Hi - Quite a while ago, in the 80's I think
W.M King published some papers that demonstrated the
differences in the ESD waveforms in rise times as the
voltage increased. So an ESD pulse of 2kV would occupy
a wider spectral bandwidth than a 15kV pulse. Whats
important to realize, is that he performed the measurements
by charging the ESD gun and approaching the target. So the series
"impedance" of the discharge at the higher voltages
(much less at the lower voltages) tended to slow
the rise time. David, I would postulate that the reason you
haven't seen this effect is because of the new approach
to ESD testing: that is for direct discharges the ESDgun is
intimately contact to the product BEFORE apply the discharge.
This was done to minimize test "variabilities".
Chas
From: "Pommerenke, David" <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "Pommerenke, David" <[email protected]>
To: "Scott Douglas" <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: IEC 61000-4-2 ESD & 61000-4-5 Surge lower levels
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:33:57 -0500
Dear Scott,
(1)
I have looked at quite a bit of literature that plots
Failure propatibility vs. Stress level in contact mode like testing
and have seen very few none-monotonic EUTs that show the none-monotonic
behavior over a larger voltage range.
(2)
In my five year test practise at HP, I have only seen one EUT that failed
at lower levels and passed at higher levels in contact mode.
If you have data that shows"As others have said, I have seen numerous
failures at less than the maximum required test voltage while the same
system passes at the max required voltage." please share that data with me
if it is in contact mode and if the number of discharges at each level is
large enough to obtain an acceptable confidence level.
Regards
David Pommerenke
[Pommerenke, David] " -----Original Message-----
From: Scott Douglas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 4:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: IEC 61000-4-2 ESD & 61000-4-5 Surge lower levels
David,
I disagree with you here. As others have said, I have seen numerous
failures at less than the maximum required test voltage while the same
system passes at the max required voltage. It seems to me the intent was /
is / should be to verify product performance up to a maximum level, not
just at that level. The logic here would be that the "standards writing
group" would make the test cover reasonable ground up to some limit because
it is quite common that anything up to that limit could happen. The reason
for the limit is because it is uncommon for things larger / higher than the
limit to happen. Contact discharge is the only way to make reliable and
repeatable tests for ESD. No approach speed issues, etc. So testing at low
levels and working up to a maximum limit is a reasonable test method.
On the other hand, I find air discharge to be a difficult and not very
repeatable test to do which causes me to question its usefulness. Yes, I
agree that people interacting with products will more often see air
discharge rather than contact discharge. But I also find it impossible to
reliably repeat air discharge test results. The old approach speed,
distance and coordinates of contact point issue. Until someone can make an
automated air discharge tester that keeps human interactions out of the
process, I can't see it being corrected. That said, testing at lower levels
is just as necessary here.
Regards,
Scott Douglas
Senior Compliance Engineer
Narad Networks
515 Groton Road
Westford, MA 01886
office: 978 589-1869
cell: 978-239-0693
[email protected]
www.naradnetworks.com <http://www.naradnetworks.com/>
At 08:36 AM 6/10/02 -0500, Pommerenke, David wrote:
Dear Group,
For most EUTs there is no need to do lower level testing in contact mode
ESD. The time is better spend (meaning a better test results uncertainty is
achieved) if the number of discharges is increased at the highest test
level (hundreds is a good number). Although it is possible that a system
fails at e.g., 2 kV contact mode (e.g., incomplete reset) and passes at 4
kV contact mode (full self-recovering quick reset) the likelyhood of that
happening is not that large to require it in a standard.
For air discharge lower level testing is needed, as the risetime is often
much lower at lower voltages. Of course, if no discharge occurs, no further
testing at even lower levels makes sense.
I do know that what I am saying violates the present IEC 61000-4-2
standard. ut it reflects the coming version of IEC 61000-4-2. The standard
does not intend to protect agains every possible ESD failure.
I would like to receive your input, as I am one of the US-representatives
in IEC TC77b WG-9 (ESD).
David Pommerenke
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Ron Pickard: [email protected]
Dave Heald: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
