ANSI/ESD S20.

20 – The Next Generation

Kevin S. Duncan (1), Ronald J. Gibson (2), John T. Kinnear Jr. (3)
(1) Seagate Technology, 7801 Computer Avenue South, M/S NRW132, Bloomington, MN 55435 USA
tel.: 952-402-8058, fax: 952-402-8566, e-mail: kevin.s.duncan@seagate.com
(2) Advanced Static Control Consulting, Richmond Hill, ON, L4C5J4 Canada
(3) IBM Corporation, 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

Abstract: As IC technologies evolve in favor of faster IO speeds and increased package sizes, challenging
constraints will be placed on future development of on chip ESD protection. Using ANSI/ESD S20.20 as a
baseline, this paper will outline critical elements that factories of the future must consider to be successful.

Similar, if not more dire, predictions are made for

I. Introduction
Future integrated circuit (IC) device electrostatic
discharge (ESD) protection limitations are driven by
circuit design performance requirements and
technology scaling effects. It is anticipated that the
prevailing trend for IC devices will continue to be
increased circuit performance at the expense of the
designed ESD protection levels [1,2,3].
These trends point to the need for continued
improvements in ESD control procedures and
compliance. Among these improvements one must
include considerations for dynamic process
interactions via process capability assessments [4,5,6].
charged device model (CDM) sensitivities (see Figure
2). This impact not only comes from the requirement
for fast input/output (IO) speeds but, also scales with
the increase in package sizes. As package sizes
become larger, device speeds increase and technology
node sizes decrease, CDM thresholds, which fall
below the 200 volt CDM protection limits of
ANSI/ESD S20.20, will continue to be more
prevalent. It is not uncommon in industry today to
find ICs whose most CDM sensitive pins are below
100 volts; some even in the 50 volt CDM withstand
range.

Forward looking projections, see Figure 1, indicate by

2020 Human Body Model (HBM) sensitivity limits
will fall below the basic handling level of 500 volts to
the extent where implementation of advanced ESD
control programs such as ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014 [7]
will become a necessity. In fact there are many cases
today where high performance devices already
encroach and exceed the 100 volt HBM protection
limits provided by these “advanced” ESD controls.
Figure 2 – Charged Device Model (CDM) Roadmap [1]

As we consider the future of electronics

Figure 1 – Human Body Model (HBM) Roadmap [1]
manufacturing and the impact of ESD on the IC and
semiconductor industries, we need to consider the
opportunities, or lack thereof, at the IC device design
stage, versus the cost(s) associated with improvements
in the ESD Control Program (hereafter referred to as
the “Program”). As one does, the answer is quite
clear. As technology node sizes decrease, IO speeds
increase, and package sizes increase, the appropriate

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 09:18:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 place to focus, for the biggest return on investment
and reduction of ESD related manufacturing issues,
lies with improvements in the management of the
Program.
II. ESD Control Program Manager
or Coordinator
For many organizations the person in charge of
controlling ESD in the manufacturing environment
typically has several job responsibilities. Their focus
is not solely dedicated to ESD control. For Programs
of the future, not only does the ESD Program
Manager or Coordinator’s role become more
important, it becomes impossible for an organization
to be successful without it. Emphasis will need to be
placed on importance not only of time available to
work on the Program but also on the individual’s
expertise. Basic ESD knowledge will no longer be
sufficient. Coordinators of the future must be ESD
experts. They will need to have high level, functional
knowledge, not only of the dynamic nature of the
manufacturing process as it relates to ESD control, but
of every aspect of Program Management. Professional
ESD Certification programs and technical trainings,
such as the ESDA’s Professional Program Manager
and TR53 Certification, will cease as being, “nice to
have”, and become basic measures critical for success.
Inclusion of the Coordinator in the design for
manufacturing (DFM) process becomes increasingly
more important for avoiding ESD related failures
during future production stages. An in depth
understanding of the manufacturing process and the
potential interactions with the ESD sensitive (ESDS)
items is valuable information when determining the
layout of sensitive traces, pad, pin and ball locations,
as well as potential insertion issues caused by charged
ESDS items, where a ground first connection could
reduce risks.
III. ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014
The purpose of ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014 is to provide
administrative and technical requirements for
establishing, implementing and maintaining an ESD
Control Program. It aims to provide requirements that
allow you to manufacture, process, assemble, install,
package, label, service, test, inspect, transport and
handle ESDS items. The device sensitivity targets, or
withstand voltages, based on these requirements are
designed to safely protect devices from 100 volt
HBM, 200 volt CDM and 35 volt isolated conductor
discharges to the ESDS items.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 09:18:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IV. The Next Generation
The following sections will discuss the critical aspects
of the current ESD Control Program requirements of
ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014 and the necessary
considerations and improvement opportunities that
must be addressed for successful implementation of a
Program for the factories of the future.
A. Administrative Requirements
While it is quite reasonable to expect that the required
limits of many ESD control items used in an ESD
Control Program will need to be adjusted, the
importance of the Administrative Requirements is
many times overlooked. Below we will discuss each
of the administrative plans and offer some guidance
on improvement options, as well as questions one
should consider.
1. Training Plan
For most in the ESD community it is widely
acknowledged that ESD training for personnel is
necessary. When developing a training plan for
personnel with the safe handling of increasingly more
sensitive ESD devices in mind, what changes does the
organization need to make? In a well-designed
Program, many aspects of the critical technical
elements (i.e., wrist strap systems, footwear/flooring
systems, grounding, etc.) are typically transparent to
the personnel handling the ESDS items. You may find
that as improvements are made to these physical
control elements, your current training plan may be
acceptable.
First, is your organization’s current training plan
sufficient? How do you know that it is effective? The
measure of the successfulness can often be painfully
obvious and easily verified. Are personnel following
Program requirements outlined in the training
provided? Are personnel wearing wrist straps when
they are handling ESDS items while seated? Does
your organization have failures that can be attributed
to lapses in ESD control practices? In general, when
your organization performs audits (assessments) of
the Program, do you find issues that can be attributed
to training of personnel? If you answered yes, you
have room for training plan improvements. While
personnel may not always follow training
requirements, and the lapses may not cause issues
today, when an increased number of ESDS items are
introduced in the process, these lapses may cause
failures in the future.
 As your organization updates your training plan,
modifications should be made to reinforce program
requirements based on lessons-learned, changes to
technologies and to correct deficiencies identified
during evaluations, process reviews and compliance
verification audits.
Several improvement options exist, which options you
choose to implement depend on your unique training
problem. Consider concepts like; specialized training
for personnel handling devices with increased
sensitivities, increasing the training frequency,
modifying the type of instruction, (i.e., from computer
based to instructor led), and improvements in the
comprehension technique (e.g., exam) used.
2. Product Qualification Plan
While improved emphasis on the importance of the
product qualification plan has been addressed in the
most recent version of ANSI/ESD S20.20, the
Coordinator must be much more diligent when
dealing with product qualification of control items and
materials used for the safe handling of ESD items
with increased sensitivities. As we will discuss later in
greater detail, individual ESD control item limits will
generally need to be tightened. In addition, it will be
necessary to ensure that new ESD control items,
introduced into the Program, are compatible with
other ESD control items that they may come into
contact with. Additional emphasis needs to be placed
on the dynamic interaction of the ESD control items
and ESDS items within the process.
The Coordinator will be tasked with ensuring only
materials that are acceptable for these new limits are
procured. Additional emphasis will need to be placed
on ensuring that the materials were indeed tested
according to standardized ESD test methods. As this
increased emphasis is realized, naturally the need for
increased understanding of material test methods, as
well as the test equipment and the actual
manufacturing process of the ESD control items
become significant. A “trust but verify”, approach is
strongly recommended.
3. Compliance Verification Plan
Like both of the aforementioned administrative plans,
compliance verification will also need to be addressed
with increased scrutiny. Many ESD professionals
often discuss the challenges when dealing with lower
ESD withstand thresholds and high reliability devices.
Often the conversation focuses on tightening of
Program limits. While this is one approach, it should
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 09:18:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
not be the only approach. As with any improvements
in your Program, there should always be discussion on
the cost of the improvements versus the return on
investment.
Careful examination of high risk items such as wrist
strap and footwear/flooring systems for HBM and
insulator control, ionization offsets and other dynamic
interactions for CDM, can reveal areas where
increasing the verification frequency will provide the
necessary improvements to ensure your reliability
goals are met, without tightening the limits of your
ESD control items.
One needs to assess and fully understand the
manufacturing environment and the likelihood of
damage at each process step. For those process steps
where the failure opportunities are heightened, the
verification sample size and frequencies should
increase accordingly.
The frequency at which an ESD control item should
be verified is dependent upon the rate at which the
control item is likely to fail and the associated risk of
damage when it does. As we move forward with an
increased in the number of ESDS items, the
opportunity for damage and therefore our risk of
damage increases. As it does, it is prudent to increase
the rate at which the ESD control item is verified to
ensure it continues functioning as intended.
One example that often comes to mind is that of the
performance of a single conductor, non-monitored,
wrist strap system versus that of a dual wire,
continuously monitored wrist strap system. Which
system “performs” better? Both systems limit body
voltage on personnel to the same low levels (sub 10
volts) when worn properly. The difference between
the “performances” lies in the rate of detection of
failure. When one considers HBM events and
controlling voltage on personnel, a decision between
lowering wrist strap system limits; currently 35
megohms to a lower value, for example 10 megohms,
versus the rate of detection of failure; comparison of
(non-monitored and continuously monitored systems)
needs to be taken into consideration.
Compliance verification plans should be ever
changing. Don’t assume that because a device is now
more sensitive, you must sample more frequently. As
with all verification plans you should have some
method of tracking and trending your results. It is this
 data that determines whether or not your compliance
verification plan needs adjustment, not the sensitivity
of the devices.
B. Technical Requirements
1. Grounding / Equipotential Bonding Systems
Developing a grounding / equipotential bonding
system for sensitive devices requires a closer look at
your facilities grounding systems. Here correct wiring
orientation is overall a higher concern, specifically in
cases where there is significant voltage on ground,
typically a result of ground/neutral reversals where
ground loops are created.
For example, during a review of the grounding system
of a relatively large facility we found that the voltage
on AC equipment ground during normal operations
varied between 3 to 6 volts, fairly consistently.
Further examination of the grounding system found
that out of 23,299 outlets, 6,196 (82.39% of failures)
failed correct wiring orientation (i.e., Hot/Neutral and
Neutral/Ground failures), see Figure 3. After repairs
were implemented, the voltage on ground dropped to
an average of 2 to 3 volts.
It should be noted for clarity, that auxiliary ground
failures were specified, in Figure 3, as having a
resistance between the AC equipment grounding
conductor and the auxiliary (ESD) ground of greater
than 10 ohms. The current ANSI/ESD S20.20 limit is
25 ohms.
Figure 3 – Facility Grounding Failure Pareto
A voltage on ground measurement can be made in
several different ways. Each providing different
insights, however, the key takeaway from this
measurement is to determine if the voltage on ground,
versus the voltage on your ESDS items are at unsafe
levels. This testing is similar to the considerations for
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 09:18:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
isolated conductors, even though the conductors in
this case are “grounded”. Grounding for devices at the
most sensitive level must take into consideration that
voltage on ground is never zero. There is always some
constant AC/DC noise associated with the voltage
flowing through the manufacturing equipment and
environment. As the voltage on ground is dynamic
and constantly changing, the voltages on the
“grounded” devices also become ever changing. On
the surface this would appear to be a non-issue. When
you consider that even though these ESDS items are
“bonded” to ground, there is some
impedance/resistance between the two bonded
objects. This opposition to the flow of current leads to
a difference in voltage potentials between the two
systems based on the differences in the time domain.
The higher the impedance/resistance between the two
bond points, the longer the delay propagation between
the two signals. This time delay leads to difference in
potentials on devices that we would otherwise see as
safely grounded, the following example demonstrates
this principle.
On the left of Figure 4, is the voltage of a wire bond
head, which directly contacts the ESDS item leads,
the right captures the voltage on the grounded device,
located on the dock station. The actual voltage
differential in “real” time is greater than 2 volts during
the bonding operation. For most devices this is not a
concern, however for ultra-sensitive devices with low
CDM withstand voltage (sub 5 volts) this is a
potential for ESD damage. While the damage may not
lead to catastrophic failure, it may result in latent
damage if the EOS applied is above the absolute
maximum rating (AMR) of the device.
Figure 4 – Voltage Differential in a Grounded Wire Bonder
It should be noted that for the vast majority of
Programs, the voltage differential between grounded
objects is not a concern. This concept should be
considered reserved for only the most sensitive ESD
 items, where direct contact to the sensitive leads is
expected, such as electrical test operations.
While this discussion is specifically intended in cases
where the devices are connected to the AC equipment
grounding conductor, the same philosophy applies to
applications where auxiliary grounding is used. In
general, the lower the resistance, impedance,
inductance and lead length, between the bonded
points, the lower the potential for voltage differences.
2. Personnel Grounding
When evaluating a Program for ever increasing
sensitivities, personnel grounding considerations,
regardless of system type (wrist strap,
footwear/flooring) need to be revisited. It is important
to understand that the voltage on personnel can be
reduced by decreasing their system resistance to
ground. Voltage on personnel is a function of the
propensity of the personnel to charge and the time it
takes for that charge to decay. Charge generation is
based on the interaction and subsequent tribocharging
between the contact and separation points of the
surfaces involved. The decay rate is the system’s
ability to combat this charging. This is commonly
referred to as the RC time constant, where tau ( )
equals a person’s system resistance to ground (R),
multiplied by their capacitance (C), ability to store
that charge, multiplied with the natural logarithm (ln)
of the ratio of the initial voltage (Vi) to the final
voltage (Vf).
/
f i → ln
To reduce your HBM risk opportunities, one should
reduce the limits associated with personnel system
resistance to ground. The lower the system resistance,
the faster the body voltage is normalized with respect
to ground, see Figure 5.
Figure 5 – Voltage on Personnel [1]
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 09:18:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
While Personnel grounding is easily identifiable as an
ESD control item associated with controlling HBM
events. Often overlooked is the dynamic interaction
that personnel grounding systems can play in respect
to an ESDS item’s CDM sensitivity.
Take for example, personnel using a footwear/flooring
system for controlling voltage on personnel. The
current, ANSI/ESD S20.20, limits for peak voltage in
combination with a person, per ANSI/ESD STM97.2
[8], is 100 volts. This limit is designed to ensure that
devices with sensitivities greater than 100 volt HBM
if contacted by a person using this system would not
damage the device.
Now consider that same example where the person is
carrying the ESDS item in their hand or in
conductive/dissipative packaging. The person, item
and packaging are electrically coupled. Voltage
generation on the person is now equally shared with
the ESDS item. Essentially, we now have a situation,
where the ESDS item is charged. This now potentially
becomes a CDM risk for the device, or if the ESDS
item is a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA), a
potential charged board event (CBE).
When evaluating personnel grounding requirements,
one should consider the dynamic interaction between
the person and the ESDS items as they move through
the process by performing a detailed risk assessment.
One should infer that the peak body voltage of
ln personnel grounding systems, can and will be passed
on the ESDS items. With the consideration that the
ESDS items are now charged, the process step(s)
immediately following this charge sharing become a
significant source for potential discharge paths and
ESD damage. Armed with this information, the
organization can now make an educated decision on
the directions moving forward. They can choose to
reduce the charging of ESDS items, by reducing the
overall system to ground resistance, or limit the
opportunities for discharging through other process
control measures.
i. Wrist Strap Systems
For controlling body voltage on personnel and
resultant HBM and potential dynamic CDM
interactions, the best ESD control is the wrist strap
system. There are many different systems choices
available on the market when it comes to selecting a
wrist strap system. For the purpose of this discussion
we will focus on resistance based systems, as this is
the basis for ANSI/ESD S20.20 requirements. Other
 systems may be used; it is left to the end user to
demonstrate the effectiveness of those systems.
Evaluation of the wrist strap system using ANSI/ESD
STM97.2 is the suggested method.
We have previously discussed the influence that
resistance to ground plays in the ability to control
body voltage, as well as the performance differences
in non-monitored and continuously monitored wrist
strap systems. Based on these previous discussions it
is clear that the direction of goodness for wrist strap
systems is two-fold. First the improvement to
decrease the risk of failure to the system, by
increasing the rate of detecting failures, and thus the
move to continuously monitored wrist strap systems.
Second, now that we have improved our capability to
detect failures, the only remaining improvement we
can make is to reduce the system resistance limits,
from the current 35 megohms to other industry
standard values, such as 10 megohms.
For resistance based wrist strap systems, changing
from non-monitored to continuously monitored
systems or reducing the limits from 35 megohms to 10
megohms, doesn’t actually lower the peak body
voltage on personnel. It simply increases the rate of
detection of failure and effectively increases
sensitivity of the measurement system’s failure
threshold. If you truly want to reduce the body voltage
on personnel, it is essential that you reduce the value
of the current limiting resistor, as this is the real
“limiting” factor.
This body voltage measurement (ANSI/ESD
STM97.2) needs to be conducted with several
different personnel to develop enough data where
statistical significance regarding the peak voltages can
be determined. The following body voltage analysis
test summary, see Figure 6, demonstrates the common
waveform one could expect. When the positive and
negative peaks are analyzed, this information can be
used to establish the maximum body voltage range
probability, see Figure 7. This measurement data and
the statistical analysis gives the organization an
understanding (risk assessment) of the maximum peak
body voltage generated for that particular
footwear/flooring system. This testing needs to be
repeated for all footwear and flooring combinations
and at the worst case humidity conditions expected.
From an accuracy of measurement standpoint, it
should be noted that peak body voltage detection
values will generally be higher with increased
bandwidth and/or an increase in the sampling
frequency of the measurement and recording device.
This simple concept is often overlooked, but can be
important for performing an accurate risk assessment.
Consider this as an example that demonstrates the
improved equipment and measurement knowledge
that will be needed for Coordinators in the future.

The good news is that the current wrist strap system

resistance requirement, regardless of failure rate
detection methods, is significantly low enough at 1
megohm (± 20%), to ensure peak body voltage
generation of less than 10 volts. In practice this
number is typically less than 5 volts. Figure 6 – Body Voltage Generation Analysis Test Summary

ii. Footwear / Flooring Systems

Footwear/flooring systems need to be evaluated for
performance and risk similarly to wrist strap systems.
A dynamic understanding of the interaction between
the footwear and flooring system is extremely
important. It is this information that aids in
determining if the organization’s footwear/flooring
system is adequate for handing of ESDS items both
for HBM failure as well as for situations where
handling of the ESDS item may lead to charged
devices, as previously discussed.
Figure 7 – Maximum Body Voltage Range Probability

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 09:18:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Once the body voltage generation of the
footwear/flooring system is acceptable, the floor
resistance and the resistance of the person through the
footwear must be recorded. These values should be
used as the upper compliance verification limits for
the Program.
As with our discussion on non-monitored versus
continuously monitored wrist strap systems, how
often the footwear or flooring is verified, depends on
the likelihood of failure. Permanent footwear
solutions, when worn properly, seldom change.
Testing once a day is common place. For non-
permanent selections, where the floor contacting
surface can move or where contact to the person’s
body can change, more frequent measurements are
recommend, typically upon every entry into the EPA.
A similar approach needs to be taken with flooring.
The user needs to assess the risk of the flooring
system failing. Compliance verification procedures
need to be adjusted based on this risk. Permanent
solutions are typically tested less frequently than non-
permanent solutions. As data is collected, the
frequency of testing should be adjusted accordingly.
When considering your needs for future ESD controls
as they relate to footwear/flooring systems, the
general direction of goodness is the lowest system
resistance to ground, with a system that provides the
lowest risk of failures. The total system resistance of
the footwear/flooring system in combination with a
person is the sum of the resistance of the person, the
skin/contact resistance of the person, the resistance of
the footwear from personnel contact surface to
flooring contact surface and the flooring system’s
resistance to ground. The two largest components are
typically the footwear and flooring, the person’s
resistance has little influence. Selecting the lowest
resistance, permanent footwear/flooring solutions will
provide the least body voltage generation with the
lowest risk of system failure.
3. Insulators
Control of process required insulators requires that the
allowable electrostatic field strength along with the
size of the insulator and distance to the ESDS items
be taken into further consideration. Insulators and the
effects of electrostatic fields on ESDS items are one
of, if not the most misunderstood in the industry.
There are many factors to consider when selecting
limits for insulator control. How big is the insulator?
How big is your ESDS item? What is the relation
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 09:18:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
between the ESDS item and ground? Is your ESDS
item on a grounded surface relative that is large
compared to the size of the item? Where is the
insulator located? Does it have a direct line of site to
the ESDS item? Unfortunately, there are many more.
For devices with lower CDM thresholds, there are
really only two choices; reduce the allowable field
from the insulator or increase the distance from the
insulator to the ESDS item. If possible, both should be
implemented. When doing so you need to consider
how the insulator reacts to your process and
ultimately to your ESDS items. Does the field actually
affect your ESD item? The field measurement should
be taken at the location of the ESDS items and not at
the surface of the insulator, as this is a better risk
assessment method.
Some key things to consider. If the ESDS item is
placed on a grounded surface much of the field will be
attracted to the ground. Likewise the change in the
device’s capacitance, while on the grounded surface,
will cause the field to be suppressed. Electrostatic
field lines are perpendicular to the surface of the
insulator, so for insulators without a direct line of site,
the risk of field induction is reduced. Field strength
varies inversely with distance. Every time you double
the distance between the ESD item and the insulator
you will get half of the voltage at the location of the
ESDS item. These are general statements that need to
be better understood and evaluated by the Coordinator
as part of the risk assessment process.
In general, set your limits for field strength and
distance as low as you can within your given process
constraints. These are relatively easy requirements
that can be verified during your compliance
verification actions. If you find that required limits are
exceeded, contact voltage measurements should be
made on the sensitive pins of the ESDS item using a
high impedance, low capacitance contact voltmeter. If
the voltage measured exceeds your CDM withstand
voltage or your acceptable margins, then you need to
take further action. Replace the insulator with an ESD
safe version, install ionization to mitigate the
electrostatic field, apply an topical antistatic agent to
the surface of the insulator, insert a groundable object
close to the surface of the insulator to suppress the
insulator’s field, etc.
4. Isolated Conductors
These are conductive items in your process, which for
whatever reason, cannot be connected to ground, but
 come into contact with ESDS items. In order to
prevent machine model (MM) like discharges to
ESDS items it is important to ensure that the voltage
on these items is maintained to safe levels. The
current version of ANSI/ESD S20.20 requires less
than 35 volts between the ESDS item and the isolated
conductor. Isolated conductors are typically found in
electrical testing operations, such as in-circuit and
functional test.
In practice, this voltage differential should be as low
as possible. A recommended target voltage of less
than 5 or even 10 volts is more realistic for future
device considerations. The greatest influence on
isolated conductors is their relationship to electrostatic
fields and susceptibility to field induction from charge
sources, such as process required insulators and
ionization sources.
When considering future Program limits, the limits
associated with insulators and ionization offset
voltage will influence the voltage limits for isolated
conductors.
5. Worksurfaces
While this section is entitled worksurfaces, it is more
appropriate to think about worksurfaces as working
surfaces. The concepts discussed below should be
applied to any location where the ESDS items are
contacted, such as carts, shelves, drawers, etc.
Worksurface selection for increasingly more ESD
sensitive components has become somewhat of a hot
topic. There are two general discussions that take
place when discussing the overall future direction.
One is centered around controlling the charge on the
ESDS items, the second on controlling the discharge.
As we have already discussed the dynamic nature
personnel grounding plays on controlling charge on
ESD items, we will focus on the controlling discharge
discussion.
Many will refer to controlling discharges as avoiding
metal-to-metal contact, hard discharges or ensuring
the use of dissipative materials. It is should be noted,
that the term, “dissipative”, does not apply to
worksurfaces, but is rather adopted from the terms
defined in the flooring standard test method [9] and
loosely from the packaging standard [10]. The intent
however is generally understood to mean, that a
dissipative material is one with a resistance value of
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 09:18:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
greater than 1.0 × 106 ohms and less than 1.0 × 109
ohms.
While these concepts are in the general direction of
goodness, for extremely sensitive devices, it may be
misleading. It is possible given situations where the
voltage on the device is significantly high and the
contact resistance significantly low to cause ESD
damage even with a “dissipative” material.
The same principles that we have discussed
previously also are true for evaluating working
surfaces. A dynamic approach must be taken. One
where the validation is focused on the working
surfaces ability to inhibit charging of the device as
well as to reduce the charge on the ESDS items in a
manner that does not cause damage.
For mitigation of CDM or CBE events, a high
resistance ohmic contact to the ESDS item becomes
extremely important. Selection of the resistance value,
should be such that it is high enough to reduce the
voltage (charge) between the ESDS item and the
contacted surface, in a manner that is slow enough
where the current flow does not cause joule heating.
6. Ionization
Ionization improvements for mitigation of field-
induced CDM risks follow the same general
discussion as that of insulators. The lower the
ionization offset voltage (balance) the lower the field-
induced CDM threat. Ionization in some ways is
unique; it can be used to reduce electrostatic fields on
insulators, but can also cause a charge/voltage on
isolated conductors. There are too many different
technology types, e.g., AC, Steady State DC, Pulse
DC, Hybrid, X-ray, Nuclear etc., to discuss all the
different pros and cons of each.
When determining ionization Program limits with
respect to device sensitivities, offset voltage (balance)
and decay times are the typical values that can be
adjusted. The general direction of goodness is to have
a low offset voltages and fast decay times.
Ionization like all of the other controls mentioned has
a dynamic aspect as well. The organization must
determine the effect of ionization on the actual ESD
items in the process. Ionization typically is qualified
and verified from a starting voltage of 1000 volts and
with a stop voltage of 100 volts. How does this testing
on a 6 inch × 6 inch (150 mm × 150 mm), conductive
 20 pf, metal plate, compare with the effect of the
ionization on your ESDS items? The purpose of the
testing is to indicate whether or not the ionizer
performs or continues to perform as intended, it
provides no information about the effectiveness to
actually reduce or eliminate the electrostatic field
threat. For that the user must be responsible in
ensuring that the ionizer is solving the static problem.
What is the actual opportunity for the ions to get
where they need to go? I.e., what is the size of the
ESDS item and its relationship to other objects in the
surrounding area that will also attract the ions?
Consider a small charged device on a grounded
surface, with its sensitive leads down, ionization
applied to the top surface will likely have little effect.
As with any ionization system, it is important to
verify the voltage on the device, before and after
ionization has been applied.
Low ionization offsets of less than 5 volts with decay
times from 1000 volts to 100 volts in less than 5
seconds are easily achievable today with current
equipment in the marketplace. It is possible to use
ionization solutions with a near zero offset voltage if
needed. As organizations consider ionization for their
future devices, they must consider the pros and cons
of each ionization technology for their application.
Realizing that the most important criterion for
selecting an ionizer for an ESD problem is whether or
not it solves your ESD issue.
The Coordinator will need to understand how the
different technology types of ionization work and
identify the critical factors for each. For example, an
AC ionizer needs to have “clean” incoming power.
Any extraneous voltage on the AC signal will be
amplified by the ionizer circuitry, resulting in
potentially large offset voltages. A condition not that
may not have been present during normal laboratory
qualification procedures, see Figure 8.
Figure 8 – AC Ionization Offset Voltage w/Dirty Power
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 09:18:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
C. Dynamic Process Interactions
There has been significant discussion on the
administrative and technical requirements and
considerations for the next generation of ESD
controls. The general guidance has been to reduce the
limits on the ESD controls as much as possible within
the realms of process and cost considerations.
The most influential aspect for determining process
control limits for future S20.20 program requirements
is really the dynamic relationship between the ESD
control item and the organization’s process. There are
many examples one could give.
The following example is a single practical one that
echoes the continual problems we see with handling
of ESDS items. It is not that the control limits
necessarily need to be adjusted, but rather the process
needs to be examined dynamically based on how the
ESD control items are used, then the required control
item limits need to be established. Blindly lowering
(tightening) the ESD control limits will have an effect,
but how much of an effect and at what cost is often
unknown.
Take a scenario where a process required insulator
(press fit connector), with isolated conductors (surface
mount connector pins), see Figure 9, is shipped in an
ESD safe dissipative container. A field measurement
is taken on the plastic portion of the press fit
connector; it shows that it is not charged to unsafe
levels while in the dissipative package, i.e., it is less
than 2000 volts/inch at 12 inches and less than 125
volts /inch at less than 1 inch. Additionally the voltage
measured on the isolated conductors (surface mount
connector pins) is less than 35 volts, using a contact
voltmeter. Net, the connector meets the requirements
established in ANSI/ESD S20.20.
Now enter an ESD “safe” glove, system resistance 1.0
× 109 ohms, per ANSI/ESD SP15.1 worn by a
grounded operator via a wrist strap system. The
operator then removes the connector from the ESD
safe packaging and inserts it into the ESDS item, in
this case the PCBA. The action of contact and
separation between the grounded operator’s gloved
hand and the previously safe press fit connector now
triboelectrically charges and creates an electrostatic
field on the insulative portion of the connector, which
in turns induces a voltage on to the isolated
conductors of the connector. Now we have a charged
 isolated conductor, waiting to contact the sensitive
leads of the PCBA. When the connector is inserted
into the PCBA, “voila!” a CDM like event, see Figure
10.
The solution, understanding the process interaction
between the grounded personnel with the ESD safe
glove and the interaction with the process required
insulator. One solution, selection of a glove with
reduced charged generation when used in connection
with the process connector. Similarly, the
organization could have chosen to change the
connector material. The key regardless of the solution
is that the dynamic interaction is the “real”,
determining factor. By the way, they changed gloves.
Figure 9 – Press Fit, Surface Mount Connector
Figure 10 – Press Fit, Surface Mount Connector ESD Event
IV. Summary
As future ICs and semiconductor devices become
increasingly sensitive, coupled with limitations in on
chip ESD protection, emphasis on a dynamic program
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Downloaded on October 24,2022 at 09:18:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
management approach to ESD control becomes
crucial. At the forefront of this battle lies the ESD
Coordinator, who will be responsible for delicately
balancing the dynamic process interactions between
ESDS items and ESD control items at every critical
step of the manufacturing process. This balancing act
must include process capability considerations based
on tightening of required limits, increases in sample
sizes and verification frequencies. The most
significant change will be the need to understand the
dynamic interactions (i.e., charging/discharging) the
manufacturing process has on the ESDS items.
References
[1] EOS/ESD Association, Inc., “Electrostatic
Discharge (ESD) Technology Roadmap” –
Revised May 2016.
[2] Industry Council on ESD Target Levels, White
Paper 1: “A Case for Lowering Component Level
HBM/MM ESD Specifications and
Requirements,” Revision 2.0 - October 2010.
[3] Industry Council on ESD Target Levels, White
Paper 2: “A Case for Lowering Component Level
CDM ESD Specifications and Requirements,”
March 2009.
[4] R. Gaertner, “Do we expect ESD-failures in an
EPA designed according to international
standards? The need for a process related risk
analysis”, EOS/ESD Symposium 2007, p. 192.
[5] S. Halperin, R. Gibson, J. Kinnear, Jr., “Process
Capability & Transitional Analysis”, EOS/ESD
Symposium 2008, p. 148.
[6] ESD TR17.0-01-15, “For ESD Process
Assessment Methodologies in Electronic
Production Lines – Best Practices Used in
Industry”, January 2015.
[7] ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014, “Development of an
Electrostatic Discharge Control Program for
Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts,
Assemblies and Equipment”, July 2014.
[8] ANSI/ESD STM97.2-2016, “Footwear/Flooring
System – Voltage Measurement in Combination
with a Person”, November 2016.
[9] ANSI/ESD STM7.1-2013, “Floor Materials
Characterization of Materials”, May 2014.
[10] ANSI/ESD S541-2008, “Packaging Materials for
ESD Sensitive Items”, September 2008.