AN OVERVIEW OF ESD PROCESS CONTROL PROBLEMS
G. BAUMGARTNER
Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 3504
Sunnyvale, California 94088
( 4 0 8 ) 742-6997
Abstract The problems of applying procedures and
measurement methods for the control of electrostatic
discharge (ESD) are identified for the implementation
or improvement of an ESD control program. Adherence to
military, industrial, and in-house ESD requirements is
difficult because of diverse electrostatic charge
sources, erroneous tests, and unknown sensitivities of
devices in various configurations due to the inade-
quacies of the sensitivity classification method (i.e.
human body model test). This complicated situation is
analyzed to determine ESD procedures and packaging
protection limitations. Improved procedures and pro-
tection result from considering sensitive devices to be
of two distinct classes - voltage sensitive or energy
sensitive.
I. Introduction
ESD control varies widely from company to company.
Company programs range from basic t o excessive
controls, while some have no control programs. It is
practically impossible to cover all aspects of ESD
control because problems effect almost every department
of a company, along with their suppliers and customers.
Some of these ESD control problems and the underlying
reasons are discussed.
11. ESD Program Start-up
A. Management Support
Management support is essential for an effective ESD
program. This support can be obtained by determining
the cost effectiveness of instituting an ESD program.
However, accurate ESD damage cost data are not often
available to determine the cost benefit ratio. This is
because accurate ESD failure rate information is not
always obtainable due to the lack of failure analysis
or of differentiation from electrical overstress (EOS).
Developing cost estimates of implementing, training
gersoniel, and maintaining ESD protection is straight
orward For Example a good wrist strap for grounding
personnel costs $10 t; $15. The cost of a good tabre
top mat, which provides a grounded worksurface is
about $50. The cost of heat sealable polyethylene'ESD
protective bags range from about 4 cents for a small
bag to 39 cents for a large bag. The training costs
vary depending on the length of training time and
whether it is in-house training. The cost of ESD
damage is more difficult to obtain and should include
the replacement part, repair, and retest. The pro-
bability of additional damage due to rework and the
reliability of reworked items should be considered.
Because of many undetermined and uncontrolled factors,
decisions may not always be able to be based on enough
data to justify an ESD program. Sometimes, decreasing
the possibility of ESD damage may be enough justifi-
cation for implementing an ESD program.
For an ESD program to be effective there needs to be
plant wide compliance and cooperation. This can only
occur if management is supporting the program. But,
enqineerinq has to decide what level of orotection is
needed and determine which controls ark appropriate.
This is accomolished bv understandinu the Drotection
requirements of the-product and acquiring as much
reliable failure data as possible.
B. Developinq an ESD Program
Determining what departments will be involved in the
ESD program is important, however, what kinds of damage
is considered as ESD must also be defined. The ESD
program must be extended to the original device manu-
facturers, vendors, subcontractors, etc., through to
customer repair services if they handle sensitive
parts.
For discussion, an ESD program can be divided into two
levels a s follows:
1. Basic - Level 1 -- Install an ESD "basic
protection" program that includes only four
elements - a grounded dissipative (or possibly
conductive) worksurface, personnel wrist strap
grounding (1 megohm to ground), pink (surfact-
ant loaded) polyethylene protective packaging,
and a basic ESD training class of 1 to 2 hrs.
90/CH 2935-5/90/ooo(M859$01.0001990 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 07:08:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
B/151 014893
2 . Total - Level 2 -- Install "total pro-
tectTo%n- ing additional Frotection to
l e v e l 11a
."L:::# protection uses every
available Drotection device such as les strap
grounding-with a conductive floor or mdt, room
and/or bench t o p ionization, conductive/
dissipative tote boxes, double bagging by
adding a metal foil outer bag, ESD gloves,
grounded conductive storage racks, grounded
dissipative plastic shelves, ionized dry
nitrogen storage boxes, static alarms and
monitors, etc.
(Of course it i s possible t o have an ESD
program tailored to use some or almost all of
the items listed in Level 2.)
Management may support Level 1 if i t seems to be
adequate. However, support of Level 2 may result in
overkill[l] that may not be obvious. Developing what
is mistakenly called total protection" is expensive
and may include a variety of unnecessary procedures.
While a comparison of ESD controlled to non-controlled
production lines have been reportedr21, no reliable
studies have compared ESD failure rates for Level 1
versus Level 2 manufacturing lines. Also, no data is
available for comparing protection of Levels 1 and 2
versus the sensitivity levels o r other types of
sensitivity. Engineers must be aware that Level 2
protection measures may provide little or no increased
protection over Level 1 and that some elements may
actually increase ESD risk.
The difficulty is in determining which additional ESD
procedures provide more protection, especially for
electrostatic field (E-field) sensitive devices.
Sometimes using some elements of Level 2 may be prudent
t o satisfy customer concerns, even if increased
protection is unproven. No ESD program can provide
total protection even if human error is excluded.
Unfortunately, ESD protection methods have not yet been
developed into exact agreed upon procedures based on
directly applicable electrostatic and electrical
engineering principles. Level 1 protection can be very
cost effective from a contract and a hardware stand-
point. Although in most cases, an ESD protection
program has to be tailored by a knowledgeable engineer
to meet the specific needs of the particular manufac-
turing or service operation.
Engineers are faced with recommending a protection
level of basic, total, or somewhere in between based on
their understanding of ESD protection methods. Engi-
neers developing, defining or maintaining an ESD
protection program must be aware of the difficulties,
limitations, and uncertainties of measurement associ-
ated with the ESD protection. A knowledge of why
certain sensitive devices are only damaged by direct
discharges while others are damaged by E-fields i s
needed to provide proper protection for the different
types of devices.
C. In-House, Industry, and Military Requirements
Any ESD program must conform to established require-
ments, either based on in-house, industry, or military
standards. Requirements are used to define protective
methods and procedures for the control of ESD packag-
ing, handling, processing, and, possibly, circuit
design. The electronics industry in the late 1960's
became aware of the need for controls when unprotected
MOS transistors began to experience ESD failures - the
need for a protection circuit had not been thought of.
The Military established comprehensive requirements and
suggested guidelines in May 1980 with a Department of
Defense Standard and Handbook[3,41. These documents
and others generated by the Military have some elements
that became obsolete as the industry progressed, there-
fore DOD-STD-1686 was revised 8 August 1988. DOD-HDBK-
263 is being revised to reflect the new requirements of
MIL-STD-1686* REV A. MIL-HDBK-263* will contain know-
ledge that has been gained in the industry over the
last ten years. (*Formerly DOD now MIL)
The military standards are now being complemented by
recently published industry standards such as the
 Electronic Industries Association (EIA) and Electrical
Overstress/Electrostatic Discharge (EOS/ESD) Associa-
tion Standards. There are also some requirements in
the military and industry standards which are contro-
versial in that they contain tests and procedures that
are not universally accepted or shown to be effective
for ESD protection.
The non-universal acceptance of ESD procedures and test
methods is due to standards committees not following
good engineering practice of defining the problem,
stating the requirements, developing measurement
theories, and documenting test methods with "round
robin testing. Following good engineering practice
would lead to test methods that would measure the
amount o f protection provided to a device. Then
protection criteria could be related to the what is
adequate for a class or type of device. These methods
may never be able to measure protection with the
certainty needed to establish total confidence.
Present test methods lack credibility for assessing ESD
protection provided by workstations, protective
packaging, and other ESD protection systems, although
they do provide an estimate of protection.
Military requirements are intended to institute strict
ESD controls. Adhering to military and industrial ESD
requirements can result in unnecessary costs if not
tailored by in-house documents. Complete and continual
compliance with protection requirements of devices
after their manufacture is a difficult but important
task to insure against latent defects. The existence
of latency is controversial and cannot be found by
testing. Latency has diminished as an issue over the
last few years. Latency failures have been estimated
to be less than 1 percent of the ESD failures[5].
111. Program Problems
A. Inadequacies of Classification System
Inadequacies exist in the sensitivity classification
method, i.e. the human body model (HBM) test. Class-
ification aids the designers by identifying sensitive
items but it is not always helpful in determining the
protection level required for a given device. The
protection procedures could be improved b considering
sensitive devices as two distinct typesy6,7], voltage
sensitive (VS Type -
unprotected) or energy sensi-
tive[8] (ES Type - protected). When the type of
sensitivity is not identified, it is more difficult to
determine what kind of ESD protection procedures are
needed for a given device. Unless devices are
identified, programs may consider every device as VS
even though VS devices are rarely used by the majority
of the electronics industry and are the only devices
sensitive to E-fields.
The large difference in sensitivities between types of
devices adds to the protection problem. ESD procedures
and packaging requirements must be analyzed to deter-
mine what level of protection is provided to the item
when the package is exposed to different ESD sources.
B. Differentiating EOS From ESD
Defining ESD protection prevents confusing it with EOS
requirements such as the soldering iron tip voltage.
ESD damage is a particular type of EOS but some EOS
control requirements are erroneously being specified as
ESD protection requirements. EOS, other than ESD
damage, should usually not be considered in an ESD
protective program. There are some exceptions. EOS
requirements for soldering irons may be handled more
conveniently by the ESD protection program.
DOD-STD-~OOO[~]and other high reliability soldering
specifications set EOS limits by specifying the maximum
soldering iron tip voltage of 2 mV. The 2mV speci-
fication is unreasonably low when compared to actual ac
voltages on worksurfaces. Up to 2 volts can be mea-
sured on ESD worksurfaces and personnel even though
they are connected to ground through a 1 Megohm resis-
tor. Power line cords from ac electrical equipment
lying o n the dissipative worksurface cause these
induced voltages because of capacitive coupling.
Worksurface grounding and wrist strap monitor equipment
may also cause more than 2 mV to appear across a
device, which technically exceeds the DOD-STD-2000
requirement. A more realistic tip voltage requirement
would be 100 mV.
IV. ESD Protection for Manufacturing Operations
A. Implementation and Control Problems
Implementation of a Level 1 program does present some
problems for manufacturing, but not as many as a Level
2 program. To the inexperienced engineer, ESD protec-
tion seems to be straightforward but a lot of attention
has to be given to problems such as how to identify,
classify, handle, and package sensitive items or costs
will increase needlessly.
860
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 07:08:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Some manufacturers have repackaged all types of elec-
tronic parts, sensitive or not, including mechanical
hardware, in ESD packaging when these items had to go
into ESD protected areas. The increased protection is
not necessary and can not be demonstrated by measured
E-fields. Non-sensitive parts can be unpackaged and
the non-ESD packages disposed of before the sensitive
parts are unpackaged. When VS devices are unpackaged,
chargeable material removal becomes a mandatory ESD
discipline, otherwise removal of these materials is
only a housekeeping discipline.
ESD protective packaging is not supposed to generate a
charge when handled by grounded personnel. But
contrary to popular belief, ESD protective packaging or
other ESD safe items such as conductive gloves often
tribocharge fiberglass, insulated wiring, conformal
coated printed circuit boards (PCB), etc. Pink poly-
ethylene will readily tribocharge many insulative
materials, such as a PCB, until the insulative
materials have become contaminated with antistatic
compound, whereupon the tribocharging effect is no
longer exhibited. If the PCB is then cleaned with
alcohol, the charging process can be repeated. Tribo-
charging of an insulative material is hard to prevent
even if the other surface is a d i s s i p a t i v e or
conductive material.
The size and kinds of plastic chargeable materials can
be limited. These materials such as pieces of tape,
cups, etc, are necessary for efficient operations.
Small amounts of tape can be safely removed by contin-
ually regrasping the tape close to the point of
removal. The use of air ionization can only reduce the
induced peak voltage as the tape is being removed from
the PCB[6].
Instructions for the use and handling of these
non-groundable materials must be stated, particularly
when VS devices are present. Removal of all tribo-
charging materials such as PCBs, teflon wires alumi-
num, etc. from the ESD station is not feasible: Pro-
tecting VS or other extremely ES devices from E-fields
requires ESD program procedures to be specifically
tailored to protect these devices as much as possible.
A Level 1 ESD program does not Zliminate all risks to
VS devices and neither does a total protection" level
2 program.
It is important to note that VS devices can be damaged
by E-field induced voltages due to handling (tribo-
charging) of a PCB by grounded personnel. Styrofoam
cups used to mix potting components can harm VS devices
but are wrongly considered deadly to ES devices. A
charged cup laid directly in line with the circuit
trace can induce hundreds of volts across a VS device.
The same magnitude voltage can be induced by a grounded
person rubbing the conformal coated trace. A Styrofoam
cup in the hands of a grounded operator is not likely
to damage ES devices because the device will not
receive a direct discharge of sufficient magnitude.
Damage to VS devices due to PCB handling has given rise
to holding the PCB at the edges only so contact area is
minimized. This procedure is not necessary for ES
devices.
Identifying a particular device as ESD sensitive, and
even more importantly E-field sensitive, is a problem.
Once devices are taken out of the protective package
and the protective shunts are removed, VS devices are
more vulnerable and are hard to identify. Packaqing
and handling errors are possible unless specific
instructions for proper identification, handling and
packaging of VS and ES types are available. Special
precautions are needed to prevent damage to VS items.
ESD packaging of VS, ES, and non-sensitive electronic
components in ESD packaging causes confusion as to what
is especially sensitive. There is no simple solution
for these problems so the tendency is to over-package
and treat everything as VS sensitive.
ESD hardening of all devices would be a solution and
the military is encouraging this in MIL-STD-1686. IC
manufacturers are driven by customer demands for
increasingly hardened devices. IC advertisements are
now starting to claim greater ESD hardness for devices
than devices offered by competitors. ESD hardening
cannot completely solve the problem of identification
and special handling because some devices cannot be
hardened without degrading their operational per-
formance. Unprotected devices are still used in special
applications such as high impedance inputs, extremely
high speed circuits, and microwave devices.
B. Degree of Protection
Even if all VS devices could be provided with on-chip
protection, uncertainties of protection would still
exist. VS vulnerability would no longer be a concern,
but, Class IA* devices[lOl remain easily damaged by a
charged device model (CDM) discharge. Also, the
adequacy of protection procedures still have to be
confirmed by measurements. (*EOS/ESD ASSOC. STd. S-5)
 Test methods need to be developed that measure
rotection procedures relative to device sensitivity
gefore damage prevention can be demonstrated. These
measurement methods would also show if additional
protection procedures such as ionized air blowers,
metallized packaging, or double bagging of Class 1A
devices are useful. Some aspects of additional
rotection may be shown to increase the chance.of
$amage. For example, if the PCB's conformal coating
becomes charqed by contact to the plastic covered metal
film shielding, the total protection could be reduced.
These issues cannot be resolved presently because
reliable measurement methods are not available.
At present the degree of protection required for
sensitive classes is not established because only a few
arbitrary material characteristics are being verified
by measurements. For example, packaging materials are
selected based on these measurements and protection is
assumed when the requirements are met. These measure-
ments do not directly relate to device protection. All
the aspects such as the magnitude of the ESD, the
degree of capacitive coupling to a sensitive device or
circuit, the oxide breakdown threshold, or the energy
required to damage a bipolar device, are not set or
even considered in the measurement design or require-
ments. In other words, the worst case standard for
environmental ESD exposure for an ESD package has not
been established.
C. Monitoring and Control Devices
Monitoring devices are available for ESD protective
equipment to check for proper operation. Monitors
check items such as wrist straps and table tops for
open or broken ground wires. Some monitors check wrist
straps for contact with personnel and some even detect
an ungrounded operator at the workstation. Wrist strap
continuity is verified by applying a low voltage to the
person through the wrist strap. This voltage must not
result in an energy that is capable of causing an EOS
in devices such as Schottky Barrier diodes, point
contact mixers, and detector diodes[lll.
If air ionizing equipment is used, it must be checked
or certified at periodic intervals because it can fail
or become unbalanced. Some bench and room ionizer
systems have built-in monitors to check positive and
negative ion balance[l2] which also can fail. If room
ionization is installed, fail safe monitoring is
important because of the large area covered. Experi-
ence with an experimental negative ion dust control
system produced charges on items in the room. This
caused perceptible shocks to personnel and damage to
devices besides failing to control dust particles.
The lesson to be learned from active ESD monitoring and
control equipment failures is that there are trade-offs
of protection and risk.
D. Cost Effective Protection Improvement
The cost of ESD protection improvements or process
changes are easy to justify if there is an identified
ESD problem. Once the problem is determined to be ESD
and related to specific equipment or process, solutions
can be proposed. The cost benefit ratios can then be
determined for the various solutions.
ESD is often incorrectly blamed for causing device
failures. In one episode, a cleaning or conformal
coating operation was firmly believed by manufacturing
engineers to be causing ESD damage to IC memories. The
investigation did not produce any likely ESD source,
although failure to follow procedures was a possi-
bility. T h e failures were then analyzed more
completely and it was discovered that a vendor
metallization problem was the cause of the failures.
If the first analysis was not questioned, Level 2
Yocedures might have been employed which would have
ncreased the cost with no effect. The implementation
of an ESD procedure could coincide with on-going engi-
neering design change improvements. It would then
appear that installation of additional ESD equipment
has solved the problem, when in fact, it could really
be because the design engineer has specified a less
sensitive device or a new supplier. This actually
occurred at the start of a production run. After 8
years of using Level 1 protection procedures, it was
the only confirmed ESD problem in the manufacturing
facility.
With well disciplined personnel and a Level 1 program,
an identifiable ESD problem is not likely to occur. If
any ESD damage does occur, it will most likely be due
to random, hard to trace, human errors. When failure
data is unable to show a trend or leads to a location
where ESD occurs, the addition of an ESD protection
procedure or equipment is ineffective.
861
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 07:08:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
E. Accurate Failure Analysis
An ESD program and its improvement relies on failure
analysis to determine if electronic devices are damaged
by ESD and not some other form of EOS. Failure analy-
sis can be costly and unfortunately not always conclu-
sive or accurate. Therefore, the facts must be con-
sistent with theory, if not, they should be questioned.
To illustrate, a wafer tribocharging situation was not
critically questioned before being presented to the
publicJ13J. The author, when questioned, could not
explain important points. Points like, does deionized
water tribocharge a wafer- why does the water conduc-
tivity (18 Megohm) not nhutralize the charge build-up,
why does damage (and charging) occur only at the wafer
center: why does pressure and time make a difference;
why does the failure site in figure (5B) look like it
was caused by cavitation or fatigue and not ESD; and
most important of all, why did the protection circuit
not function?
A lot of information can be obtained by observing the
ESD failure site carefully. A fast high energy pulse
(6 mJ) will cause multiple sites of damage that can be
seen without removal of metallization. See Figure 1A.
Is the odd shape of the failure in Figure 1B the result
of ESD? (poly-oxide removed - Fig. 5B after Renaud h
Hill). Compare it to a lower energy (0.2 uJ) discharge
in Figure 1C which faintly shows a symmetrical melted
oxide. The metallization had to be removed before
damage coul? be seen[6].
Fig. 1 SEM Photographs of FET Damage
Once the oxide is damaged by an ESD event current will
go through a damage site that is shortdd or an open
gap. A second ESD occurrence, although unlikely to
strike the same pin, should not create a new damage
site. No proof or theory supports multiple damage
sites being caused by a series of ESD strikes as some-
times reportedIl41. Single high energy HBM discharges,
producing easy to detect multiple damage sites, have
been confirmed. (See Fig. 1A)
Sources of single pulses may be charged cables or test
equipment EOS sources. Comparing the BBM test damage
to an actual EOS failure can lead to a false ESD
indentification. Due to the variables of rise time and
ringing, an actual destructive pulse may have little
resemblance to a RBM test pulse. Analysis can deter-
mine the pulse duration and energy to confirm an ESD
event, but it is costly and may do little to identify
the source[l5]
F. Better Engineering Data Required
It is very difficult to relate HBM classification data
to ESD protection of real world devices. This is
partly because the devices are only classified by HBM
testing, therefore, damage from charged device dis-
charge or other sources such as E-fields are not
considered. So far there are no CDM or E-field test
standards although the EOS/ESD Association is develop-
ing a CDM standard. Although more test methods and
data may only complicate classification, engineers will
have better data on device ESD hardness.
Classification by type would identify VS and ES devices
resulting in cost effective protection. Attention to
E-field protection is necessary only for VS type
devices which require more costly protection from ESD
and E-fields. Because VS devices do not have any
built-in gate oxide protection circuits, little ener y
is needed to cause sudden damage if the gate oxiBe
breakdown voltage is exceeded. Voltage is the critical
parameter. Even if voltage breakdown does not occur
charge injection can cause disruptive shifts in th;
operational parameters. Determining the type of
sensitivity can be accomplished by referring to data
sheet specifications on protection or a curve tracer
test, but the test destroys VS Type devices.
Although not many devices are VS types VS devices
always come with pins shorted by mekal rings or
conductive foam for increased protection from E-field
sources. An E-field source can easily induce an exces-
sive voltage on a MOS gate because of the low gate to
 drain capacitance - the smallest capacitance has the
highest voltage for series connected capacitorsI61. If
a VS type device leads come near a charged plastic
surface, damage can result because of induced voltage
or a corona discharge (ESD) from the charged surface.
Little data is available on protection procedures for
these devices.
ES type devices are bipolar or protected MOS[8] devices
requlring a certain level of energy to damage the
devices. E-fields generally do not produce enough
induced energy[6] to destroy these devices. When the
forward or reverse protection diode conduction voltages
are exceeded, ES devices begin to conduct current.
Conduction is not harmful to devices unless a damaging
current level is reached which i s very unlikely.
Therefore chargeable materials, protection procedures,
and workAtation requirements are not so critical for
energy sensitive devices.
V. ESD Packaging
A. Incoming Inspection
ESD sensitive items must be properly packaged and
labeled during device manufacture, test, and shipment.
Questionable ESD protective packaging material needs to
be identified or tested at incoming inspection. Iden-
tifying ESD materials is no easy task with the variety
of materials now available. When questionable packag-
ing has been used, a determination has to be made about
the device protection. Device testing is the only
solution if critical items are received improperly
packaged.
If packaging of the devices is deemed inadequate or the
material is not to specifications, especially if the
device is extremely sensitive, it could be returned.
However, a replacement shipment may be repacked from
the inadequately packaged lot at the suppliers and
little is gained.
B. Selecting ESD Protective Packaging
Selection of ESD protective packaging is a complicated
and arbitrary decision not based on conclusive measure-
ments. The Military standard has material requirements
and establishes a qualified products list - MIL-B-81705
& QPL[16]. The EIA-541 Standard[l7] also has material
requirements and test methods that evaluate packaging
materials. But selection of materials such as pink
polyethylene, metal film, and metal foil for protection
of particular devices are left up to the user. Mater-
ial and packaging requirements are presently not
related to a device sensitivity class or type.
Cost is also a selection factor, for example, if it is
desired that metallized bags should be used to protect
energy sensitive devices they cost 3 to 4 times m:re
than pink polyethylene bags.
C. Adequacy of Protective Packaging
Protective packaging engineers have the problem of
determining the adequacy of ESD packaging. Even when
QPL[17] material is used, complete protection should
not be assumed. Experience has shown that energy
sensitive items are usually protected by any ESD
material that does not conduct charge readlly through
the bag. If the material is thin, damage can occur if
an arc penetrates the packaging material.
Puncture of the insulative coating on a metallized
surface allows more charge to be transferred than if
the insulation remains intact. Holes are easily blown
in the 2 mil thick insulative coating on metallized
bags. A 10 KV HBM pulse will produce a hole, visible
when viewed with a microscope. Because the metallized
coating is like a conductive plate it can accept a
greater charge than an insulative surface which results
in a fast E-field pulse inside the bag.
Definitive tests are lacking to determine how the
metallized film material performs as compared to metal
foil. Voltage sensitive devices require more shield-
ing, but given all the variables contributing to
induced voltage, it is difficult to determine if the
protection is sufficient for worst case conditions.
D. Protective Packaqe Tests - EIA-541
Test methods have been established in the EIA-541
Standard[l7] for ESD packaging materials and bags.
Additional methods are being developed and some are
being improved.
The resistivit requirements of EIA-541 need to be
rewritten in ferms of resistance because the ideal
materials required for resistivity measurements are not
found in many ESD materialsr71. The resistivity
concepts cannot apply to composite or other non-ideal
materials. This makes it difficult to determine when
resistivity measurements are valid.
862
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 07:08:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
A surface resistivity value is understood to be a
measurement of a substrate surface. The concept of
surface resistivity is lost if the measurement current
travels sub-surface such as in a thick conductive car-
bon block or buried metal layer. Surface resistivity
measurements in the low dissipative or conductive range
are confusing values because the measurement does not
determine the surface property as does the measurement
of a surface resistivity o f an insulator. Sheet
resistance of a thin deposited film should also not be
confused with surface resistivity because thickness is
not in the surface resistivity equation[7,18].
The volume resistivity concept is lost if the material
has layers of different conductivities because the
measured unit area resistance measured must be normal-
izedl71 to a cubic centimeter resistivitv value. This
reqiices dividing the reading only by a homogeneous
material thickness value. The solution is a resistance
measurement under fixed electrode conditions. Several
methods are being tested by the EIA and ASTM.
The Appendix E test1171 can show an electrical differ-
ence for identically manufactured bags but the method
does not provide a fair comparison of different size
bags. The induced voltage inside a bag is measured,
but because the electrode impedance varies with fre-
quency and is shunted by the load impedance of the bag,
the energy inside the bag can not be easily determined.
The voltages measured do not have a direct relationship
to the protection of devices. Also, ambiguities have
been observed in the measurement which reduces confi-
dence in the measurement reliability.
A protective package test must be devised, using a
discharge with the upper voltage limit (15.999 KV) of
Class 3 of MIL-STD-1686 REV A. to determine adequacy of
bag materials. Also, "real world" assumptions must be
developed which establish a standard worst case cou-
pling configuration for a device in the package to
determine voltage or energy levels on devices inside
the bag. Unfortunately, the EiA-541 Appendix E test
method cannot be extended K L make the necessary
measurements because of instrumentation and other
limitations.
Tribocharge tests are the most difficult and time
consuming tests to perform, repeat, and evaluate[l91.
When two surfaces are contacted and separated, the
charge density value for the device's surface must be
determined and the calculated energy must be related to
device damage. The Appendix G test[l81 method is a
tribocharge method being used to test packaging. The
measurement method has not been shown to be repeatable.
The appendix F[17] decay test is still controver-
sia1[20,211 because it is a test that is restricted to
ideal materials and is not usefu; for metallized
composite materials because of the Q=CV drop"12ll.
When used on restricted materials that cannot properly
be measured by the method, the charge decay data become
meaningless.
VI. Manufacturing/Test - ESD Controls
A. Worksurfaces
Level 1 ESD control uses a dissipative or conductive
worksurface. There is no agreement about the best
range of surface resistance or resistance to ground for
a worksurface as measured by the EOS/ESD Associations
Standard[lOl. In theory, if an item is not charged,
the resistance through the worksurface should be low so
that no tribocharging occurs. No significant tribo-
charging occurs only if both contacting surfaces are in
the conductive range, but tribocharging can occur if
one material is an insulator. A PCB or nonconductive
components such as IC package lids can be charged even
by a grounded surface. Fortunately, large PCB areas
are not likely to make contact and become tribocharged
by the worksurface, due to varying component heights.
Tribocharged assemblies are often overlooked and make a
static charge free work area an impossibility.
The selection of a proper resistance worksurface and
resistance to ground[lOl is also arbitrary and not
supported by data to prove increased protection from
ESD for any given resistance value. A conductive range
worksurface provides fast discharges of charged devices
that come in contact with the surface and produces high
peak currents reported by CDM tests. Worksurfaces in
the dissipative resistance range decrease the peak
discharge currents and are generally selected for
manufacturing and assembly areas.
Calculating the discharge time (t) or peak discharge
current (i) using the worksurface resistance ( R I and
capacitance ( C ) of a charged object can give an
erroneous value. (See equation 1 , 2 , & 3 . ) The
calculation is erroneous because the discharge path
impedance ( 2 ) is not the worksurface resistance ( R I
which is a dc resistance[lO] measured with large
electrodes. The impedance of the actual discharge path
 and the capacitance ( C ) on which the charge ( Q ) resides
are difficult to determine. The inductance of the
system cannot be ignored for extremely fast discharges.
v = vo e +/RC
t = RC In Vo/Vt (Eq. (1) solved for t)
it+ = Vo/Z = Q/CZ # VO/R Where Q = CVo L R # Z
a
B. -Manufacturing and Test Workstations
Different resistance worksurfaces are found at work-
stations with different functional requirements. Clean
rooms may require stainless steel worksurfaces. Care
in the design of test workstations must be taken to
prevent dangerous currents from being applied to the
assemblies or the operator because of the worksurface.
Whether to connect a dissipative or conductive surface
to hard or soft ground (1 Megohm res.) is controver-
sial. The utility ground[lO] (green third wire) at a
power outlet, that is verified by a periodic check, is
a satisfactory ground connection.
There is a tendency to require everything at work-
stations to be static dissipative or conductive before
the station is considered ESD safe. Smocks, chairs,
soldering iron cases, chemical dispensers, grounded
spra can nozzles, tools with conductive plastic
handles, etc., are some of the many ESD products that
are called ESD safe. No definitive measurements show a
reduced risk and data are lacking to support this
notion. The unwarranted use of these products is a
result of not understanding and applying electrostatic
principles. Some items are used because of puffed up
claims; others provide useless protection; some are
worthless. For Example, a vendor at an ESD show was
shorting out the electrometer during an effectiveness
demonstration of his product. No one noticed the error
or even questioned the product’s function.
Measurements from hand held E-field meters improp-
erly[22] used or data incorrectly interpreted can also
result in the installation of ESD protective items that
are not required. Measuring E-field intensity and
reporting voltages for insulative surfaces at work-
stations is a common error. Reporting thousands of
volts[23] (v) on insulative materials such as Styrofoam
cups is incorrect and useless data. Neither capaci-
tance (C) nor charge ( Q ) of equation ( 4 ) can be deter-
mined from an E-field intensity measurement, therefore,
“this voltage measurement means nothing[23]”.
Q=CV
Only the energy available or the voltage that can be
induced on a given fixed Capacitance of a circuit trace
by a charged surface is worthwhile data.
Ionizers may be used at a workstation for special
circumstances although they are slow to discharge an
insulative surface. Some desi ns have the possibility
of causing damage to VS devicesfl21. Tribocharging of
a conformal coated PCB occurs in a fraction of a
second; discharging takes seconds with air ionization.
Although, the peak E-field due to tribocharging is
reduced somewhat upon separation[22].
C. Ground Connections
There has been a lot of discussion about ESD ground
connections and the proper method to connect ESD
worksurfaces or personnel to a ground. The EOS/ESD
Association Standards[lO] specifies 1 Ohm maximum
between ground points on the workstation and 2 Ohms for
the workstation common ground point back to utility
power ground to assure equal voltage potentials.
Utility power ground is a satisfactory earth ground; a
copper rod at each workstation is not needed. A check
of an ground attachment point at an ESD station can be
made gy measuring the resistance between the point and
the third wire connection (qreen wire ground) of the
utility power outlet which 1s considered to be the
ground reference. Connections to conductive parts of a
vehicle, ship or aircraft hulls are also a satisfactory
ground reference point.
The worksurface is a large capacitance plate with stray
leakage resistance to the earth unless connected to
earth ground. A current limiting 1 megohm resistance
in the ground path is common and still results in an
electrostatic charge decay rate faster than the charge
can be generated by human movement. A low ( < 1 Ohm)
resistance path to ground has been over emphasized and
is not important when a 1 megohm series resistance is
in the ground line which connects to a mat or person.
A 1 megohm resistance can result in small ac voltage
differences between grounded worksurfaces. Stray
capacitive coupling to ac line cords can result in up
to 4 volts ac on the worksurface. The combined 1 meg-
ohm resistor and worksurface capacitance has too long a
RC time constant to suppress the 60 Hertz ac voltage to
near zero.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 07:08:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The use of a 1 megohm resistor for grounding a large
worksurface area brings up safety concerns, not an ESD
grounding deficiency. The EOS/ESD Association Ground-
ing Standard allows the 1 megohm current limiting
(1) resistor but the Association is not recommending the
resistor. The assumption and concern is that a soft
(2) grounding can result in a dangerous power exposure if a
fault occurs; while a hard grounding to the utility is
(3) safer because a fault can trip the ac circuit breaker.
The wrist strap grounding of personnel is the most
important ESD protection procedure. Monitoring
equipment to remind personnel that they must connect
themselves to ground is an important and worthwhile
purchase. Although broken wrist straps should be
removed as soon as detected, tests show that they still
function when a charge is applied to the wearer even
though an open is measured with a low output voltage
ohmmeter.
D. ESD Safe Manufacturing Equipment
Each piece of equipment may have its own peculiar ESD
problems. Worksurfaces on equipment must be checked
for the desired resistance to ground. All large con-
ductive or dissipative materials that contact devices
should be grounded to prevent charge buildup. All
insulative surfaces that could cause an ESD problem for
the type and class of device being processed should be
replaced with dissipative materials connected t o
ground. If replacement is costly or not feasible,
measurements may be able to show that no ESD damage can
occur, but this can be a difficult task. Good judge-
ment needs to be exercised to prevent over protection
while still protecting the product.
Wave soldering machines have been claimed to be a
source of ESD. Measurements that have been made on
instrumented PCBs show no charge generation when
processed through wave solder machines. Nylon flux
brushes contact the P C B but the flux has enough
conductivity ( < 1 X 10 Ohms) to drain any tribo-
charge current off the wetted PCB back to the brush or
through the holding fixture to ground. Just to be
safe, after installing, check new equipment for
possible ESD problems.
The air knives in wave soldering machines are also
thought to cause tribocharging. I t i s a common
misconception that air or other gases tribocharge
surfaces when the charge generation is actually caused
by particles in the air. Even when air is heated in
temperature controlled ovens or forced through a nozzle
(4) under high pressure, air molecules do not have suffi-
cient kinetic energy to become ionized. Therefore,
they cannot cause a surface to be tribocharyed[23].
Hot flowing gases can dry out a surface causing items
to be highly susceptible to tribocharging when con-
tacted by other materials. This has resulted in the
mistaken belief that air*[22,23] tribocharges. (*Air
has been removed from the EIA and the MIL-HDBK tribo-
electric series.)
Carbon dioxide gas is an exception because expansion of
CO gas can form ice or CO particles. Particles in
an$ gas stream can cau2e tribocharging to occur.
Particles, such as those in bead blasters, are ra id
charge generators upon impact due to the materyal
contact and separation.
VII. Future of ESD Controls
A. Protective Packaging Improvements
ESD packaging concepts can be improved upon by applying
electrostatic and engineering principles to improve
measurements and test methods. Measurement standards
must set the amount of energy and the strength of an
E-field source, for worst case conditions. ESD packa e
selection will remain uncertain for different sensl-
tivity types into the foreseeable future because of
these problems.
Improvement for ESD packaging lies in better under-
standing of tests that measure material properties and
developing permanent and stable dissipative materials
that do not tribocharge devices while maintaining good
transparency and reasonable price. These requirements
are difficult if not impossible to meet.
B. ESD Control Improvements in Manufacturing
Manufacturing controls probably have reached or are
close t o their limit in preventing ESD damage and
little improvement is possible except for proper
applications. New monitoring or ESD detection systems
would be of doubtful value because the energy of all
possible ESD sources cannot be monitored The problems
left to Re solved are: human error, “I thought t;at was
correct ; forgetfulness, “?,‘m sorry I forgot ; and
discipline, “I don’t want to.
863
 Another area for which progress will be slow and
arduous is the protection of devices that are very
sensitive and carinot be made less sensitive by built-in
Drotection circuits because protection would impair
;heir performance.
C. Sensitive Device Protection
Often misleading statements are made by speakers at
meetings and repeated by salespeople to customers. New
IC chip designs are claimed to be increasing in ESD
sensitivity due to thinner oxides and smaller junc-
tions. True, the sensitivity of the chip circuits is
increasing but the protection circuits have been placed
on the input and output pins of most computer memory,
processor, and support ICs. This is an important fact
concerning ESD protection that is often ignored. In
the past, unprotected MOS devices were so sensitive
that they experienced ESD damage unless protected by
on-chip protection. Another fact that is ignored is
that protection circuits have and will continue to
improve, therefore, reducing E-fields will be of
limited importance.
Anyone who has measured electrostatic voltages with an
electrostatic voltmeter on a circuit at an ESD work-
station knows that VS devices would be damaged. VS
devices need on-chip input and output pin protection to
reclassify them as ES. Protection circuits function
during handling by grounded operators without being
damaged. The strength of the latest generation of
protection devices is shown by many local Silicon
Valley computer store employees handling PCBs and ICs
without using any ESD precautio:s. When asked about
ESD damage, their answers were no problem"
none that they can identify!
at least-
VIII. Conclusion
Protected (ES) devices make up the bulk of the sensi-
tive devices, and unprotected (VS) devices are the
exception. Because of the large variety of electronic
devices, it is not feasible to generalize protection
procedures. Gathering accurate failure data for a
cost/benefit analysis is essential to obtain the
management support required. Voltage sensitive (VS)
devices are still used in special applications and are
susceptible to damaged by strong E-fields. They
require special attention but should not drive pro-
tection procedures for energy sensitive (ES) devices.
Having identified and discussed many ESD protection and
measurement problems and cleared up some misstatements,
the problems that the industry faces must be put in
prospective by identifying the types of sensitivity.
Resolving measurement problems will result in under-
standing and improving present ESD procedures while
eliminating unnecessary ones. A Level 1 ESD program
installed with knowledge and thought will provide good
ESD protection with a few exceptions. Most of the
problems must be put in the fine tuning category and
each ESD program must be developed to provide a cost
effective level that will handle the ESD protection
needs of the manufacturing and service operations.
References
[l] G. Head, Microcontamination, Sept. 85, p.27; p.20
[2] T. Dangelmayer, "ESD - How Often Does It Happen?",
EOS/ESD Symposium, EOS-5, 1983; pp.1-5.
[3] MIL-STD-l686A, Military Standard; "Military
Standard for Electrostatic Discharge Control Program
for Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts,
Assembly and Equipment, Excluding Electrically
Initiated Explosive Devices, 8 AUG 88. (Superseding
DOD-STD-1686 2 MAY 801
[4] DOD-HDBK-263, Military Handbook; Electrostatic
Discharge Handbook for Protection of Electrical and
864
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 07:08:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Electronic Parts, Assembles and Equipment, excluding
Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices, 2 MAY 80.
(MIL-STD-263A pending.)
[5j Workshop and Panel Discussions, W.3 Latent
Failures, Chair. J. Soden, Sandia Nat. Labs.
161 G. Bzumgartner, "ESD Analysis of Masking Tape
Operations , EOS/ESD Symposium, EOS-7, 1985; p.130,
par.6&7; p.127 Fig.4; p.129, par.7.
[7] G. Baumgartner, "A method to Improve Measurements
of ESD Dissipative Materials" EOS/ESD Symposium, EOS-9,
1987; p.23, par.7&8.
[E] L. Avery, "IC Technology: Where It Going and What
It Means For The ESD Industry', EOS/ESD Symposium,
EOS-7, 1985; p.1 Fiy.1; p.3 Fiy.7.
[9] MIL-STD-2000, Military Standard, Standard
Requirements for Soldered Electrical and Electronic
Assemblies, 16 JAN 89 (MIL-STD-2000A pending)
[lo] EOS/ESD ASSOC. Inc., Std. for Device Test
Protection of Discharge Susceptible I t e m s :
Worksurface-EOS/ESD-S4; Grounding-Recommended
Practice-EOS/ESD-DS6.0-1990; Human Body
Model-EOS/ESD-S5; Charged Device Model-(?).
[ l l ] Specifications - Applications Notes, Packages;
Microwave semiconductors & Modules, Appl. Note 80800:
Mixer and Detector Diodes, Transient and Electrostatic
Discharges p. 2-77, & Appl. Note 80850: Handling
precautions for Schottky Barrier, Point Contact Mixer,
& Detector Diodes, p.2-82
[12] GIDEP General Document Summary No. E9-F-86-01
NOV. 86, Electrostatic Discharge, Ionizer, Pulsed DC
1131 D. Renuad and 8. Hill, "ESD i n Semiconductor
Wafer Processing - An Example", EOS/ESD Symposium
Proceedings, EOS-7, 1985, pp.6-9, p.7 Fig.5B; or
Microcontamination, Mar. 8 6 ; pp.24-30, p.28-Fiq.5B.
[14] R . Trigonis, "ESD Experience With The IRAS Space
Craft , EOS/ESD Symposium Proceedings, EOS-7, 1985,
p.179-par.5.
1151 N. Kusnezov, J. Smith, "Modeling of EOS in
Silicon Devices, EOS/ESD Symposium EOS-3, 1981,
pp.132-138.
[16] MIL-B-81705C ( & QPL) "Military Specification,
Barrier Materials, Flexible, Electrostatic Protective",
25 JAN 89.
[ 171 EIA Standard, "Packaging Materials Standards for
ESD Sensitive Items," Electronic Industries ASSOC.
~ 1 ~ i - 5 4 1pp.1-11
, & App. ~(definitions), bag),
F(DECAY), G(tribo)
[18] ASTM D-257 D-C Resistance or Conductance of
Insulating Materials, p.130.
[ 19.1 S . F o w l e r , "Triboelectricty and Surface
Resistivity Do Not Correlate", EOS/ESD Symposium,
EOS-10, 1988; pp.102-112.
1201 S . Fowler, "Surface Resistivity and Static Decay
Do Not Correlate", EOS/ESD Symposium, EOS-11, 1989,
pp.7-11.
[21] G. Baumgartner, "Testing of Ele5,trostatic
Materials FED. STD. 101C, Method 4046.1 EOS/ESD
Symposium, EOS-6, 1984, p.100-Fig.5.
[22] G. Baumgartner, "Electrostatic Measurement for
Process Control" EOS/ESD Symposium, EOS-6, 1984 - TRIBO
p.31; p.27.
[23] N. Jonassen, "The Physics of Electrostatics",
EOS/ESD Philadelphia, Oct.84, Guest Lecture p.15; p.29.