Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/gndzero/public_html/gndzero.com/blog/wp-content/themes/fruitful/functions.php on line 575
18 Jun

We don't need no stinking wrist straps, do we?

Q: I have read the White Paper 1: A Case for Lowering Component Level HBM/MM ESD Specifications and Requirements and found the ESD Control Programs and Resulting Data (Chapter 1, Page 20-23) particularly interesting.

Assuming a production environment with ESD flooring, footwear (and clothing), by the time a person walks to a workstation and sits down, the voltage of this persons should not exceed 500V (or even 100V as seen in Figure 3). That would mean even a seated operator in this case would not need to wear wrist strap, that theory would be correct right? After sitting down and this person sits on a stool (feet off the floor) with resistance to floor < 1.0x10exp9ohms, any HBM risk would be further reduced wouldn’t it?

A: Hello ****.  Nice try.  Even if you have an ESD flooring system and even if you have ESD footwear and even if you have an ESD task chair with ESD casters or an ordinary task chair with an ESD chair cover (very effective as well), ESD smock on… you STILL have to wear the wrist strap when seated at an ESD workstation.

The only time, per ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007 page 4, 8.2 Personnel Grounding, that personnel in the EPA (ESD Protected Area) should be without a wrist strap is when doing standing or walking about operations, and then two conditions must be met;
·         “When the total resistance of the system (from the person, through the footwear and flooring to the grounding / Equipotential bonding system) is less than 3.5E7 Ω…”
·         “When the total resistance of the system (from the person, through the footwear and flooring to the grounding / Equipotential bonding system) is greater than 3.5E7 Ω and less than 1.0E9 Ω and the BVG is less than 100 v per 97.2…”

This is what is said about seated personnel:

“When personnel are seated at ESD protective workstations, they shall be connected to the grounding / Equipotential bonding system via a wrist strap system.”

Hope this helps.   I guess you could say redundancy is good in the realm of ESD.  It’s the weak link in the chain that will cause an ESD event.  If someone lifts their ESD footwear from the ESD flooring system while seated, they can tribocharge to above 100 volts.  It takes only 0.3 seconds of charge time to exceed 20.20 requirements.  If personnel is seated and getting up to go to break, it seems best to stand up, remove the wrist strap from the wrist, carefully set it down and walk away from the ESD workstation.  Worst case is to take the wrist strap off while still seated, set it down, put your hand on the ESD workstation and near ESDS devices, then stand up out of the task chair before leaving the work station.  Under proper conditions and with good bench mats, clean ESD floors, ESD task chairs, etc. in place, no ESD event.  The problem with ESD events is that we cannot see, hear, feel them.

The only alternative to not wearing a wrist strap while seated may be the used of a smock with a grounding coil cord attached to it.  You can see the footnotes on the 20.20 document at the bottom of page 4 for further details.

 We adhere to and meet or exceed requirements put forth in ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007 or IEC 61340-5-1, which assumes a target HBM of 100 volts and less.

16 Jun

How do we test ESD conductive or dissipative gloves?

Q: How do we test ESD conductive or dissipative gloves?

A: The glove industry offers gloves for the protection of ESD sensitive items by using materials that will provide specific measurable “intrinsic electrical resistance of gloves and finger cots” as per ANSI/ESD SP15.1-2005.

Some materials are being used which reduce the amount of charge generation “and/or have static dissipative properties to reduce charge accumulation”, such as Nitrile or vinyl.  I would image cotton could be effective based on the layer of sweat on our skin.  But if you require ESD gloves in the Static Conductive range, those would need to be specifically made for that purpose.  I’m currently working on nailing down an exact value of what these gloves should read and how that affects the ESD testing of it and the closest I could find comes from a test fixture from Prostat called the CAFÉ, or Constant Area & Force Electrode.  They recommend using 1.5 to 10 volts when the measurement of glove in combination with personnel through a wrist strap assembly without the 1 meg Ω resistor is less than 1 meg ohm.  They use 10 volts between 1.0E6 Ω and 1.0E7 Ω.  Then they use  100 volts for above that.  This is fairly easy to do using a sophisticated megger like the 801 in manual mode, otherwise the mere testing of the glove per 15.1 could be a challenge.

Here’s what confuses about ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007 and -1999 …

 What’s the range of the glove and finger cots?  Only in 20.20-2007 Tables 1, 2, and 3 final column does it give us “Required Limits” to measure up against.  So then what?  Go to manufacturing specs.  Some list a value, some don’t.  Be careful how they’re categorized; anti-static (describes that it’s low charging but doesn’t really quantify a resistance range unless you’re talking about packaging), static dissipative (1.0E6 Ω to 1.0E9 Ω ??), and static conductive (less than 1.0E6 Ω but greater than what??  1.0E4 Ω rings a bell, but I’d hope it’s not less than that.).

Ok, so for our Static Conductive or black finger cots, they measure between 1.0E6 Ω and 1.0E8 Ω per ASTM D257 and meet the static decay specs per MIL-STD-81705B from 5000 to less than 100 volts in less than 0.01 seconds.

So here’s the upshot;   My improvisation in measuring ESD gloves and finger cots involves using the PFA-861-H Handle (see attached), a DUT (esd glove), and a wrist strap without the 1 meg ohm resistor for measurements known to be below about 1.0E7 Ω  , I hook that up to my meg ohmmeter and see what I get (see attached photos).

wand wand-and-sd-glove wand-and-sc-glove

 

This ESD TR20.20-Handbook has a wealth, a plethora of information about ESD gloves and finger cots, such as referring to yet other standards such as ANSI/ESD STM11.11 Surface Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Material , and let’s not forget ANSI/ESD STM11.12 Volume Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials, oh, and of course ANSI/ESD STM11.13 Two-Point Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative and Insulative (what the??) Material, then it goes on to tell us to use the CAFÉ method, which is specifically designed for resistance measurements at the thumb and fingertips, which can yield much lower results than those obtained by the above test BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE A REAL LIVE PERSON, THE WAY THEY ARE ACTUALLY USED IN PRACTICE!  Oh, and they say you can only measure once due to a “person’s skin emissions”.  Fair enough.  Time to reorder?

So…  If this info helps anybody, let me know and send over a comment.