2023-08-28 07:51 PM - edited 2023-08-28 07:52 PM
Hello Community,
I am working on a Vibration Measurement system that will be subjected to lifetime vibrations ranging from 10Hz to 2000Hz at approximately 1g with expected lifetime of 2 years with 16 hours daily vibration & 8 hours of no vibration.
I'm considering using the STM32 LQFP64 package (of STM32G0B0 & STM32G474) for this application but am concerned about its mechanical robustness under such conditions. The temperature shall always be less than 75'C
Could anyone provide information on the vibration tolerance levels of STM32 MCUs in general, and the LQFP64 package in particular? I've found limited to none data/information/specifications on this subject and would greatly appreciate any insights or firsthand experiences.
Moreover, I've noticed multiple products that feature both an MCU and MEMS Accelerometers on the same PCB, which are installed in environments subjected to lifetime vibrations of upto 3g over 10Hz to 2000Hz range. Can someone share thoughts on the long-term reliability of such configurations?
Your expertise and guidance would be invaluable in helping me make an informed decision.
Thank you in advance.
Best regards,
Solved! Go to Solution.
2023-09-22 02:22 AM
Have a look at this paper it specifically covers the issues related to PCB vibration including a LQFP package.
It is virtually impossible to provide a useful vibration spec for electronic components as it is the response of the entire PCB to the vibration that will determine whether a system will be reliable or not. Each system must be evaluated and tested there are no simple rules.
We had an electro-hydraulic converter with on-board electronics and mounted of a high pressure steam valve which were subject to extremely high vibrations, They failed after a few hours of operation. It turned out that the failures were caused by the spool motor winding connections failing at the connectors due to high cycle fatigue.
Graded strain relief which prevents high bending moments over small dimensions i.e. solder joints is essential.
Regards
Rob.
2023-09-02 03:31 PM
Dear @Chubs ,
a similar general thread here https://community.st.com/t5/stm32-mcu-products/the-effect-of-stress-and-vibration-on-stm32f3-microcontroller/td-p/569873
hope it helps .
Ciao { STOne-32}
2023-09-04 09:48 AM
This doesn't really helps at all, anyone here who can help understand these fundamental design criterias for use of MCUs in high vibration environements?
2023-09-21 09:14 AM - edited 2023-09-21 09:25 AM
Hi,
I don't have any empirical data, but if the vibration is no greater than 1g over the frequency range I don't think there would be a problem. Providing the following:
In other words a small stiff PCB well screwed down, with a resonant frequency at least 10 kHz in its normal mode should be fine. Flexing of the board is a no-no, if everything moves in unison there will be no problematic differential stresses.
As an added precaution the MCU could also be glued to the board with a heat curing glue which would reduce the strain on the leads.
If you can't get any good data and you want to be 100% certain it might pay to do some accelerated testing of a prototype.
Regards
Rob
2023-09-22 02:22 AM
Have a look at this paper it specifically covers the issues related to PCB vibration including a LQFP package.
It is virtually impossible to provide a useful vibration spec for electronic components as it is the response of the entire PCB to the vibration that will determine whether a system will be reliable or not. Each system must be evaluated and tested there are no simple rules.
We had an electro-hydraulic converter with on-board electronics and mounted of a high pressure steam valve which were subject to extremely high vibrations, They failed after a few hours of operation. It turned out that the failures were caused by the spool motor winding connections failing at the connectors due to high cycle fatigue.
Graded strain relief which prevents high bending moments over small dimensions i.e. solder joints is essential.
Regards
Rob.
2023-09-22 06:36 AM
> Have a look at this paper ...
@Garnett.Robert , do you have a link? :)
2023-09-30 03:22 AM