhlee]

Dear Federica,

 

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for thoroughly reviewing the datasheet.

I understand that both product families share similar thermal drift characteristics from a technical standpoint.

However, upon reviewing the datasheets, I noted that the ASM330LHHXG1 model specifies certain parameters—such as sensitivity tolerance—under more detailed conditions (or with tighter error margins) compared to the standard ASM330LLH model.

Consequently, we would like to clarify whether the ASM330LHHXG1 is managed as a higher-reliability version, subjected to stricter screening or calibration processes during manufacturing.

Could you please confirm whether the differences in specified error margins impact the actual mass-produced units' consistency or thermal stability?

 

To ensure the stability of our system, we are considering replacing the existing ASM330LHH sensor with the ASM330LHHXG1 sensor.

 

Thank you.