2 Conformity September 2007

the Basic Standard on ESD

by John Maas
Emerging Issues
in Standards

P
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
e
r
:

R
o
l
f
f
i
m
a
g
e
s

|

A
g
e
n
c
y
:

D
r
e
a
m
s
t
i
m
e
.
c
o
m
An Update on Revisions to
IEC 61000-4-2
September 2007 Conformity 25

T
he basic standard for system-level electrostatic
discharge (ESD) immunity testing of electrical and
electronic equipment, IEC 61000-4-2, has remained
essentially unchanged for more than 10 years. Over this
time, in-depth understanding of the benefits of this standard,
as well as areas where enhancements could be made,
have been developed across a wide section of the industry
segments in which this standard is applied. The International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is engaged in an active
maintenance project to address industry concerns and to
update this important basic standard.
This article will briefly discuss the essential concepts of
system-level ESD immunity testing according to IEC
61000-4-2 and provide an insiders view on the maintenance
project to revise the standard. It describes the concerns
being addressed; the process employed for maintenance
revision, including determining what elements of the standard
would and would not be considered for change; the initial
modification proposed; the changes in the current proposal,
and; the rationale for why some elements are not being
changed. Some ideas for potential future improvement, and
what needs to happen for those to become realized, are also
briefly introduced.
IEC 61000-4-2
System-level ESD immunity testing consists of injecting static
electricity discharges into the exposed exterior surfaces of
complete electronic equipment that is set up and operating as
it would under normal end-user conditions. The equipment
thus being tested (often called the equipment under test, or
EUT) is monitored for any malfunctions or deviations from its
expected operation. Malfunctions can be classified into three
general categories:
Temporary errors that are automatically corrected by the
EUT or its operating software;
Temporary errors that require some intervention by the
operator to recover to normal operation; and
Permanent damage that requires repairing or replacing part
or all of the EUT.
Depending on the type of equipment being tested, some of
these failure categories may be acceptable during testing.
The system-level ESD immunity test requirement for
many types of equipment is based on IEC 61000-4-2 [1].
This standard is considered a basic standard. It describes
requirements for the basic elements of the test, including test
equipment used for the test, the test setup, how to perform
the test, general description of the test, and test levels. As
a basic standard, IEC 61000-4-2 does not include specific
test limits or performance criteria. These last two elements
are determined by the particular product or product family
standard that applies to the type of equipment being tested.

The test equipment for this test is an ESD generator to

simulate discharges from a person with an intervening piece
of metal hand in the hand. The generator is to be capable of
creating a current pulse meeting the criteria shown in Table
1 and of the approximate shape shown in Figure 1. The
simplified model of the ESD generator is shown in Figure 2.
In its simplest form, the generator consists of a capacitance
that is charged to the test voltage, a discharge resistance
through which the stored energy is discharged, an internal
switch, and a metallic electrode or tip that contacts the surface
receiving the discharge. The test generator needs to be capable
of operating in two discharge modes: air discharge mode, in
which the electrode is charged and then brought into contact
with the EUT and the discharge occurs with an arc between
the electrode and surface receiving the discharge; and contact
discharge mode, in which the uncharged electrode is placed in
contact with the surface receiving the discharge, and then the
internal switch is closed to complete the discharge circuit.
The EUT is configured and set up in a manner consistent
with typical use. To assist in obtaining repeatable test results,
the EUT is placed above a metallic ground reference plane
and insulated from it to prevent unintended direct electrical
connection to it. Equipment that is normally installed on a
desk or table is placed above a coupling plane that is located
0.8 m above the ground reference plane. This table-top
IEC 61000-4-2
2 Conformity September 2007
setup also requires electrical isolation between the EUT and
coupling plane.
The test is performed by applying discharges to the EUT in
two ways, first, directly into the EUs exposed surfaces, and
then indirectly via coupling planes located a small distance
from the EUT. Exposed conductive surfaces are tested in the
contact mode. Nonconductive surfaces are tested with the
air discharge mode. Discharges are applied to horizontal and
vertical coupling planes in the contact discharge mode for the
indirect application of discharges.
Discharges are applied as single events with a minimum of
one second between subsequent pulses. Both positive and
negative polarity discharges are used. Because the relationship
between pre-discharge voltage and discharge current of real-
world discharges is not linear, testing is required at the test
limit voltage and at predefined lower test levels.
Simple, Effective, Not Perfect
This test standard has found wide-spread use largely because
of the advantages it offers. The test is relatively simple to
perform. The ESD generator is small enough to be held in
the test operators hand, allowing discharges to be applied to
a large number of locations on the EUT fairly quickly. Most
commercially-available ESD generators can also be mounted
on a test stand or tripod for automated testing or situations
where test operator fatigue may be a factor (for example,
in cases where a large numbers of discharges are applied to
each test point). The types of equipment to which the test can
be applied are nearly limitless. The cost of test equipment
is reasonable, compared with test equipment for other EMC
tests. Perhaps most important is that equipment that meets the
generally accepted test limits when following IEC 61000-4-2
usually exhibit acceptable immunity to ESD events in actual
use.
For all its simplicity and wide use, or perhaps because of
them, the test method does have a few areas of concern. From
the perspective of its practical application, these areas of
concern may best be summarized as reproducibility of test
results. Some equipment tested to this test standard exhibit
a variation in the charge voltage at which failures first occur
that is dependent on the particular brand and model of ESD
generator used for the test or when tested with essentially
identical test setup at different physical locations. [2]
In some cases, the variations can be a simple nuisance, such as
making it difficult to determine the true pass/fail level in a test.
In other cases, the impact can be more serious, such as passing
when tested with an ESD generator from one manufacturer
and failing when tested with a generator from a different
manufacturer. This second case can cause real problems
when one needs to determine if a product complies with a
mandatory regulatory requirement (such at the European
Unions EMC Directive) or in contractual disputes between an
original equipment manufacturer and their prospective OEM
customer.
The IEC Takes Action
The IEC is aware of the concerns with its basic ESD standard
and has an active maintenance project going on within its
technical subcommittee SC77B. Maintenance team MT12 of
SC77B was formed in 2004 specifically to revise 61000-4-2.
One of MT12s goals is to revise the standard in a way that
will improve the reproducibility of test results. At the same
time, any changes introduced need to be proven to have the
desired impact. Unproven changes, especially those that would
increase costs for test labs, should not be introduced.
MT12 began its work by describing the concerns with the
standard, and by creating a list of the elements of the standard
to consider for change during the maintenance process. A
list of those elements that should remain unchanged was also
created. The rationale for each element in these lists was also
discussed. Comments on the proposed plan of action were
then solicited from the National Committees participating in
SC77B. The subsequent activity of MT12 is based on this
proposed plan of action, and on comments from the National
Committees.
At the time this article was written, the IECs maintenance
schedule is to publish edition 2.0 of 61000-4-2 in 2009. Two
committee drafts (CDs) have been circulated to the National
Committees for comment. [3 and 4]
Several reasons for the variation in test result reproducibility
have been considered. The main causes are postulated to be
the specification of the test generators discharge current, lack
of specification on electromagnetic fields emanating from the
generator, calibration of the test generator, and elements of the
test setup.
While much research has been performed on radiated
fields from ESD generators, required quantitative data and
calibration methodologies are not
sufficiently mature to support a
mandatory specification for fields in
an international standard. Research
on fields continues, and adding
a specification on fields will be
considered as part of a future revision
project. For now, proposed changes to
the ESD generator are limited to the
discharge current.
Pre-Discharge
Voltage (kV)
Peak Discharge
Current (A)
Rise Time (nS) Current at 30 nS Current at 60 nS
2 7.5 0.7 1 4 2
4 15 0.7 1 8 4
6 22.5 0.7 1 12 6
8 30 0.7 - 1 16 8
Table 1: Discharge current parameters
September 2007 Conformity 27

The first CD [3] included proposals to change the ESD

generator, the metrology for calibrating the generator, and
the test setup. Of these proposals, the one that received the
most reaction was the changes to the test generator. It called
for keeping the basic shape of the discharge current and
specified parameters shown in Table 1, and adding a tolerance
of 35% around the current waveform. The tolerance band
was intended to reduce high frequency content on the current
waveform. The hypothesis driving this change was that the
unwanted high frequency energy is the source of some of the
test result reproducibility problems, and that reducing it would
improve reproducibility, especially when using different make
and model test generators on a single EUT. It was hoped that
including this proposal in the CD would generate comments
and useful data.
It turned out that most commercially-available test generators
would not meet the 35% tolerance band. Hence, nearly all
existing test generators would have to be modified or replaced.
This information was very useful to the IEC, and was the
impetus for a round robin test subsequently performed in the
second half of 2006. The purpose of the round robin was to
determine quantitatively if cleaning up the discharge current
would improve the reproducibility of test results. If it did, then
pursuing this change would be the right thing to do. If it did
not, then the added expense of modifying or replacing existing
test generators would not be justified.
With assistance form the test equipment manufacturers
participating in MT12, a revised discharge current
specification that reduced high frequency content and was
manufacturable was developed. Prototype test generators
meeting this specification were provided for the round robin.
Figure 1: Approximate discharge current waveshape
28 Conformity September 2007
Round robin testing was performed on a total of 15 sample
EUTs at three lab locations. The complete details of the round
robin are beyond the scope of this article, but the net result
of this study was that reducing the high frequency content of
the test generator alone does not significantly improve the
reproducibility of ESD test results. Overall, the variation in
pass/fail data with the modified test generators was no better
than it is when using the unmodified generators. Because of
these findings, the IEC removed the changes to the discharge
current specification in the subsequent second CD [4]. The
data simply did not justify changing this element of the test
generator.
Proposed Changes to the Standard
So, where does this leave the revision to the standard?
The second CD includes several proposed changes that
are expected to improve the overall effectiveness and
reproducibility of the test. These proposals include the
following items:
The specification of the test generator focuses on the
generators output, and not so much on specific values
of the storage capacitor and discharge resistor. The
simplified model is still based on typical values of 150 pF
and 330 , but these are listed as typical values, not rigid
requirements. This change is a reflection of reality. The
discharge current specifications cannot be met by strict
adherence to a simple 150 pF/330 model. The nominal
values of rise time, peak current and current at 30 nS and
60 nS are not changed.

A mathematical formula for calculating the discharge
current has been added. This formula will be useful in
modeling the effects of ESD in electronic equipment.
It also will allow accurate calculation of the discharge
current at any point in time along the curve.
The metrology of the system used for calibrating the
test generator is improved. A new current target with
1.

improved frequency response is specified. The targets

insertion loss must be flat to within 0.5 dB up to 1
GHz and within 1.2 dB between 1 and 4 GHz.
The analog bandwidth of the oscilloscope is increase
to a minimum of 2 GHz.
A method of verifying the performance of the
calibration measurement system is introduced.
Specific details of the physical setup for calibration,
including treatment of the generators ground strap,
are given. Experience has shown that the routing
of this strap can have a significant influence on
the calibration measurements. Hence, attention to
this seemingly minor detail is crucial to reliable
calibration.
The calibration procedure is listed in detail.
These enhancements are intended to give a more
complete, accurate and consistent picture of the test
generators performance. For example, any high
frequency content on the discharge current will be more
evident.
The text of the standard has been improved to clarify
that the material used for coupling planes is to meet the
same requirements as material for the ground reference
plane (GRP), but they do not have to use the exact
same material. The GRP could be made of copper and
the coupling planes from aluminum, for example. This
clarification was added in direct response to inquiries
from test labs that use the standard.
The minimum size of the horizontal coupling plane is
maintained at 1.6 by 0.8 m, but a larger plane can be
used to accommodate EUTs that will not fit onto this size
plane.

2.
3.
Figure 2: Simplified model of the ESD test generator
September 2007 Conformity 29

An expanded test method for ungrounded equipment,

including battery operated equipment, is included. As the
use of such equipment increases, it seems only reasonable
to discuss how to test it in more detail.
Informative annexes have also been added that discuss
radiated electromagnetic fields from the generator,
measurement uncertainty and an escalation strategy that
can be used for assessing EUTs that marginally pass or
fail the test.
These informative annexes serve two purposes. They
provide useful information on these topics that may be
used by test labs at their option in situations that may
sometimes occur. Measurement uncertainty, for example,
is a topic that is will need to be addressed by a lab that
is accredited to ISO Guide 17025. In the case of radiated
fields, the annex provides guidance and information to
explain how this uncontrolled facet of the test generator
may impact the reproducibility of test results, and may
help generate data that could be useful in developing a
specification on this parameter in the future.
The period for National Committee comments on this second
CD ended in July 2007. The comments will be addressed at
the next MT12 meeting in September 2007. At that time, the
project will most likely move on to the first voting stage on
a committee draft (CDV). If the comments warrant it, a third
CD could be circulated for further comments without voting.
It should be noted that these proposals are subject to change as
the revision project proceeds.
What Lies Ahead?
What does the future hold for this important industry
standard? The exact course it will take is difficult to predict.
In the short term, we can expect that Edition 2.0 will be
published and that it will include incremental changes. These
changes should improve the usefulness and application of
this standard in an evolutionary way. These changes may or
may not be exactly as described here. However, this article
provides a summary of the direction in which the standard is
headed today.
Beyond this edition of IEC 61000-4-2, it is reasonable to
expect research to continue into parameters that could result
in more revolutionary change to the standard and/or test
generator. A more complete understanding the radiated fields
associated with real ESD events is already drawing interest.
Much research is needed to correlate the fields from the
real events with the simulated events created by ESD test
generators. Developing a way to adequately and accurately
specify these fields is not a trivial task, but it is a task that
would need to be resolved before such a specification could be
included in this standard.
Would doing so solve any remaining test result reproducibility
issues? How would this impact the design of test generators?
What would the cost be to do this? At this time, we do not
4.
5.
know the answers to these more questions. We do, however,
know the questions, and are confident that Edition 2.0 of
the standard will provide incremental improvements and
advancements in the state of the art of ESD testing at the
system level.
John Maas is the corporate program manager for the low
frequency electromagnetics and pulsed electromagnetic
phenomena standards project authority at IBM Corporation,
and can be reached at johnmaas@us.ibm.com.
References
IEC 61000-4-2, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)
Part 4-2: Testing and measurement techniques
Electrostatic discharge immunity test
K. Hall, D. McCarthy, D. Dale, D. Smith, J. Nuebel,
J. Barth and H. Hyatt, Steps taken to determine why
different IEC 1000-4-2 ESD simulators produce different
results, International Zurich Symposium on EMC,
pp 105-108, 1997.
IEC 77B/491/CD
IEC 77B/538/CD
1.
2.
3.
4.
pI0SMRTII8.pdf 4/?S/?00I 4.I?.?4 PM FAST Link
www.conformity.com/0940