See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276846486

Determination of the Effect of Humidity on the

Probability of ESD Failure or Upset in Data
Centers

Article in ASHRAE Transactions · August 2014

CITATIONS READS

4 99

6 authors, including:

Mahdi Moradian Fayu Wan

Iran University of Science and Technology Nanjing University of Information Science & …
27 PUBLICATIONS 87 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Pommerenke
Missouri University of Science and Technology
284 PUBLICATIONS 1,782 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: David Pommerenke

Retrieved on: 18 April 2016
SE-14-003

Determination of the Effect of Humidity

on the Probability of ESD Failure or Upset
in Data Centers

Mahdi Moradian Abhishek Patnaik Yunan Han

Fayu Wan David Pommerenke David E. Swenson

ABSTRACT consume the major part of it (Shehabi 2008; Masanet 2011;

The relative rate of electrostatic discharge (ESD)-related
failures or upsets is derived for various types of data centers
based on different flooring systems and personal footwear. As
the estimation of the actual number of ESD-related failures or
upsets is impossible, hypothetical scenarios of data centers are
considered with the assumption that the operator actions and
IT equipment are constant in all these data centers. Then, using
industry accepted ESD robustness thresholds, the probabilities
of exceeding these thresholds are calculated and compared,
which allows us to estimate the relative rate of ESD-related
failures or upsets as a function of environmental conditions,
flooring types, and footwear. The estimation is based on a well-
defined walking pattern which has good repeatability. Due to
limitations on performing the well-defined walking pattern for
long periods of time and due to the small probability of observ-
ing very high voltages, an extrapolation approach is used to
determine the probabilities of exceeding ESD robustness
levels. Two approaches have been used to obtain the extrapo-
lation functions used to predict higher voltage levels. (1) The
extrapolation was performed based on the distribution func-
tions measured in our test, and (2) the extrapolation was
performed based on literature data. The literature data
predicts higher risk levels, however, in many cases both extrap-
olations lead to the same conclusions with respect to risk level.
Based on the calculated probabilities and different categories
of data centers, recommendations regarding the flooring
system and footwear control are provided.
INTRODUCTION
A considerable amount of electrical energy is consumed
in data centers each year. The air-conditioning systems often
Yuan 2010). In order to keep the operation of the information
technology (IT) in data centers as reliable as possible while
achieving reasonable, energy-efficient operation, ASHRAE
has introduced a recommended environmental envelope in its
guidelines (ASHRAE 2011). Because the most appropriate
environmental ranges will depend on the IT equipment used,
ASHRAE has also introduced four allowable ranges for four
different classes of data centers. For each class of data center,
the operation of the data center outside of the recommended
envelope is still acceptable for short periods of time without
affecting the overall reliability and operation of the IT equip-
ment (ASHRAE 2011).
Running data centers, especially in the low-humidity
extremes of the allowable envelopes, results in lower power
consumption but simultaneously may lead to higher electro-
static discharge (ESD)-related failures in data centers if not
handled correctly. Here the guiding questions are as follows:
Can the risk of ESD-induced damage or upsets be determined?
How does the risk change with humidity, temperature, floor-
ing, and footwear? In this paper we present calculations that
attempt to guide the operators of data centers with respect to
installation of conductive floors and footwear requirements
for different environmental conditions.
Various earlier studies have investigated the effect of
environmental conditions on charge generation and accumu-
lation (Simonic 1981, 1982; Frei 1998).
In one of his studies, Simonic (1981) measured the ESD
currents caused by people touching a doorknob. The study was
performed in an uncontrolled terminal room with high human
activities on a wool carpet floor. The data was collected for
over 16 months with approximately 60,000 ESD events.

Mahdi Moradian is post-doctoral fellow, Abhishek Patnaik is a master’s student, and David Pommerenke is a professor at Missouri University
of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO. Yunan Han is an assistant professor at Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, China. Fayu
Wan is an associate professor in the Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Meteorological Observation and Information Processing, Nanjing University of Infor-
mation Science and Technology, Nanjing, China. David E. Swenson is president at Affinity Static Control Consulting, LLC, Round Rock, Texas.
 2014 ASHRAE. THIS PREPRINT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED IN PAPER OR DIGITAL FORM IN WHOLE OR IN PART. IT IS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
AT THE 2014 ASHRAE ANNUAL CONFERENCE. The archival version of this paper along with comments and author responses will be published in ASHRAE
Transactions, Volume 120, Part 2. ASHRAE must receive written questions or comments regarding this paper by July 21, 2014 for them to be included in Transactions.
Simonic derived empirical equations for the voltage and event
rate based on his data. In another study conducted by Hewlett
Packard, the voltage on a person was measured by touching a
sensor before touching an electronic system. A third, related
study was performed by Stephan Frei (1998). His instrument
measured the transient electromagnetic field strengths. Based
on this, he calculated the event rate of ESDs, above the lower
threshold of the instrument, per day for different locations
(library, electronic working room, computer room, and other
industry locations). These and further studies show that ESD
discharges are more severe (higher peak currents, stronger
electromagnetic fields) and more frequent in dry air
(Mardiguian 2009; Pommerenke 1995; Aidam 1996).These
studies give indications of the effect of environmental condi-
tions. However, these studies have not been conducted under
well-controlled conditions, such that it is difficult to conclude
the situations in data centers which have well controlled envi-
ronmental conditions and specific flooring (such as the effect of
using a conductive floor relative to a nonconductive floor style).
The main objective of this research is to quantify the effects
of humidity and flooring on the risk of failures in data centers and
provide guidelines for controlling the risk of equipment failures,
especially in low-humidity conditions. In order to estimate the
risk of equipment failures or upsets related to ESD at low-
humidity conditions, we performed well-controlled walking
experiments according to ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007 (which spec-
ifies the use of ANSI/ESD STM97.2 as the procedure) with
different flooring and footwear in different environmental
conditions spanning selected points in and around A1 and A2
envelopes of the ASHRAE psychrometric chart (see Figure
3). The data is used to quantify the effect of changes in the
data center operation on the ESD-failure risk and allows us to
propose guidelines on data center construction, footwear, and
grounding control and environmental conditions.
ESD-RELATED FAILURES OR UPSETS
IN DATA CENTERS
A variety of activities can lead to charge accumulation
and consequently to ESD. Examples of these activities include
people walking, cables being dragged, people sitting up from
office chairs, carts being rolled along the floor. This study
focuses on charge accumulation from walking people, as this
is the most frequently occurring activity. Further publications
and the final report on “The Effect of Humidity on the Reli-
ability of ICT Equipment in Data Centers” (Moradian 2013)
will cover some of the other ESD-causing activities.
Based on the above studies, certain recommendations are
proposed in order to control the ESD-related failures or upsets in
data centers. These recommendations are based on people walk-
ing, accumulating charge while walking, and then touching IT
equipment either intentionally or unintentionally. It is further
differentiated between discharges from the skin and discharges
that occur between a small hand-held piece of metal and the IT
equipment. A discharge that occurs between a small, hand-held
piece of metal and the IT equipment has about a five times larger
2 SE-14-003
discharge current amplitude and a much shorter rise time (typi-
cally below 1 ns) as compared to a discharge between the human
skin and the IT equipment. All IT equipment is tested for its
robustness to ESD. The minimal test levels are 4 kV contact mode
and 8 kV air-discharge mode (IEC 2008). Typically, manufactur-
ers test at margin levels of 6 kV contact mode, often 15 kV for air
discharge mode, and for discharges from LAN cables often using
a 200 m long cable charged to 2 kV. However, only the IEC test
levels of 4 kV/8 kV are ensured. These tests are performed during
normal operation of the IT equipment. However, if service is
performed, often shielding panels are removed and, for example,
new hard drives are inserted. As the ESD protection measures
may be partially removed during service, we assume only a
robustness of 500 V during service-related activities. The
assumptions listed above tend to be an overestimation of risk as
they are based on minimal robustness requirements of the IT
equipment. These conservative assumptions are justified in light
of achieving high reliability of IT equipment in data centers.
It is difficult to determine an absolute number of ESD-
induced failures in a data center per year. This would require
at least the following information:
• The actual ESD robustness of the IT equipment
• The arrangement of the IT equipment in the data center
• The type and number of operator actions in the data center
• The distribution of environmental conditions throughout
the year
As it is impossible to obtain the above information, we use
hypothetical scenarios of data centers to illustrate the meaning
of the probabilities of exceeding an upset or damage threshold.
A better founded method to determine the effect of changes in
the environmental conditions, or to determine the gain of having
a conductive floor, is to assume that the operator actions and IT
equipment robustness are constant in all the data centers; this is
the same when two hypothetical data centers are compared.
Based on ASHRAE Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing
Environments (2011), an X factor can be created; this X factor
shows the relative effect due to the environmental changes,
flooring differences, or enforcement of certain requirements on
footwear on the failure rate. This X factor is defined as
Number of equipment failures under environmental condition A
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of equipment failures under environmental condition B
HUMAN CHARGING EXPERIMENTS
The experiments that measure the charge voltages have to
be repeatable, allowing us to quantify the effect of parameters
(floor, shoe, environmental), and should allow us to estimate the
probability distribution of different charge voltage levels. To
ensure this the industry standard test method ANSI/ESD
STM97.2 has been selected.A person walks with a well-defined
walking pattern on a floor sample, wearing a specific shoe type
under different controlled environmental conditions while the
induced electrostatic voltage is being recorded. The general test
setup is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Walking voltage test setup.

The well-defined walking pattern is shown in Figure 2. The

person repeats the walking pattern for a minimum of ten times.
He waits for 2 seconds when he reaches the starting point. In a
subset of tests, a secondary voltage measurement device was
used to verify the accuracy of the primary instrument.
For this test, 18 different types of flooring samples were
assembled on test plates 3 × 3 feet in size. Eight different types
of footwear were gathered, representing a broad spectrum of
shoe types and materials. While not every shoe type was tested
in every condition on all the floors, the main types of shoes
were tested as experience was gained during the test program.
Many of the shoe types performed similarly on similar floors,
so in a few cases floor types and shoe types were skipped in
some of the test conditions to reduce the redundancies. Table
1 shows the two groups of environmental conditions, includ-
ing their various shoe and floor types. The environmental
conditions in between the extremes show the same tendencies
and detail can be found in Moradian (2013). Some shoes and
floors are in common with the other groups.
The conductivity of a shoe is a core parameter for its
ESD performance. An insulating shoe will accumulate
higher voltages and maintain them for a longer time. In
most cases, one can estimate the ESD performance of a
floor by its conductivity. The floors group as follows: the
conductive rubber and asian vinyl are classified as conduc-
Figure 2 Well-controlled walking pattern.
tive floors, high pressure laminate (HPL-N and HPL-F) are

SE-14-003 3
 Table 1. Floor and Footwear Samples Tested at Different Environmental Conditions
59°F (15°C) and 15% rh
Floor Footwear
HPL-F Low dissipative shoe
HPL-N Dissipative safety shoe
Asia vinyl Deck Shoe 1
Conductive rubber Running shoes
Low dissipative vinyl Full sole grounder
Standard asphalt tile Heel straps
Standard asphalt tile
Slip on sole grounders
with dissipative wax
Heel straps
dissipative floors of very low conductivity, while standard
tile is insulating. We term standard tile with wax coating as
a special type of floor. This floor sample limits the buildup
of charges on the insulating floor as it has dissipative prop-
erties, although it is fairly low in conductivity, similar to the
HPL. The shoes group as follows: midrange dissipative
safety shoes and low range dissipative safety shoes are
found in common usage in electronic manufacturing facto-
ries, and deck shoes and running shoes are considered elec-
trically insulating (while running shoes with shoe straps
have conductive properties).
DATA PROCESSING AND CALCULATION
OF PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTIONS
The walking voltage test as outlined in ANSI/ESD
STM97.2 provides a value of the highest voltage, a closely
related typical walking voltage level, and a much lower
standing voltage value. The standing voltage is the typical
voltage an operator maybe charged to after they stop walk-
ing and then stand still for 2 s. However, there is a proba-
bility that the operator might be charged to a higher level
than recorded during the 50 s experiment. This probability
can be estimated from the distribution of voltages accrued
during the walking test. This estimation process requires
approximating a function to the measured distribution to
extrapolate to higher voltages, as during the 50 s it is very
unlikely to achieve a voltage having a probability of, for
example, 0.1%. However, a voltage high enough to upset a
server, but not only occurring more than 0.1% of the time
while walking in a data center may still pose a risk for a
high-reliability operation.
4 SE-14-003
80°F (27°C) and 50% rh
Floor Footwear
HPL-F Low dissipative shoe
HPL-N Dissipative safety shoe
Asian vinyl Deck Shoe 1
Conductive rubber Running shoes
Standard asphalt tile Deck Shoe 2
Low dissipative vinyl Deck Shoe 3
Leather dress shoes
Running shoes with shoe straps
The estimation of the probability has been performed for
two selected environmental conditions, 50% rh at 80°F
(26.7°C) and 59°F (15°C) at 15% rh. The first marks the upper
end of the recommended envelope and the second one, 59°F
and 15% rh (15°C and 15% rh), marks the lower limits of the
A2 envelope. Thus, it can be considered as a worst case for the
A2 envelope. The selected environmental conditions are indi-
cated in Figure 3.
Table 2 shows the maximum of the recorded voltages
during walking with different combinations of floor and shoe
types for two different environmental conditions. As the table
shows the highest recorded voltage is 4910 V. According to
Table 2, during the walking test voltage levels of, for example,
8 kV have never been reached. However, in reality they may be
observed, as longer paths walked in a data center have a higher
chance of achieving low-probability voltage levels. So, simply
excluding voltage levels above the recorded one would not
lead to a correct risk assessment.
This leads to a situation where using only the maximum
induced voltage is not sufficient to obtain the X factor. The
maximum voltages in Table 2 are derived from the data
recorded over a short duration of time and the data has no
direct information on the distribution of the induced voltage
above a damage threshold value.
To deal with this problem, a probability distribution-based
approach has been implemented where estimating the probabil-
ity of exceeding 4 kV and 8 kV is based on the recorded time
domain voltage waveforms. As an example, a typical human
voltage versus time waveform is shown in Figure 4. This has
Figure 3 ASHRAE psychrometric chart with indication of the two environmental conditions selected for the extrapolation.

Figure 4 Recorded human walking voltage.

been obtained while walking on a conductive rubber floor while
wearing nonconductive shoes (Deck Shoes Type 1) at 15% rh at
59°F (15°C). The peak voltage level is only 500 V, which
already indicates a low probability of ever exceeding 4 kV or
8 kV using this floor and shoe combination, even at this low
humidity. If this data had been recorded over a very long time
(e.g., one year) the voltage might have exceeded 4 kV a few
times. It should be noted that both the maximum voltage in each
walking cycle and the shape of the waveform depend on the
environmental condition, shoe and floor types, and speed and
pattern of walking. If the walking experiment is repeated for
different environmental conditions while keeping other param-

SE-14-003 5
 Table 2. Maximum of the Recorded Voltages for Different Combination of Floors and Shoes

50% rh at 80°F (26.7°C) 15% rh at 59°F (15°C)

Max Voltage, Max Voltage,

(V) (V)

Low dissipative safety shoes 35 Low dissipative safety shoes 202

Dissipative safety shoes 91 Dissipative safety shoes 618

HPL-F Deck shoes Type 1 1465 HPL-F Deck shoes Type 1 4910

Running shoes with shoe straps 146 Running shoes with shoe straps 165

Running shoes 1995 Running shoes 3437

Low dissipative shoes 8 Low dissipative safety shoes 102

Dissipative safety shoes 25 Dissipative safety shoes 443

HPL-N Deck shoes Type 1 1020 HPL-N Deck shoes Type 1 4305

Running shoes with shoe straps 25 Running shoes with shoe straps 51

Running shoes 1348 Running shoes 3436

Low dissipative safety shoes 7 Low dissipative safety shoes 70

Dissipative safety shoes 18 Dissipative shoes 203

Asian vinyl Deck shoes Type 1 476 Asian vinyl Deck shoes Type 1 2158

Running shoes with shoe straps 7 Running shoes with shoe straps 29

Running shoes 524 Running shoes 2947

Low dissipative safety shoes 3 Low dissipative safety shoes 7

Dissipative safety shoes 11.1 Dissipative shoes 120

Conductive Conductive
Deck shoes Type 1 23 Deck shoes Type 1 554
rubber rubber
Running shoes with shoe straps 5 Running shoes with shoe straps 21

Running shoes 10 Running shoes 466

Low dissipative safety shoes 15 Low dissipative safety shoes 125

Dissipative safety shoes 38 Dissipative safety shoes 288

Low dissipative Low dissipative
Deck shoes Type 1 432 Deck shoes Type 1 3702
vinyl vinyl
Running shoes with shoe straps 11 Running shoes with shoe straps 161

Running shoes 833 Running shoes 2696

Low dissipative safety shoes 267 Low dissipative safety shoes 2280

Dissipative safety shoes 258 Dissipative safety shoes 2792

Standard asphalt Standard asphalt
Deck shoes Type 1 600 Deck shoes Type 1 2923
tile tile
Running shoes with shoe straps 488 Running shoes with shoe straps 1603

Running shoes 850 Running shoes 2226

6 SE-14-003
eters (walking pattern, speed of walking, and type of floors and
shoes) constant, then it is possible to identify the effect of the
environmental conditions. To determine the probability of
exceeding a specific value, the amplitude density of the
recorded data is converted to its probability density function by
dividing it by the total number of points in the data set. The
magnitude is taken to include negative charge voltages.
This is repeated for all data sets. In a second step, data sets
of similar property combinations (such as conductive floor but
dissipative shoe) are combined leading to five groups of floor/
footwear combinations (see Table 1) under the two environ-
mental data settings mentioned above.
For evaluating the effect of floor and footwear, the data
centers have been categorized as follows:
• Data center with no static control
• Data center with dissipative floors and dissipative foot-
wear
• Data center with dissipative floors and uncontrolled
footwear
• Data center with conductive floors and dissipative foot-
wear
• Data center with conductive floors, uncontrolled foot-
wear
A data center with a conductive floor and operators wear-
ing conductive shoes is not considered, as the voltage would
be very low, but it would require strict enforcement of foot-
wear. Instead we consider conductive floors in combination
with dissipative shoes or all shoes.
A simulation-based approach was studied in order to
understand the characteristics of the probability distribution
functions better (Moradian 2013). In this study, periodic wave-
forms similar to human body charging and discharging wave-
forms were generated with random distribution of the
amplitudes with a specific standard deviation. Moreover, the
shape of the waveforms were changed, keeping the time
period constant in order to cover many possible human body
charging and discharging waveforms. Three important facts
are revealed from this study and are listed below:
• A linear piecewise function with two parts can be fit on
the probability distribution curves.
• The breakpoint of the piecewise function is approxi-
mately equal to the average of the generated waveform.
• The slope of the function after the breakpoint is directly
related to the standard deviation of the peak amplitudes
of the generated waveform.
Another study (Moradian 2013) was performed in order
to investigate the validity of the above observations where the
walking voltages were recorded for a random walk with many
activities on different floor samples along with a controlled
well-defined walking pattern (ANSI/ESD STM97.2) recorded
for several minutes. A random walk differs from a controlled
walk by the following: in a random walk people may run, have
SE-14-003
sideways motion of the shoes, drag the shoes, jump, etc., so a
much wider set of movements is performed in a random walk
test. This was partially done to test if the distribution function
observed in the controlled walk is purely a result of the control
level. If yes, the random walk would show a much slower
decline of the probability at higher voltages. However, it
turned out that the random walk also showed a steep decline
of the probability above a break-point voltage. It also has been
shown that scraping shoes will increase the voltage levels
(Moradian 2013; Ryser 1990), however, we consider scraping
to be a rare event not influencing the overall risk assessment.
Employing the method discussed earlier, the probability distri-
bution functions for observing voltages in the quantized inter-
vals are calculated and plotted on a log-log scale as shown in
Figure 5. This figure clearly shows that a piecewise function
with two parts can be fit on the walking voltage probability
distribution curves. It also shows a very sharp decline of the
probability above a certain voltage.
Simonic (1981) measured the current discharge using a
device which had nine separate channels, each of which was
set to a specific current threshold level. Each channel recorded
the number of ESD discharges based on its own threshold
while the relative humidity was recorded continuously. Using
least-squares regression analysis, a graphical representation
has been derived for different relative humidity intervals that
approximate the cumulative distribution function. However,
because the smallest recorded current was not zero, the esti-
mated cumulative distribution functions do not start from zero.
It is interesting to note that, similar to our case for low relative
humidity, Simonic’s estimated cumulative distribution func-
tions are also piecewise functions with two parts. The slopes
of the functions for lowest relative humidity (15% to 20%) and
highest relative humidity (50% to 55%) are equal to –1.69 and
–3.03 (–3 indicates if the voltage is increased by ten-fold, the
probability is reduced to 0.001), respectively.
In another study performed by Hewlett-Packard (H)P, the
ESD voltage was measured using detectors in the range from
500 V to 25 kV. These ESD voltages have been recorded for
two years, but the humidity data has not been published yet.
The results show the level of the ESD voltages and their occur-
rence rate. The results of their study also present the cumula-
tive distribution function versus ESD measured voltages in
various intervals. Based on the cumulative distribution func-
tions, the probability distribution functions can be easily
calculated. The calculated probability distribution functions
show two facts. First, similar to our data, a two part pricewise
function can be fitted on the probability distribution function,
and, secondly, that the second slope is approximately equal to
the Simonic’s second line slope for 15% relative humidity.
For each of the data center categories, the discrete prob-
ability density functions of observing voltages in the appro-
priate quantized intervals for both environmental conditions
was calculated using the aforementioned method. As seen
from earlier discussions, a two-part piecewise function can be
fitted on these discrete points for each environmental condi-
7
Figure 5 Probability density functions of walking experiments for a long time period.

tion. While the discrete probability density functions meet the tation based on previous studies and literature data indicating
probability density function (PDF) specification (i.e., sum of an inverse relation between humidity and electrostatic charge
all the discrete probability density function points on the plot generation and accumulation.
should be equal to one) the fitted functions violate this prop-
erty. Hence, in order to solve this problem, the fitted functions Equations 1 and 2 are the calculated probability density
were normalized in order to satisfy the property of having the functions for the fitted piecewise functions for the two envi-
integral equal to one. For all categories of data centers, the ronmental conditions.Although the slopes have been indicated
probability density functions have been shown along with on the figures, the slopes of the lines can be easily extracted
Simonic’s and HP’s data (Moradian 2013). Figure 6 shows one from the functions as the exponents of the independent vari-
such figure for a data center with no static control. It should be able (voltage).
noted that the shown discrete data points on this figure can no
longer be regarded as probability density function because it 15% rh at 59°F (15°C)
has been normalized along with the fitted functions.
Simonic (1981) has derived the cumulative distribution
v – 1.0
  ------------
functions of ESD currents above certain thresholds and it –5
7.647  10 0  v  1500
cannot be used along with our recorded voltage directly. The  1500
cumulative distribution functions have been first differenti-  pv = (1)
v – 3.3
  ------------
–5
ated and the currents have been converted into equivalent 7.647  10 v  1500
 1500
ESD voltages assuming 1 k body resistance to obtain the
probability density functions of the ESD voltages
(Mardiguian 2009). 50% rh at 80°F (26.7°C)
The absolute slopes of the first part of the piecewise func-
tions are lower than the second part, indicating that the prob-
v – 1.9
ability of observing a voltage beyond the break point decreases   ------------
–6
1.68  10 0  v  1100
at a faster rate. The slopes have been indicated in Figure 6.  1100
 pv = (2)
While the break point voltages of the piecewise functions are
v – 7.9
  ------------
–6
higher for the low-humidity case, for higher humidity, the 1.68  10 v  1100
 1100
slopes are much steeper. This is in agreement with our expec-

8 SE-14-003
Figure 6 Distribution curve for data center with no static control.
PROBABILITY OF AN ESD-RELATED RISK
In order to derive the relative rate of ESD-related failures
or upsets, it is necessary to obtain the probability of observing
a voltage above a certain value from the probability distribu-
tion functions. Three threshold values have been selected:
• 500 V as limit during service. This level has been selected
as an assumed robustness during service of IT equipment.
During service, shielding panels maybe removed, the oper-
ator may handle hard drives or other plug-in devices and
the operator might connect a laptop via a USB cable to an
internal service connector. Those service actions are usu-
ally not considered during standardized IEC 61000-4-2
(2001) ESD testing, as these conditions expose sensitive
electronics. In the electronic industry it is generally consid-
ered that a voltage of 100 V is low enough to handle nearly
all electronic components (such as integrated circuits or
transistors). However, we assume that these components
are integrated into a system and the system, such as a hard
drive, provides some level of protection and shielding. Fur-
ther, most components are tested to 500V charged device
model (CDM) and 2000V human body model (HBM) lev-
els with a future reduction to 250V CDM and 1000V
HBM. An example of such a discharge might be the dis-
charge between a hand-held hard drive and the frame of the
server while inserting the hard drive.
• 4000 V is derived from the IEC 61000-4-2 (2008) test
levels. The IEC 61000-4-2 test uses contact mode for
this testing, and the contact mode waveform is based on
SE-14-003
the much more severe human/metal ESD. In the exam-
ples that illustrate a possible event rate, we assume that
the operator will only discharge himself via a piece of
metal into the IT equipment in 1% of the cases if he
touches a server during operation. An example of such a
discharge might be the discharge from a handheld key to
a key lock on the operator console of a server.
• 8000 V is also derived from the IEC 61000-4-2 test
(2008). This is the air discharge test level that is applied to
nonconductive surfaces. Here we assume that the failure
mechanism inside the IT equipment is only a function of
having or not having a breakdown, independent of the cur-
rent or rise time. The dielectric breakdown threshold is not
a function of holding or not holding a metal part. In the
following example that illustrates a possible event rate, it
is assumed that every time the operator reaches voltages
greater than 8 kV and touches a sensitive region, it leads to
failure or upset if the operator touches a sensitive part of
IT equipment. An example of such a discharge might be a
discharge from the surface of a touch screen into the elec-
tronics of the screen.
The probabilities of exceeding the above predefined ESD
robustness levels are derived from the probability density
functions and are shown in Table 3. The three major facts from
this table are listed below:
9
 Table 3. Probability Table for Voltages Greater than a Threshold Value

High risk is indicated with dark grey background, medium risk is indicated by light grey background, and low risk is indicated by the white background.

Data Center with No Static Control

V0 = 500(v) V0 = 4000(v) V0 = 8000(v)

Based on fitted lines on

18% 0.5% 0.1%
our data
15°C (59°F) and 15% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second fitted line
18% 0.6% 0.2%
with –2.69 slope

Based on fitted lines on

0.2% 3.7 × 10–6% 3.2 × 10–8%
27°C (80°F) and 50% rh our data
Probability (v > V0) Based on second fitted
0.2% 1.4 × 10–4% 8.6 × 10–6%
line with 5 slope

Data Center with Dissipative Floors, Dissipative Footwear

V0 = 500(v) V0 = 4000(v) V0 = 8000(v)

Based on fitted lines on

16% 0.016% 5.5 × 10–5%
our data
15°C (59°F) and 15% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second fitted line
16% 0.2% 0.06%
with –2.69 slope

Based on fitted lines on

19% 1.0 × 10–4% 2.2 × 10–7%
our data
27°C (80°F) and 50% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second fitted line
19% 5 × 10–3% 2.9 × 10–4%
with –5 slope
For 4 kV and 8 kV at 15°C (59°F)/15% rh both prediction methods lead to different judgments. We believe that the usage of the slopes from Simonic (1981), who had collected the
data in an uncontrolled environment also using carpets, is probably overestimating the risk. We believe dissipative floors in conjunction with dissipative shoes should lead to a be-
havior closer to the one measured in the walking test, such that the lower probabilities, marked in light grey background reflect the expected behavior better.

Data Center with Dissipative Floors, Uncontrolled Footwear

V0 = 500(v) V0 = 4000(v) V0 = 8000(v)

Based on fitted lines on

34% 0.9% 0.09%
our data
15°C (59°F) and 15% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second fitted line
31% 1% 0.28%
with –2.69 slope

Based on fitted lines on

44% 0.001% 2.3 × 10–5%
our data
27°C (80°F) and 50% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second line with
44% 0.02% 0.001%
–5 slope
By comparing this table to the previous it is clear that dissipative shoes significantly reduced the risk over uncontrolled shoes.

10 SE-14-003
 Table 3. (continued)Probability Table for Voltages Greater than a Threshold Value

Data Center with Conductive Floors, Dissipative Footwear

V0 = 500(v) V0 = 4000(v) V0 = 8000(v)

Based on fitted lines on

0.003% 1.8 × 10–7% 7.4 × 10–9%
our data
15°C (59°F) and 15% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second line with
0.1% 0.003% 0.001%
–2.69 slope

Based on fitted lines on

1.6 × 10–7% 1.8 × 10–11% 8.9 × 10–13%
our data
27°C (80°F) and 50% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second line with
5 × 10–7% 1.2 × 10–10% 7.6 × 10–12%
–5 slope
Even for service, the voltages are low if conductive floors and dissipative shoes are used. However, it does not mean that the ground strap is not needed during the service because these results
are derived based on the data related only to two types of dissipative shoes. However, the experiment shows that some dissipative shoes have high ability on charge generation.

Data Center with Conductive Floors, Uncontrolled Footwear

V0 = 500(v) V0 = 4000(v) V0 = 8000(v)

Based on fitted lines on

8% 0.004% 4.1 × 10–5%
our data
15°C (59°F) and 15% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second line with
20% 0.3% 0.09%
–2.69slope

Based on fitted lines on

0.1% 4.7 × 10–10% 7.5 × 10–13%
our data
27°C (80°F) and 50% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second line with
1.32% 2.9 × 10–4% 1.8 × 10–5%
–5 slope
Here again the Simonic-based extrapolation shows a risk for 15°C (59°F)/15% rh, while the extrapolation based on the walking test shows no risk. However, Simonic predicted that
wool carpet compared to antistatic floor at 15% rh will increase the probability 160 times, but if we compare the 0.3% in this table to the dissipative floor/uncontrolled footwear
(showing 0.7%) only a very small increase is seen, indicating that the extrapolation based on Simonic may not cover this case well.

Data Center with Conductive Rubber, Uncontrolled Footwear

V0 = 500(v) V0 = 4000(v) V0 = 8000(v)

Based on fitted lines on

0.1% 8.6 × 10–7% 1.6 × 10–8%
our data
15°C (59°F) and 15% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second line with
0.2% 5 × 10–3% 15 × 10–4%
–2.69 slope

Based on fitted lines on

9.6 × 10–13% 1.4 × 10–20% 3.5 × 10–23%
our data
27°C (80°F) and 50% rh
Probability (v > V0) Based on second line with
3.1 × 10–6% 7.6 × 10–10% 4.7 × 10–11%
–5 slope

• It is observed that the probability decreases as the equip-
ment robustness increases. The value by which the prob-
ability decreases depends on the slope.
• The probability of an ESD-related damage or upset
depends on the relative humidity. The lower the relative
humidity, the higher the damage or upset probability.
The final report (Moradian 2013) quantifies this.
• Calculation of the relative rate of ESD-related failures or
upsets based on the definition of X factor for different ESD
robustness levels leads to different numbers. This means

SE-14-003 11
 even in one category of data centers for different ESD
robustness levels, the X factor will be different.
Two approaches have been used to obtain the extrapo-
lation functions used to predict higher voltage levels: (1)
the extrapolation was performed based on the distribution
functions measured in our test, and (2) the extrapolation
was performed based on literature data. The literature data
predicts higher risk levels, however, in many cases both
extrapolations lead to the same conclusions with respect to
risk level.
High risk is indicated with dark grey, medium risk is indi-
cated by light grey, and low risk is indicated by white.
As seen in Table 3, the probabilities of exceeding the ESD
robustness levels for certain categories of data centers are
extremely low. For example, a data center with the conductive
rubber floor and all footwear for a threshold voltage of Vth =
8000 Volts has a X Factor (defined as “increase of ESD upset
or damage events for changed environmental or construction
conditions, keeping all user actions the same”) of 4.6 × 1014
with probabilities as low as 3.5 × 10–23 and 1.6 × 10–8 for
50% rh at 80°F (26.7°C) and 15% rh at 59°F (15°C), respec-
tively. In the example discussed above, the X factor is very
large. But it is meaningless as the probabilities involved are so
low that observing a failure in the normal operating life cycle
of a data center is practically impossible. Similar observations
were made for some other categories as well.
Consider a data center with HPL-F and HPL-N floor
types and uncontrolled footwear is operated in 50% rh at
80°F (26.7°C) or in 15% rh at 59°F (15°C) (high humidity
conditions), which is in the upper bound of the ASHRAE
recommended envelope (2011). It is expected that under
such operating conditions, the number of ESD-related fail-
ures or upsets of IT equipment in this data center would be
very low. If the ESD robustness level of IT equipment is
selected to be Vth = 4000 Volts, the probability of observing
voltages greater than this threshold voltage is 0.001%.
However, this is for the best case scenario (upper end of the
ASHRAE [2011] recommended envelope in which the prob-
ability of observing ESD’s with high voltages is very low).
A similar analysis was performed in the lower end of the
recommended envelope (40% rh at 65°F [18.3°C]) and the
probability of observing voltages greater than this threshold
voltage was found approximately equal to 0.01%, which is
again a very low number (Moradian 2013). Hence the prob-
abilities below 0.01% do not pose any ESD-related risk
(Moradian 2013).
In similar manner, consider a data center with HPL-F
and HPL-N floor types and uncontrolled footwear that is
operated at 50% rh at 80°F (26.7°C). If the ESD robustness
level of the IT equipment is selected to be Vth = 8000 V, the
probability of observing voltages greater than this threshold
voltage is 2.3 × 10–5% for a data center with the aforemen-
tioned floor and footwear. According to the results for the
lower end of the recommended envelope (40% rh at 65°F
12
[18.3°C]) discussed in Moradian [2013]), the probability of
observing voltages greater than 8 kV was found to be approx-
imately equal to 2 × 10–3%. User experience shows that data
centers run within the recommended envelope do not show
ESD-related problems for operating conditions. This leads
us to consider 2.3 × 10–3% as the probability below which
there is not risk of ESD-related failure or upset (Moradian
2013).
The aforementioned probabilities (i.e., 0.01% and 2.3 ×
10–3% are the probabilities at which the risk of ESD-related
failures or upsets is very low. However, to conclude on the risk
of ESD-related failures or upsets for each group of data center,
upper tolerable probabilities should be identified. In order to
identify an estimation about the upper tolerable probabilities,
the following calculation has been conducted to illustrate the
influence of different probabilities. The estimation illustrates
the number of ESD-related failures in a hypothetical data
center. This estimation requires the following information,
which we estimate by the numbers listed below.
• Statistical information on the environmental conditions
over the year. Here we assume the worst case for 15% rh
at 59°F (15°C), i.e., the data center stays at that point
throughout the year.
• The number of touches made by operators during the
year (for 15 persons, 100 touches a day, 250 days a
year). Alternatively, we could assume 30,000 steps a
person per day and a probability to touch per step of 5%,
which leads to the same result.
• The probability that a person touches a server at a sensi-
tive location. This has to be taken into account as most
parts of a server are not sensitive to ESD. Examples of
nonsensitive areas are metal panels, doors, and frames.
In contrast, displays and connectors are sensitive. We
estimate that they account to about 5% of the surface
area accessible to the operator. sensitive.s.
• The probability that a person touches the server with his
finger or via a metal part. The test voltage levels of serv-
ers which are at least 4 kV contact mode discharge and
8 kV air discharge (IEC 2001) are based on the much
more severe discharge from a small hand-held metal
part. We estimate that 5% of the touches will lead to a
spark via a small metal part such as a ring, a screw-
driver, or a key.
• The actual robustness levels of the servers. Normally it
is only known that they pass a 4 kV/8 kV ESD test.
The step rate and the probabilities listed above are not
even known by the order of magnitude, however, we use them
to illustrate the probability of surpassing a voltage level at a
given environmental and building condition.
According to the above discussion, for 4 kV contact mode
if one ESD-related failure or upset per year is considered to be
tolerable, then the corresponding probability can be derived by
dividing the number of ESD-related failures or upsets (one per
year) by the total number of the touches to the sensitive parts
SE-14-003
of the IT equipment via a metal part. So the probability can be
calculated as (1/(375 × 106 × 0.05 × 0.05)) × 100 = 0.1%.
These probabilities will be considered as the reference prob-
ability at which probabilities larger than this can lead to an
intolerable number of failures or upsets.
For 8 kV air discharge, if one ESD-related failure or upset
per year is considered to be tolerable, then the corresponding
probability can be derived by dividing the number of ESD-
related failures or upsets (one per year in our case) by the total
number of the touches to the sensitive parts of the IT equip-
ment. (For 8 kV we consider every discharge to be endanger-
ing the equipment as we consider a dielectric breakdown that
does not depend on touching via a metal part. This again, is a
conservative assumption, justified in light of the high reliabil-
ity requested in data centers). So the probability can be calcu-
lated as (1/(375 × 103 × 0.05)) × 100 = 5 × 10–3%. These
probabilities will be considered as the reference probability at
which probabilities larger than this lead to an intolerable
number of failures or upsets.
As discussed earlier, 500 V has been considered the
threshold during service. If during service the shielding panels
are removed, then the probability of touching a sensitive
device by the operator will be higher. For example, if we
consider a probability of 5% for touching sensitive parts
during service and in this duration if IT equipment is touched
600,000, times then the operator would be touching the sensi-
tive parts 30,000 times. So even if we consider 1 × 10–2% as
the threshold probability for 500 V then we will see several
ESD-related errors (three in this example). Hence, we
consider 3 × 10–3% as the threshold probability in which upper
probabilities have high risk of ESD-related failure or upset.
The considered threshold probabilities for different ESD
threshold levels are listed in Table 4
It should be noted that the estimated probabilities are
based on the well-defined, industry standard walking experi-
ments. But, according to literature and our experiments, other
activities like shuffling or scraping lead to higher induced volt-
ages in the human body and higher probabilities of observing
voltages greater than the ESD-robustness level of IT equip-
ment (Simonic 1981; Ryser 1990). On the other hand, some
human activities like slow walking or standing in front of
equipment lead to lower human body induced voltages and
lower probability of observing voltages greater than the
considered ESD-robustness level. For that reason we believe
that this data is the best estimate of the risk.
The extrapolation has been performed using two methods. In
the first method we extrapolated by a slope fitted to our data; the
second method fitted a slope of –5 or –2.69 to the highest voltage
data point. These slope values are based on the work by Simonic
(1981). With wet conditions (80°F [26.67°C] and 50% rh) the
slope after the maximum recorded voltage is fixed at –5 while for
dry conditions (59°F [15°C] and 15% rh) it is fixed at –2.69. The
probabilities based on these new slopes have also been indicated
in Table 3. It is observed that the probabilities in some cases lead
us to meaningless results if we base our prediction on Simonic’s
SE-14-003
slopes. For example, considering the data center with no static
control, a data center with dissipative floor and all footwear and
a data center with conductive floor and all footwear with the ESD
robustness level of 4kV, we observe probabilities of 0.6%, 1%,
and 0.3%, respectively. This indicates a very low effect of using
conductive floors against uncontrolled floors, which contradicts
with our analysis as well as the results from earlier studies by
Simonic (1981). Based on this argument, the following discus-
sion is based on the probabilities extrapolated using the slopes
obtained from our measured data.
Considering a data center with conductive rubber floor
type and no control on footwear, it is seen from the table that
the probability of observing voltages greater than Vth =
4000 V is 8.6 × 10–7%, which gives us a factor of 8.6 × 10–5%
when compared to the reference probability. This is the lowest
factor predicted and is mainly influenced by the floor type,
conductive rubber in this case.
This leads us to believe that, if we replace the floor with
conductive rubber and simultaneously operate the data center
in the ASHRAE A2 allowable envelope, then the number of
ESD-related failures would change marginally compared to a
data center which is running in the recommended envelope.It
should be also noted that the factors obtained are for operating
the data centers in 15% rh at 59°F (15°C), which is below the
ASHRAE A2 allowable envelope.
For the data centers, which are running at the low extreme
of the new ASHRAE A3 and A4 allowable envelopes, the
available data is incomplete and partially contradictory.
• According to Simonic’s equations (1981) the probability
of reaching a voltage level will increase by 50 times if
the humidity is reduced from 15% to 8% at 23°C (73°F).
However, a careful look at his original data indicates
that the number maybe more in the range of two times.
• An analysis of many literature references and our data
on the effect of humidity on the voltages generated indi-
cates an increase of the voltages when the humidity is
reduced from 40% to 8% by a factor of 1 to 8, having an
average of three times.
• At present, not enough data is available to predict the
change of voltages or probabilities for changes from 15%
to 8% well enough, but anecdotal user data indicates the
possibility of a strong increase of ESD-related failures
below a humidity threshold often given as 15% or 20% rh.
Table 4. Considered Threshold Probabilities
for Different ESD Threshold Levels
Threshold Voltages
500 V 4 kV 8 kV
Upper threshold probability 3 × 10–3% 0.1% 5 × 10–3%
Lower threshold probability — 1 × 10–2% 2 × 10–3%
13
 The authors still tried to estimate the risk of ESD-induced
failures if the data centers are operated at the lower humidity
boundaries of the A3 or the A4 envelope. These estimations
may have less confidence due to lower levels of available data
regarding walking voltage and other ESD producing events
such as sitting up from an office chair, unwrapping a plastic
wrapped cable spool, and rolling a metal cart which has plastic
wheels.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Data Centers with No Static Control
Recommendations for different data center categories
are listed in the following tables. Table 5 shows the recom-
mendations for data centers with no static control. For this
type of data center operating in ASHRAE A1 and A2 enve-
lopes (2011), the relative rate of ESD-related failures or
upsets would be high. This is based on the probabilities
listed in Table 3.
For the same data center when operated at 15°C (59°F),
the probability of exceeding voltages of the 4 kV ESD
robustness level would be equal to 0.5%. So, by comparing
this probability to the previously defined reference proba-
bilities for 4 kV (below 0.01% is considered to be no risk
and above 0.1% is considered to be a high risk) the risk of
ESD failure or upset would be high. For the 8 kV ESD
robustness level, the probability of exceeding this level is
0.1%. By comparing this number with the predefined
thresholds probabilities (below considered not a risk and
above considered to be a high risk) it is clear that the risk
is high. This suggests that even during normal operation the
risk of ESD-related failure or upset is high (15°C [59°F]/
15% rh, data center with no static control). During the
service (probabilities above are considered to be problem-
atic) the risk of failures or upsets would be high.The prob-
ability of exceeding 500 V is 18%, which is much higher
than the predefined higher probability threshold. So, during
service operations, a ground strap is recommended.
If these data centers are operated in 8% relative humid-
ity (the lowest relative humidity of ASHRAE A3 and A4
Table 5. Recommendations for Data Center with No Static Control
RH and
Data Center Setup User Action
Temperature Ranges
High if the data center is operated in
A1, A2 Normal operation
the lower edge of the envelope
Ground strap is always needed
Service
especially if there is no static control.
No static control
A3, A4 Normal operation
Service
14
allowable envelope), then it is expected that the probability
of exceeding an ESD robustness level would be increased
by factor of three or more in comparison to the data centers
with no static control operating at 15% rh at 59°F (15°C).
This suggests that for normal operation of these data
centers (no static control) at the lowest allowable humidity
within ASHRAE envelopes A3 and A4, the risk of ESD fail-
ure or upset would be high. For service operation it is
expected that the risk of the ESD-related failures or upsets
would be increased by the same factors in comparison to the
data centers with no static control running at 15% rh at 59°F
(15°C). During any service operation the risk would be high
and the use of ground straps is definitely required.
Data Centers with Dissipative Floors
and Dissipative Footwear
Table 6 shows the recommendations for data centers with
dissipative floors in which their operators use dissipative foot-
wear. For these types of data centers, operated in 15% rh at
59°F (15°C), the probability of exceeding the 4 kV ESD
robustness level would be equal to 0.016%. By comparing this
probability to the previously defined reference probabilities
for 4 kV (probabilities below 0.01% are considered to pose no
risk, and probabilities above 0.1% are considered to be risky),
the risk of ESD failures or upsets would be moderate. For 8 kV
voltage threshold, the probability of exceeding this threshold
is equal to 5.5 × 10–5%. Compared with the predefined refer-
ence probability thresholds, a low risk of ESD failures will be
present. It can be concluded that the risk of ESD failures or
upsets is moderate. However, during service operations (based
on the calculated probability of exceeding 500 V, which is
equal to 17%) it becomes clear that ground straps need to
be recommended.
For these data centers running at the lowest relative
humidity in the ASHRAE A3 and A4 allowable envelopes,
the risk is considered to be moderate to high for normal oper-
ation. During service a ground strap is recommended.
Risk Assessment
Basis of Risk Assessment
Recommendation
IEC 61000-4-2 (2001) testing,
4kV contact, 8 kV AD
All equipment is considered to be safe
if the voltages are below 500V.
IEC 61000-4-2 (2001) testing,
High
4kV contact, 8 kV AD
All equipment is considered to be safe
Ground strap is always needed.
if the voltages are kept below 500 V.
SE-14-003
 Table 6. Recommendations for Data Centers with Dissipative Floors and Dissipative Footwear

RH and Risk Assessment

Data Center Setup User Action Basis of Risk Assessment
Temperature Ranges Recommendation

IEC 61000-4-2 (2001)

A1, A2 Normal operation Moderate
testing, 4kV contact, 8 kV AD

All equipment is considered to

Service Ground strap needed be safe if the voltages are kept
Dissipative floors, below 500 V.
dissipative footwear IEC 61000-4-2 (2001) testing,
A3, A4 Normal operation High
4kV contact, 8 kV AD

All equipment is considered to

Ground strap is always
Service be safe if the voltages are kept
needed.
below 500 V.

Table 7. Recommendations for Data Centers with Dissipative Floors and Uncontrolled Footwear

RH and Risk Assessment

Data Center Setup User Action Basis of Risk Assessment
Temperatures Ranges Recommendation

IEC 61000-4-2 (2001) testing,

A1, A2 Normal operation High
4kV contact, 8 kV AD

All equipment is considered to

Ground strap is always
Service be safe if the voltages are
needed.
Dissipative floors, below 500 V.
uncontrolled footwear
IEC 61000-4-2 (2001) testing,
A3, A4 Normal operation High
4kV contact, 8 kV AD

All equipment is considered to

Ground strap is always
Service be safe if the voltages are kept
needed.
below 500 V.

Data Centers with Dissipative Floors
and Uncontrolled Footwear
Table 7 shows the recommendations for data centers with
dissipative floors in which their operators use any footwear. For
these types of data centers operated in 15% rh at 59°F (15°C),
the probability of exceeding 4 kV ESD robustness level is equal
to 0.9%. So, by comparing this probability to the previously
defined reference probabilities for 4kV, which are 0.01% and
0.1%, the risk of ESD failures or upsets would be high. For the
8 kV ESD robustness level, the probability of exceeding this
level (which is equal to 0.09%) is much higher than the refer-
ence probability thresholds. So the risk of ESD failures is high
for the 8 kV robustness level. For service we set a threshold of
500 V and the probability of exceeding it during walking is
17%, which clearly indicates the need to use ground straps.
For these data centers operating in lowest relative humidity
of ASHRAE A3 and A4 allowable envelopes (8% rh) and for
normal operation, the risk of ESD failures or upsets would be
high in comparison to similar data centers running at 15% rh at
59°F (15°C). In the same manner during service operations, it
is expected that the risk of the ESD failures or upsets would
increase by a factor of two of more, so during service operations
the risk of ESD-related failures of upsets would be high in
comparison to similar data centers running at 15% rh at 59°F
(15°C). So, during service using ground straps is recommended.
Data Centers with Conductive Floors
and Dissipative Footwear
Table 8 shows the recommendations for a data center oper-
ating with conductive floors with its operators using only dissi-
pative footwear. For these data centers operating at 15% rh at
59°F (15°C), according to the Table 3, probabilities of exceeding
4 kV and 8 kV are extremely low. By comparing these probabil-
ities to the reference probabilities listed in Table 4 (i.e., 0.01% and
2 × 10–3%) it becomes clear that the risk of ESD-related fault or
failure would be very low. According to Table 3, for a 500 V
threshold, the probability is 0.002%, which is lower than the prob-
ability considered to be problematic (0.003%) for a 500 V thresh-

SE-14-003 15
old. So, even during service the risk of ESD-related failures or
upsets would be low. As a note of caution we like to remind the
reader that a very large range of dissipative shoes exists, and as the
probabilities are close to each other (0.002% to 0.003%) the data
center operator may still recommend the usage of ground straps
during service.
If these data centers are operated at the lowest humidity in
the new ASHRAE A3 and A4 allowable envelopes, it is
expected that the risk of ESD-related failures or upsets would
increase by factor of two or more due to the reduced humidity.
Still, the risk may remain low during operation. However,
during service operations ground straps are recommended.
Data Centers with Conductive Floors
and Uncontrolled Footwear
Table 9 shows the recommendations for a data center with
conductive floors and uncontrolled footwear. For these data
centers operating in 15% rh at 59°F (15°C), the probabilities
of exceeding 4 kV and 8 kV are 0.004% and 4.1 × 10–5%,
respectively (see Table 3). By comparing these probabilities to
the reference probabilities listed in Table 4 (i.e., 0.01% and
2 × 10–3%), it is indicated that the risk of ESD-related failures
or upsets would be low. According to Table 3 for a 500 V
threshold, the probability is 8%, which is much higher than the
probability considered to be problematic. During service the
risk of ESD-related failures or upsets would be high and using
ground straps is recommended.
If these data centers are operated at the lower humidity
edge in the new ASHRAE A3 and A4 allowable envelopes, it
is expected that the risk of ESD-related failure or upset
increases by factor of two or more due to the reduced humidity.
The risk of ESD failure of upset would be low to moderate.
However, during service operations considering the same
factors indicates the risk would be high. So, during service
ground straps are recommended.

Table 8. Recommendations for Data Centers with Conductive Floor and Dissipative Footwear

RH and Risk Assessment

Data Center Setup User Action Basis of Risk Assessment
Temperature Ranges Recommendation

IEC 61000-4-2 (2001) testing,

A1, A2 Normal operation Very low
4kV contact, 8 kV AD

All equipment is considered to be safe if

Service Ground strap needed
the voltages are kept below 500 V.
Conductive floors,
dissipative footwear IEC 61000-4-2 (2001) testing,
A3, A4 Normal operation Low
4kV contact, 8 kV AD

Ground strap is All equipment is considered to be safe if

Service
always needed. the voltages are kept below 500 V.

Table 9. Recommendations for Data Center with Conductive Floors, Uncontrolled Footwear

RH and Risk Assessment

Data Center Setup User Action Basis of Risk Assessment
Temperature Ranges Recommendation

IEC 61000-4-2 testing,

A1, A2 Normal operation Low
4kV contact, 8 kV AD

Ground strap is All equipment is considered to be safe if

Service
always needed. the voltages are below 500 V.
Conductive floors,
uncontrolled footwear IEC 61000-4-2 testing,
A3, A4 Normal operation Moderate
4kV contact, 8 kV AD

Ground strap is All equipment is considered to be safe if

Service
always needed. the voltages are kept below 500 V.

16 SE-14-003
CONCLUSION
This study investigated the probability of ESD-induced
upsets or failures in data centers. The part of the study (Mora-
dian 2013) reported in this paper is based on voltage levels
personnel can reach when walking on a floor. The data was
measured for different flooring and footwear in a climate
chamber. To understand the risk of reaching ESD robustness
thresholds known for IT equipment, extrapolation was
performed to determine probabilities. These show the strong
effect of humidity and of the flooring/footwear. In general it is
shown that no ESD control can lead to an unacceptable ESD
failure rate if the data center runs at low humidity (15% rh at
59°F [15°C]), while at higher humidity, the risk is nearly zero
except during service of opened equipment.
The data also show that a conductive floor and control of
footwear can mitigate the risk even at low-humidity operation
(15% rh at 59°F [15°C]). A remaining uncertainty is the
behavior at the even lower humidity levels allowed in the
ranges A3 and A4. The available data indicates a further
increase of voltages if the humidity is reduced further, for
example to 10% rh at 77°F (25°C). However, it is at present
difficult to predict the expected voltage increase or probability
reducing the confidence in the recommendations for data
centers operating below 15% rh.
REFERENCES
Aidam, D.P. 1996. ESD: Waveform calculation, field and
current of human and simulator ESD. Journal of Elec-
trostatics 33–51.
ANSI/ESD. S20.20-2007. 2007. Protection of electrical and
electronic parts, assemblies and equipment (Excluding
electrically initiated explosive devices). Washington,
DC: American National Standards Institute.
ASHRAE. 2011. Thermal guidelines for data processing
environments. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
SE-14-003
Frei, Stephan, and David Pommerenke 1998. A transient
field measurement system to analyze the severity and
occurrence rate of electrostatic discharge (ESD). Jour-
nal of Electrostatics (44)3:191–203.
IEC. 2008. Standard 61000-4-2. EN-Electromagnetic Com-
patibility (EMC)—Part 4-2: Testing and Measurement
Techniques—Electrostatic Discharge Immunity Test-
Edition 1.2. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electro-
technical Commission.
Mardiguian, M. 2009. Electrostatic discharge: Understand,
simulate, and fix ESD problems, 3rd Edition. Wiley-
IEEE Press.
Masanet, E., R. Brown, A. Shehabi, J. Koomey, and B. Nord-
man. Estimating the energy use and efficiency potential
of us data centers. Proceedings of the IEEE 99(8):1440–
53.
Moradian, Mahdi, Abhishek Patnaik, and David Pomme-
renke. 2013. The effect of humidity on the reliability of
ICT equipment in data centers. TRP 1499, ASHRAE.
Pommerenke, D. 1995. ESD: Transient fields, arc simula-
tion, and rise time limit. Journal of Electrostatics 31–54.
Ryser, H. 1990. The relationship between ESD test voltage
and personnel charge voltage. EOS/ESD Symposium.
Shehabi, A., S. Ganguly, K. Traber, H. Price, A. Horvath,
W.W. Nazaroff, and A.J. Gadgil. 2008. Energy implica-
tions of economizer use in california data centers. Tech-
nical report. Berkeley: Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley.
Simonic, R. 1981. Personal ESD statistics. IEEE/EMC Sym-
posium. Boulder, CO.
Simonic, R. 1982. Furniture ESD events rates. IEEE/ESD
Symposium. Santa Clara, CA.
Yuan, H., C. Kuo, and I. Ahmad. 2010. Energy efficiency in
data centers and cloud-based multimedia services: An
overview and future directions. IEEE International Con-
ference on Green Computing. 375–82.
17