K.T. Kaschani, M. Hofmann, M. Schimon, M.W. Wilson, R. Vahrmann
Atmel Germany GmbH, P.O.B. 35 35, 74025 Heilbronn, Germany
Tel.: +49 7131 67−3279, Fax: +49 7131 67−2499, E−mail: karim−thomas.kaschani@hno.atmel.com
Abstract − Well−known aspects concerning the significance of the machine model (MM) are reviewed and new aspects concerning the reliability of MM testers are presented. These aspects cover historical and physical considerations, the impact of the ESD test equipment on the MM immunity of integrated circuits (ICs), the fitness of the MM for an ESD standard and the current customer requirements concerning the MM immunity of ICs. All these aspects and their consequences are discussed. As a result, it is recommended to abolish the MM immediately.
Zusammenfassung − Dieser Aufsatz gibt einen Überblick über bekannte Aspekte des Maschinen Modells (MM) und stellt gleichzeitig neue Aspekte in Bezug auf die Zuverlässigkeit von MM−Testern vor. Dabei werden historische
Entwicklungen und physikalische Fakten gewürdigt, der Einfluß von ESD−Testern auf die ESD−Festigkeit von integrierten Schaltungen (ICs) untersucht, die Eignung des MM als ESD−Norm betrachtet und die derzeitigen
Kundenanforderungen an die MM−Festigkeit von ICs diskutiert. Nach einer Bewertung der verschiedenen Aspekte wird schließlich empfohlen, das MM sofort abzuschaffen.
Today, component−level ESD testing is addressed by three different models, the human−body model
(HBM), the machine model (MM) and the charged− device model (CDM).
Component−level testing according to these models is ruled by well−known standards. HBM testing is ruled e.g. by the standards of
AEC [1], ESDA [2], IEC [3], JEDEC [4], JEITA [5] and MIL [6]. MM testing is covered e.g. by the standards of AEC [7], ESDA [8], IEC [9] and JEDEC
[10]. CDM testing is addressed e.g. by the standards of
AEC [11], ESDA [12], JEDEC [13] and JEITA [14].
While the HBM and the CDM are widely accepted today, there is still a lot of controversy about the significance of the MM, which is often depicted by the simplified equivalent circuit shown in Fig. 1.
C
MM
200 pF
S
DUT
In this paper well−known aspects concerning the significance of the MM are reviewed and new aspects concerning the reliability of MM testers are presented.
Historical and physical considerations are presented in section II and section III respectively. The impact of the ESD test equipment on the MM immunity of ICs is investigated in section IV and the fitness of the MM for an ESD standard is examined in section V. Additional aspects are discussed and assessed in section VI.
Finally, the results are summarized and conclusions are drawn in section VII.
The "machine model" or "Japanese model" as it is called in countries outside Japan since the latter half of
1980’s [5] was originally developed as a human−body model with negligible body resistance [5, 17, 20, 22].
Thus, the MM may be considered as a worst−case
HBM [17, 18]. Its origin from the HBM seems plausible, since the decay of the short−circuit current of an MM pulse as specified in [7−10] is very similar to that of an HBM pulse [1−6, 22] (cf. Fig. 2).
2
1
2 kV HBM
100 V MM
Fig. 1: Simplified equivalent MM circuit according to
[7, 10].
On the one hand, there are many experts claiming or at least suggesting that the MM models the discharge of a machine acting as a synonym for a metallic object [15
−19]. While there are standards like AEC [7], which definitely require integrated circuits (ICs) to pass
200 V MM, there is a tendency among the customers of ICs to demand MM immunities that even go considerably beyond this level. On the other hand, there is a growing number of experts arguing that the
MM was never developed to model the discharge of a machine and that its discharge characteristics do not even match those of a metallic object [18, 20−23].
Correspondingly, there are standards like JEITA [5] and IEC [9], which question the meaningfulness of the
MM and even suggest to abolish this model [5].
0
−1
−2
−0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Time [ µ s]
Fig. 2: Short−circuit current waveforms of a typical
2 kV HBM pulse and a typical 100 V MM pulse.
Despite the undisputed origin of the MM, there are indications that the discharge of an external 200 pF capacitor directly into pins of an IC has been used in
1980’s as a substitute for a CDM test [23, 24]. This

might explain, why the MM, which is marked by the discharge of a 200 pF capacitor (cf. Fig. 1), has been considered to model the discharge of a metallic object.
However, despite the fundamental differences between the set−up of the CDM and the HBM (MM), this CDM substitute was found to show failure signatures similar to those of the HBM [24]. Considering the origin of the
MM, these results should have indicated, that the MM is a poor CDM substitute and not very suitable to model the discharge of a metallic object.
In 1990 there was no generally accepted clear specification of the MM [25]. According to a Philips internal specification there were fast MM testers marked by a series inductance of L
S
= 0.5 µH and high peak currents, and slow MM testers characterized by a series inductance of L
S
= 2.5 µH and a factor 2.2 lower peak currents [25]. In addition, typical Japanese MM testers were found to have series inductances even beyond L
S
= 10 µH at that time [25]. Due to these differences the correlation between different MM testers and between HBM and MM test results in terms of failure signatures and stress levels was poor [25].
The correlation improved with the introduction of the current MM standards [7−10] in 1997. However, the correlation between different MM testers that meet these standards is still worse than for different HBM testers, since MM test results are largely affected by the parasitics of the given tester [5, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26].
An equivalent circuit that accounts for the main parasitics of state−of−the−art MM testers is shown in
Fig. 3. Note, since the series resistance R
S of the MM is negligible compared with the HBM, the series capacitance C
S
can be ignored.
C
S
=0
S
L
S
R
S
C
MM
= 200pF C
T
DUT
Fig. 3: 4 th
[25].
order equivalent MM circuit according to
The MM is often associated with a large metallic object, the discharge of which is marked by a negligible resistance simply because of its conductive properties. Unfortunately, it is often forgotten that these properties imply as well a negligible inductance.
Based on the fact that a 1 mil (25.4 µm) bond wire of
2 mm length has a series inductance of less than 2 nH
[27] and considering the self−inductances of typical package lead−fingers as shown in Tab. 1, the inductance involved in the discharge of a metallic object has to stay well below 10 nH. However, this contradicts the short−circuit current waveforms specified in MM standards [7−10], which suggest a series inductance L
S of the MM tester around 750 nH
[5, 22]. Consequently, the MM cannot describe an electrostatic discharge of a charged machine or metallic object [5, 9, 20−23]. The difference between the short−circuit current waveform of the MM as specified by current MM standards and a more real machine−model (RMM) with negligible series inductance is clearly shown in Fig. 4. While the MM waveform is marked by a small amplitude, a large period and a low damping, the RMM waveform is characterized by a fast transient with a large peak current and a high damping.
Package Self−Inductance (min / max)
SSOP20-56 0.76 nH / 6.41 nH
TSSOP8-56 0.71 nH / 4.04 nH
MQFP44
TQFP176
1.46 nH / 1.66 nH
3.49 nH / 4.89 nH
Tab. 1: Minimum and maximum lead−finger self− inductances of typical IC packages at 100 MHz [28].
10
100 V MM
100 V RMM
5
0
−5
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time [ µ s]
0.4
0.5
Fig. 4: Comparison of simulated 100 V short−circuit current waveforms based on the equivalent MM circuit shown in Fig.
3 with L
S
= 0.6 µH (MM) and
L
S
= 10 nH (RMM).
In contrast, a short−circuit current waveform that is marked by both a negligible series resistance and a negligible series inductance can be found in the CDM
[11−14]. Consequently, as explained in [5, 20, 23] a discharge of a metallic object acting as a synonym for a machine is much better modelled by the CDM than by the MM. Thus, from a physical point of view it has to be concluded that the name "machine model" is misleading [5].
Apart from the discharge of a metallic object, the MM is also claimed to represent the rapid discharge from the charged cables of an automatic tester or from a charged board assembly [17]. These claims, which are not explained or substantiated in [17], are highly questionable when recent investigations of cable discharge events (CDE) and charged board model
(CBM) failures are considered. On the one hand, it has been shown that the current waveform of cable discharge events has basically a rectangular shape, which is more or less independent of the cable type and is much better modelled by transmission line pulses
(TLP) than by the MM [29, 30]. On the other hand, it has been reported that by means of a conventional
CDM tester, the failure signatures of real−world CBM events were successfully reproduced and that the current waveforms of these CBM events were similar

to those of CDM events, which implies that they are much faster than MM pulses [31].
Coming back to the origin of the MM it seems logical to assume that the discharge waveform of the MM should at least represent the discharge of a human− body with negligible body resistance. But even though the MM was originally developed to model such a discharge [5, 20, 22], the discharging waveform of the
MM is claimed to be different from that of a real human−body [5]. At least, both the HBM and the MM were found to address the same failure signatures [21−
23, 26], which is probably due to the fact that the overall time constants of the HBM and the MM are similar (cf. Fig. 2). The only difference is the stress level, which was found to be fairly lower for the MM than for the HBM [21, 23, 26]. This corresponds more or less to the difference of the short−circuit peak currents (cf. Fig. 2).
MM test results are known to be largely affected by the parasitics of the given MM tester [5, 16−18, 22, 25,
26]. In 1990 the damping was reported to vary for some MM testers depending on the stress level [25].
However, closer investigation of the corresponding results suggests that the authors did not refer to the damping, i.e. the rate that the amplitude of a single short−circuit waveform decreases over time, but to the linearity between the short−circuit peak current and the stress level I
P1
= f(V
MM
). Nevertheless, it was recently found that the damping of the short−circuit current waveform of some MM testers does indeed depend on the stress level. Corresponding normalized waveforms are plotted in Fig. 5. They show that the damping at
−400 V is much higher than the damping at −100 V.
1.0
0.5
0.0
−0.5
−1.0
Low Damping @ −100V
High Damping @ −400V
−0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Time [ µ s]
Fig. 5: Normalized short-circuit current waveforms of
MM tester B.
In addition, some MM testers were found to suffer from unstable damping even at constant stress levels.
Corresponding examples of two different short−circuit current waveforms measured on two different MM testers are given in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.
Since the period of all these waveforms shown in Fig.
5 to Fig. 7 is not affected, the series inductance L
S and the capacitance C
MM of the equivalent MM circuit (cf.
Fig. 3) have to be constant. Therefore, the unstable damping has to be attributed to a non−constant series resistance R
S
. According to the equivalent circuit of
Fig. 3, the series inductance L
S of tester A is approximately 0.8 µH, whereas its series resistance R
S is varying between 10 Ω and 17 Ω . Correspondingly, the series inductance L
S of tester B is around 0.6 µH, while its series resistance R and 11 Ω .
S is varying between 5 Ω
0
−1
2
1
−2
−3
−4
4
3
Low Damping
High Damping
−0.1 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Time [ µ s]
Fig. 6: +250 V MM short-circuit current waveforms of
MM tester A.
0
−1
−2
−3
−4
4
3
2
1
Spark?
Contact?
Contact?
Low Damping
High Damping
−0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Time [ µ s]
Fig. 7: −200 V MM short-circuit current waveforms of
MM tester B.
Since the short−circuit current waveforms that showed the different or unstable damping were measured for the same pin combination in a series of more than 100 successive MM pulses, it seems obvious to attribute the unstable damping to the relay that is triggering the MM pulses. In this connection, it is speculated that the low damping might be caused by a mechanical contact between the two electrodes of the relay, whereas the high damping might be due to a sparkover prior to a mechanical contact between both electrodes.
S L
S
= 0.6
µ H R
S i
Z
(t) v
Z
(t)
C
MM
= 200pF C
T
= 50pF
ZD
V
R
D
BD
= 6V
= 0.5
Ω
Fig. 8: Simulation schematic of the equivalent MM circuit according to [25] connected to a 6 V Zener diode.
In fact, the damping of the MM short−circuit waveforms generated by both testers was found to be unstable in the range between 150 V and 300 V. As a consequence, the energy that is dissipated in the device−under−test (DUT) is correspondingly affected.
Since MM failures like HBM failures are mainly

caused by thermal overload due to the dissipated energy [22, 26], the maximum MM withstand voltages between 150 V and 300 V can be ambiguous. This is especially undesirable, since MM withstand voltages in this range are required by the AEC [7] and some customers.
In order to investigate the impact of this effect on the energy that is dissipated in a typical ESD protection device, MM circuit simulations with parasitic series resistances of R
S
= 5 Ω and R
S
= 11 Ω were carried out.
The corresponding schematic is depicted in Fig. 8. The protection device is modelled by a 6 V Zener diode with a differential resistance of R
D
= 0.5 Ω acting as a synonym for a typical bi−directional non−snapback protection device. Current−saturation effects and self− heating effects have been ignored. The energy dissipated by the Zener diode was calculated for each simulation by the well−known formula:
W diss
=
∞
t = 0 v
Z t i
Z t dt (1)
The resulting energies are plotted in Fig. 9 for both series resistances depending on the stress level. As indicated by the dashed curves the dissipated energy between 100 V and 400 V is 50 % to 80 % larger for the low damping than for the high damping. This difference is caused by the different energies dissipated by the different series resistances R
S
. As mentioned above, the damping of the MM short−circuit current waveforms generated by both testers were found to be unstable in the range between 150 V and 300 V. In this range, which is indicated in Fig. 9 by the gray shaded area, the damping can be either low or high. Assuming a spiral test starting at a low stress level the dissipated energy will follow the arrows in Fig. 9 as the stress level increases. As a consequence, the uncertainty of a maximum ESD withstand voltage that falls into the gray shaded area is 100 V. Hence, this uncertainty marks 50 % of the MM immunity required by the AEC
[7], which is absolutely unacceptable for equipment used for qualification tests.
4
3
2
1
Low Damping (R
S
= 5 Ω )
High Damping (R
S
= 11 Ω )
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Fig. 9: Energy dissipated by the 6 V Zener diode shown in Fig. 8 depending on the MM stress level and on the stress−level dependent damping.
The main requirements to be met by any ESD standard are (1) the correct simulation of the corresponding real
ESD event and (2) the repeatability and reproducibility of the test results [25]. The latter implies (2a) a clear specification of the test conditions and (2b) a reliable test equipment. Finally, to be useful an ESD standard should give practical and meaningful ESD results independent of the location that the component is being stressed.
As explained in sections II and III, the MM was neither meant to model the electrostatic discharge of a charged machine (or metallic object) nor does it model such an
ESD event correctly. Consequently, the MM fails to meet the first requirement to be met by an ESD standard.
In fact, the short−circuit current waveforms shown in
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 do meet the current MM standards [7
−10], despite their obvious instabilities, which facilitates ambiguous test results as explained in section IV. This is attributed to the liberal tolerances of these standards and to their restriction on the first
200 ns of the measured waveforms. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the current MM standards do not meet the requirement of a clear specification of the test conditions [5].
As explained in section II the correlation between different MM testers is worse than for different HBM testers, since MM test results are largely affected by the parasitics of the given tester [5, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26].
Furthermore, it was shown in section IV that the maximum MM withstand voltages between 150 V and
300 V can be ambiguous due to unstable damping.
Consequently, the test equipment required for MM testing cannot be regarded as reliable.
Both HBM and CDM give practical and meaningful
ESD results independent of the location that the component is being stressed. While in the HBM a charged person is assumed to discharge through a component, in the CDM a charged component is assumed to discharge when it comes into contact with a conducting object. For both models the real stress of the component depends only on the charge voltage but not on the location that the component is being stressed. This is because the capacitance of the charged object is independent of the location that the component is being stressed. For the HBM this capacitance is an inherent property of the human body.
Since the size and the composition of human bodies do not differ very much, this capacitance can be regarded as constant. Consequently, in the HBM the human body serves as an inherent standard reference, which

for a given charge voltage causes a constant stress regardless of the location that the component is being stressed. For the CDM the capacitance is an inherent property of the component. Consequently, in the CDM the component itself serves as an inherent standard reference.
The situation would be different for a model that was developed to model the discharge of a real machine or conductive object (RMM). If a charged machine is assumed to discharge through a component, the real stress depends not only on the charge voltage but also on the location that the component is being stressed.
This is because the equipment and hence its capacitance can vary a lot depending on the given manufacturing environment. Thus, assuming a constant charge voltage the RMM stress a component becomes subject to depends strongly on the size of the given machine. Consequently, in an RMM there is no inherent standard reference, which disqualifies such a model to give practical and meaningful ESD results.
-
Since neither of the first three requirements are met by the MM, the JEITA has demoted its former MM standard to a "reference test method" in 1994 on the premise that it would be abolished in the future [5].
Note, given the explanations of section II to section V it seems obvious that JEITA does not regard the MM as a benchmark reference−method but as a method used for backwards−compatibility reference. Likewise,
JEDEC has de facto demoted the MM by noting [32], that its corresponding standard [10] is not currently being used in the industry and that the preferred industry test methods are [4] (HBM) and [13] (CDM).
Although there are many experts claiming or at least suggesting that the MM as described by the standards of AEC [7], ESDA [8], IEC [9] and JEDEC [10] models the discharge of a machine or a metallic object
[15−19], it is surprising that no reference was given or could be found that explains or substantiates this claim.
Anyhow, referring to the negligible series resistance of the MM is simply not sufficient to support this claim.
In fact, it seems that many people have adopted the idea of the discharge of a machine or metallic object simply because the name of the model does suggest such a discharge. In contrast, there is a growing number of experts, who have shown that the MM cannot model the discharge of a machine or metallic object [20−23]. Considering the explanations in section
II and III, there is no reason to doubt their conclusion.
As already mentioned in the introduction, there is a tendency among the customers of ICs to demand MM immunities that even go considerably beyond the
200 V as required by the AEC [7]. Considering the trend to question the meaningfulness of the MM, it seems necessary to discuss possible reasons for this tendency. On the one hand, the tendency to demand ever−increasing MM immunities may be caused by customers, who intend to run careful quality checks but are not familiar with both the ESD requirements of
1
0
−1
−2 state−of−the−art manufacturing environments and reasonable MM immunities of ICs that have to be handled therein. In order to avoid the supposed risk of
ESD failures, these customers demand new ICs designed in advanced technologies, to have at least the
ESD immunity of older ICs designed in previous technologies. As a result, the ESD immunities that are demanded by these customers are steadily increasing.
On the other hand, this tendency may as well be caused by the misapplication of ESD guns used by customers to verify the MM qualification results of semiconductor manufacturers. In an investigation of different ESD guns configured with an MM discharge network (i.e. 200 pF, 0 Ω ) [33] it was found that most of the investigated ESD guns failed to meet the short− circuit current waveforms of the MM standards [7−10].
An example of corresponding current waveforms is shown in Fig. 10. These waveforms demonstrate, that both the amplitude and the period of the current waveforms generated with the two ESD guns do not meet the requirements of current MM standards. While the amplitude of the first current peak is 63 % to 72 % less than the required typical value, the period exceeds the maximum acceptable value by 20 % and 69 % respectively. Furthermore, the damping of the short− circuit current waveforms of both ESD guns exceeds the maximum value as specified by the MM standards.
As a consequence, a stress of 500 V generated by a component−level MM tester (Thermo KeyTek Mk.2) according to the MM standards was found to cause the same failure signature as a stress of 1.1 kV that was generated by an ESD gun (NoiseKen ESS−2000) configured with an MM discharge network [34]. Given these results, it seems plausible to assume that the tendency to demand MM immunities that go considerably beyond 200 V might as well be caused by the misapplication of ESD guns.
4
3
NoiseKen ESS−2000
Schaffner NSG 438
Thermo KeyTek Mk.2
2
−3
0 50 100
Time [ns]
150 200
Fig. 10: +200 V MM short−circuit current waveforms of two ESD guns (NoiseKen ESS−2000 and Schaffner
NSG 438) equipped with an MM discharge network and a state−of−the−art component−level MM tester
(Thermo KeyTek Mk.2) as reported by [33].

Regardless of the possible reasons, the trend to demand ever−increasing MM immunities seems absurd considering the statement of the Industry Council on
ESD Target Levels that there are no comprehensible situations where 200 V MM events would occur during product handling in an ESD controlled environment and that a 30 V MM requirement is recommended as more than enough [23].
•
•
•
•
By means of the historical and physical considerations of section II and section III the following has been shown:
The MM was originally developed as an HBM with negligible body resistance and was found to address the same failure signatures as the HBM.
MM test results are largely affected by the parasitics of the given tester. Therefore, the correlation between different MM testers is worse than the correlation between different HBM testers.
The MM does not describe an electrostatic discharge of a charged machine or metallic object. Such a discharge is much better modelled by the CDM.
Likewise, the MM does not describe cable discharge events (CDE) or discharge events according to the charged board model (CBM).
•
•
•
•
Therefore, the name "machine model" is misleading.
The investigation of the impact of the ESD test equipment on the MM immunity of ICs in section IV gave the following results:
The damping of the short−circuit current waveform of some MM testers depends on the stress level.
There are MM testers that suffer from unstable damping even at constant stress levels.
For the investigated MM testers the maximum MM withstand voltages between 150 V and 300 V were found to be ambiguous.
The corresponding uncertainty of the maximum withstand voltage marks 50 % of the MM immunity required by the
AEC [7].
•
•
•
•
•
ESD test equipment that suffers from these anomalies is not suitable for qualification tests.
•
The results concerning the fitness of the MM for an
ESD standard as examined in section V can be summarized as follows:
The MM does not give a correct simulation of a real
ESD event.
The current MM standards do not give a clear specification of the test conditions.
The test equipment required for MM testing cannot be regarded as reliable.
In contrast to the HBM and the CDM a real MM
(RMM) cannot give practical and meaningful ESD results.
Therefore, the MM is not fit for an ESD standard.
•
As a consequence, JEITA has demoted the MM standard to a "reference test method" already in
1994 and JEDEC has de facto demoted the MM.
In the following discussion it was speculated that many people might have adopted the idea of the discharge of a machine or metallic object despite the lack of any proof simply because the name of the MM does suggest such a discharge. Furthermore, the tendency among the customers of ICs to demand MM immunities that even go considerably beyond 200 V as required by the AEC was attributed to two possible reasons. On the one hand, it may be caused by customers, who intend to run careful quality checks but are not familiar with ESD and corresponding measures to protect ICs. On the other hand, this tendency may as well be caused by the misapplication of ESD guns. It was finally noted, that this trend seems absurd when the recommended 30 V MM requirement of the
Industry Council on ESD Target Levels is considered.
Given these results, it is concluded that MM testing should be stopped immediately for it does not give any meaningful results. On the contrary, the need to meet the current MM requirements causes only unnecessary delays and costs in terms of extra re−designs and testing effort to the design of ICs. Considering the demotion of the MM standard by JEITA in 1994, it is finally concluded that the MM and its corresponding standards are well overdue to be abolished.
[1] Automotive Electronics Council, "Human Body
Model Electrostatic Discharge Test", AEC−
Q100−Rev−F (002)
[2] Electrostatic Discharge Association, "Human
Body Model (HBM) − Component Level",
ANSI/ESD−STM5.1−2001
[3] International Electrotechnical Commission,
"Electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitivity testing
− Human body model (HBM)", IEC60749−26,
Second Edition 2006−07
[4] JEDEC Solid State Technology Association,
"Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Sensitivity
Testing, Human Body Model (HBM)", JESD22−
A114E
[5] Japan Electronics and Information Technology
Industries Association, "Human Body Model
Electrostatic Discharge (HBM/ESD)", EIAJ ED−
4701/300, Test Method 304
[6] US Department of Defense, "Electrostatic
Discharge Sensitivity Classification", MIL−STD−
883G, Method 3015.7
[7] Automotive Electronics Council, "Machine
Model Electrostatic Discharge Test", AEC−
Q100−Rev−F (003)
[8] Electrostatic Discharge Association, "Machine
Model (MM) − Component Level", ESD
STM5.2−1999

[9] International Electrotechnical Commission,
"Electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitivity testing
− Machine model (MM)", IEC60749−27, Second
Edition 2006−07
[10] JEDEC Solid State Technology Association,
"Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Sensitivity
Testing, Machine Model (MM)", EIA/JESD22−
A115A
[11] Automotive Electronics Council, "Charged
Device Model (CDM) Electrostatic Discharge
Test", AEC−Q100−Ref−F (011)
[12] Electrostatic Discharge Association, "Charged
Device Model (CDM) − Component Level", ESD
STM5.3.1−1999
[13] JEDEC Solid State Technology Association,
"Field−Induced Charged−Device Model Test
Method for Electrostatic−Discharge−Withstand
Thresholds of Microelectronic Components",
JESD22−C101C
[14] Japan Electronics and Information Technology
Industries Association, "Charged device model electrostatic discharge (CDM/ESD)", EIAJ ED−
4701/300−2, Test Method 305
[15] M. Kelly, G. Servais, et al., "A Comparison of
Electrostatic Discharge Models and Failure
Signatures for CMOS Integrated Circuit
Devices", Proc. EOS/ESD Symp. 1995, pp. 175−
185
[16] S. Dabral, T. Maloney, "Basic ESD and I/O
Design", John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998
[17] Electrostatic Discharge Association, "Fundamen− tals of Electrostatic Discharge, Part Five −
Device Sensitivity and Testing", www.esda.org/ documents/esdfunds5print.pdf
, 2001
[18] A.Z.H. Wang, "On−Chip ESD Protection for
Integrated Circuits − An IC Design Perspective",
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2002
[19] S.H. Voldman, "ESD Circuits and Devices", John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2006
[20] M.
Tanaka, K.
Okada, M.
Sakimoto,
"Clarification of Ultra−High−Speed Electrostatic
Discharge & Unification of Discharge Model",
EOS/ESD Symposium 1994, pp. 170−181, 1994
[21] T. Dangelmayer, "ESD Myths and the Latency
Controversy", Compliance Engineering, http://www.ce−mag.com/archive/02/Spring/ dangelmayer.html
[22] A. Amerasekera, D. Duvvury, "ESD in Silicon
Integrated Circuits", John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, 2002
[23] Industry Council on ESD Target Levels, "White
Paper 1: A Case for Lowering Component Level
HBM/MM ESD Specifications and Require− ments", Revision 1.0, August 2007
[24] C. Duvvury, R.N. Rountree, D.A. Baglee, et al.,
"ESD Design Considerations for ULSI", Proc.
EOS/ESD Symp. 1985, pp. 45−48
[25] L. van Roozendaal, A. Amerasekera, P. Bos, et al., "Standard ESD Testing of Integrated
Circuits", Proc. EOS/ESD Symposium 1990, pp.
119−130
[26] T. Brodbeck, "Vergleich von HBM und MM induzierten ESD−Ausfällen", ESD−Forum 1994, pp. 160−169
[27] N. Karim, A.P. Agrawal, "Plastic Packages’
Electrical Performance: Reduced Bond Wire
Diameter (White Paper)", www.amcor.com
, 2001
[28] www.amkor.com
[29] T. Brodbeck, W. Stadler, et al., "ESD−
Schutzmaßnahmen für Schnittstellen in der
Kommunikationselektronik", Proc. ESD−Forum
2005, Berlin, 2005
[30] S.S. Poon, T.J. Maloney, "Shielded Cable
Discharge Induces Current on Interior Signal
Lines", Proc. EOS/ESD Symp.2007
[31] A. Olney, B. Gifford, et al., "Real−World
Charged Board Model (CDM) Failures", Proc.
EOS/ESD Symp. 2003
[32] JEDEC Solid State Technology Association, download notice of standard JESD22−A115A, www.jedec.org
[33] J.−H. Ko, S.−J. Kim, et al., "Abnormal HBM and
MM Stress at Mobile LCD Module by Set−ESD
Gun", Int. Electrostatic Workshop 2007
[34] J.−H. Ko, "Abnormal HBM and MM Stress at
Mobile LCD Module by Set−ESD Gun",
Samsung Electronics Co., 2007