SUBJECT: PRODUCT: GAMMA SHOCK, VIBRATION, AND THERMAL PERFORMANCE TOLTEQ RUGGEDIZED GAMMA DATE: JUNE 4, 2014 AUTHOR: PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT DEP SCOPE The purpose of this test is to establish a baseline of gamma reporting during vibration, shock and thermal events and to compare the performance of the Tolteq Gamma, with two competing brands commonly used in the industry, hereafter referred to as Brand X and Brand Y. VIBRATION TEST SETUP All devices were tested in the same thermal/vibration chamber at the same time under the same conditions. Test Facility Information Professional Testing EMI, Inc. (PTI) 1601 N. A.W. Grimes Blvd. Suite B Round Rock, TX 78665 (512) 244-3371 www.ptitest.com info@ptitest.com Test Dates 04/14/2014 04/21/2014 1
Items Tested Sample Serial # Chart Serial # Item Tested 1 1A 0001 Tolteq gamma assembly Setup 2 2A 0002 3 3667 3667 Brand X gamma production assembly 4 3668 3668 5 0804 0804 Brand Y gamma production assembly 6 0805 0805 Figure 1 All samples were hard mounted to the vibration table without O-Rings so that all vibration would be fully transferred to the test sample. 3667 0805 0804 3668 0001 0002 Figure 2 Note: Vibration table does multi-axis, multi-frequency vibration across the entire table using only acceleration input as the driver. 2
Thermocouples were placed at these locations for the entire Vibration Test Plan: T3 T2 T1 Figure 3 3
Accelerometers were placed to record z-axis vibration at these locations after the thermal test (Test Sequence 2) and prior to the vibration only test (Test Sequence 3). They were quantified at 5 G increments from 5 G s to 55 G s input at the table. Since the accelerometers were not rated to the temperatures being tested, they were removed after Test Sequence 3. The table and graph information is found in Appendix A. A4 A2 A3 A1 Figure 4 Tolteq Universal Testers (TUT) were used to capture all data simultaneously. Figure 5 4
Test Overview Test Sequence Test Description Sample to Test Test Details 1 Gamma Readings, Stationary Ambient Temp Units 1-6 Constant Gamma source @ 90-150 CPS Approx. 1 hour duration Physical location to be mounted to vibration table Ambient Temperature 2 Gamma Readings, Stationary Thermal Cycle 3 Multi-Axis random vibration Ambient Temp Units 1-6 Units 1-6 Constant Gamma source @ 90-150 CPS Approx. 18 hours duration Physical location to be mounted to vibration table Temperature ambient-0 C-180 C, 3 cycles, 3 C/min max ramp rate, 2 hour dwell at min & max temperature 3 axis random vibration Approx. 2.0 hours duration 45 g s ±1.25% peak sinusoidal Frequency 10 Hz 10 KHz Constant Gamma source @ 90-150 CPS Ambient Temperature 4 Multi-Axis random vibration Thermal Cycle 5 Multi-Axis random vibration Thermal Cycle Units 1-6 Units 1-6 3 axis random vibration Approx. 18 hours duration 45 G s ±1.25% peak sinusoidal Frequency 10 Hz 10 KHz Constant Gamma source @ 90-150 CPS Temperature ambient-0 C-180 C, 3 cycles, 3 C/min max ramp rate, 2 hour dwell at min & max temperature Same as Test Sequence 4 except: Duration TO FAILURE Temperature cycling to continue throughout the test Modified to: Run at 55 G s for 2 hours Figure 6 5
TEST ANALYSIS Test 1: Ambient gamma reading in controlled chamber Notes: Temperature at 25 C. Gamma source: Fixed, with different rod lengths for each test sample to clearly show starting points on the charts. Figure 7 Results: All three sensors demonstrated acceptable accuracy in their baseline gamma counts at ambient temperature, as shown in Figure 7 above. 6
Figure 8 Results: All three sensors demonstrated acceptable accuracy in their baseline gamma counts at ambient temperature, as shown in Figure 8 above. 7
Test 2: Thermal cycling, no vibration Notes: Temperature at 25 C to 0 C to 180 C, 3 Cycles, 3 C max ramp rate, 120 min dwell at min/max temperature. The gamma source was fixed, as per Test 1 in the previous section. Figure 9 Results: All six sensors continue to function over time and temperature, as shown in Figure 9. 8
Figure 10 Results: All six sensors perform within spec over various temperatures, as shown in Figure 10. 9
Test 3: Vibration, no thermal cycling Figure 11 Results: At about 20 G s, sensor 0804 (gray line) begins to exhibit erratic gamma counts at 35 G s of vibration until it completely fails at 45 G s. Sensor 3667 (orange line) begins to operate erratically after the 25 G s mark. The Tolteq unit, as shown in Figure 11, exhibits a steady gamma count throughout the vibration test. 10
Figure 12 Results: At about 30 G s, sensor 0805 (gray line) exhibits extremely erratic behavior, with elevated then reduced gamma counts, before ultimately failing at about 45 G s. Sensor 3668 (orange line) begins to operate erratically soon after the 15 G s mark. The Tolteq unit, as shown in Figure 12, exhibits a steady gamma count throughout the vibration test. 11
Test 4: Vibration plus thermal cycling Figure 13 Results: At 45 G s RMS vibration, the Tolteq unit exhibits continuously stable gamma counts; Brand X unit 3667 exhibits erratic counts. Brand Y unit 0804 completely fails. 12
Figure 14 Results: At 45 G s RMS vibration, the Tolteq unit exhibits erratic gamma counts due to a defect (see Conclusions); Brand X unit 3668 exhibits erratic counts. Brand Y unit 0805 completely fails. 13
Figure 15 Results: Due to catastrophic failure (as shown in the preceding two figures), units 3667, 0804 and 0805 all display N/A for their respective standard deviation. Both Tolteq units demonstrated a superior standard deviation; however, unit 0002 showed a significant discrepancy in comparison to unit 0001, later discovered to be caused by an improper solder joint 14
Test 5: Vibration plus rising temperature Notes: Vibration at 55g s for 2 Hours. 10Hz 10KHz random on all axes. Temperature at 25 C to 180 C, 1 Cycle, 3 C max ramp rate. The gamma source was fixed, as per Test 1 on previous pages. Only summary charts shown. All Test Samples showed unacceptable errors at 55g s RMS input. Figure 16 Results: All units showed unacceptable errors at 55g s RMS input; however the Tolteq unit reported gamma counts reliably for the first 53 minutes of the test while unit 3667 demonstrated erratic counts and unit 0804 ceased operation altogether. 15
Figure 17 Results: All units showed unacceptable errors at 55g s RMS input; however the Tolteq unit reported acceptable gamma counts for the first 28 minutes of the test: the discrepancy between the two Tolteq units is due to the solder joint defect found in the latter unit. 16
CONCLUSIONS FOR VIBRATION TESTING (TESTS 1-5) 1. Both Tolteq gamma sensors survived all testing up through 55g s RMS input. At 55g s RMS, the Tolteq gamma showed elevated gamma counts. No test samples were able to show stable gamma counts during 55g s RMS input. 2. For Thermal and Vibration events at 45 G s, the Brand Y Test Samples consistently failed counting gamma. The Brand Y gamma units survived Tests 1-2 (ambient & thermal only), but both devices failed during the vibration and the combined thermal/vibration tests (Tests 3, 4 & 5). 3. For Thermal and Vibration events at 45 G s, one of the Tolteq gamma units was completely stable while the other unit showed erratic gamma counts (later discovered to be caused by an improper solder joint). 4. At the end of the 55g s RMS at temperature vibration testing, the Tolteq gamma units returned to normal operation immediately (0002 did not). 17
SHOCK TEST SETUP All mechanical shock testing was done at Tolteq facilities using Tolteq equipment. Test samples were mounted to a vertical slide fixture inside a 1.50 inch ID, 1.875 OD BeCu barrel, then dropped onto a 5000 psi rated concrete surface 10 times in approximately 30 seconds while gamma counts per second (CPS) were being recorded. The goal was 1000 G s, but the recording software was only able to record up to 925 G s. The drop, without any isolating pads, created a saw tooth shaped shock event rather than the gentler and more common (in specification) half-sine shock event. The following charts show mechanical shock in the AXIAL orientation, then in the LATERAL orientation. Figure 18 Results: The Tolteq gamma unit exhibits a stable gamma CPS during axial shock testing, while the Brand X and Brand Y units begin to show elevated counts after the fourth shock event. 18
Figure 19 Results: The Tolteq gamma unit exhibits a relatively stable gamma CPS during lateral shock testing, as does the Brand X unit. The Brand Y unit exhibits elevated counts after the seventh event. 19
CONCLUSIONS FOR SHOCK TESTING 1. For axial shock, both the Brand X Test Sample and the Brand Y Test Sample showed increasing gamma counts as the number of shock events increased. 2. For axial shock, the Tolteq Test Sample showed NO significant change in gamma counts. 3. For lateral shock, the Brand Y Test Sample showed increasing gamma counts as the number of shock events increased. 4. For lateral shock, both the Tolteq Test Sample and the Brand X Test Sample showed a very slight rise in gamma counts as the number of shock events increased. 20
APPENDIX A Equipment Supplied by Tolteq Item Description Qty. 800128 Tolteq Universal Tester (includes power supply) 3 400003 Laptop Computer w/ Tolteq Software 1 100902 Thoriated Tungsten Welding Rod 6 Figure 20 Test Lab Equipment Asset # Equipment Manufacturer Model Serial Number 0876 HALT & HASS System QualMark OVS 2.5 2509990352 N/A Chamber Thermocouples Omega C03-T-60 N/A 0798 Accelerometer, Voltage Mode Dytran 3030C1/5310M2 9604 0799 High Temp Vib Sys/Amplifier, Charge Dytran 4705M16/5310M2 3376 1967 PCI Bus Spectrum Analyzer National Instruments PCI-4452 12B4DCC 1522 Accelerometer, Voltage Mode Dytran 3032A 1737 1638 Accelerometer, Voltage Mode Dytran 3032A 2540 1792 Accelerometer, Voltage Mode Dytran 3032A 2890 1920 Accelerometer, Voltage Mode Dytran 3032A 2500 Figure 21 21