semi合集-English.pdf - 第976页
SEMI E129-1103 © SEMI 2003 14 RELATED INFORMATION 1 DEVICE SENSITIVIT Y MEASUREMENTS NOTICE: The m aterial contained i n this rela ted inform ation is not a n official part of SEMI E129 and is not intended to m odify or …

SEMI E129-1103 © SEMI 2003 13
A1-2.7 Guide Recommendations
A1-2.7.1 This document recommends the values
shown in parentheses in the second column of Table
A1-8 of this Appendix and includes them in Section
12.5 Table 1.
A1-2.8 Guide Recommendations for Equipment
Malfunctions
A1-2.8.1 Most semiconductor manufacturing
equipment should comply with the ESD immunity
requirements of the European Economic Community
(EEC). The testing mandated by the EEC uses the test
methods and ESD immunity levels specified in IEC/TS
61000-4-2. To test for compliance, measurements are
made with an ESD simulator described by IEC/TS
61000-4-2. Equipment is required to pass a test
involving the discharge produced by a 150-pF capacitor
charged to 4000 V, or 600 nC.
A1-2.8.2 Users should note that the above test
discharge level and properties (i.e. discharge voltage,
discharge model and pulse rise time) may not be
sufficient to predict actual discharges that occur in
semiconductor production environments. In addition,
the ESD immunity of equipment in an isolated test
environment may change when it is installed in a
production environment.
A1-2.8.3 The discharge test specified in IEC/TS
61000-4-2 is done at significantly higher charge levels
than are recommended for objects in the facility in
Table A1-2 of this Appendix. If the recommendations
of Table A1-2 are followed, static charge levels should
be low enough to prevent ESD-induced equipment
malfunctions.
A1-2.8.4 If the recommended electrostatic levels
regarding ESD contained in Section 12.5 Table 1 are
not used, those contained in SEMI E78 should be used
for equipment.
A1-3 References
SEMI E78 — Electrostatic Compatibility
– Guide to
Assess and Control Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) and
Electrostatic Attraction (ESA) for Equipment
Montoya, J. A., Levit, L., and Englisch, A., “A Study of
the Mechanisms of ESD Damage for Reticles”,
Electrical Overstress/Electrostatic Discharge
Symposium Proceedings, 394-405 (2000)
Cooper, D. W., Miller, R. J., Wu, J. J., and Peters, M.
H., "Deposition of Submicron Aerosol Particles During
Integrated Circuit Manufacturing: Theory", Particulate
Sci. Technol. 8 (3 and 4): 209-224 (1990)
Liu, B. Y. H., and Ahn, K. H., "Particle Deposition on
Semiconductor Wafers", Aerosol Sci. Technol. 6: 215 -
224 (1987)
International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors
(1999, 2002, 2003)
8
ISO 14644 – Cleanrooms and Associated Controlled
Environments – Part 1 – Classification of Air
Cleanliness
9
NOTICE: SEMI makes no warranties or
representations as to the suitability of the standards set
forth herein for any particular application. The
determination of the suitability of the standard is solely
the responsibility of the user. Users are cautioned to
refer to manufacturer’s instructions, product labels,
product data sheets, and other relevant literature
respecting any materials mentioned herein. These
standards are subject to change without notice.
The user’s attention is called to the possibility that
compliance with this standard may require use of
copyrighted material or of an invention covered by
patent rights. By publication of this standard, SEMI
takes no position respecting the validity of any patent
rights or copyrights asserted in connection with any
item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard
are expressly advised that determination of any such
patent rights or copyrights, and the risk of infringement
of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.
8 International SEMATECH, 2706 Montopolis Drive, Austin, TX
78741, USA (www.sematech.org)
9 Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST), 5005
Newport Drive, Rolling Meadows, IL, 60008-38411, USA
(www.iest.org)

SEMI E129-1103 © SEMI 2003 14
RELATED INFORMATION 1
DEVICE SENSITIVITY MEASUREMENTS
NOTICE: The material contained in this related information is not an official part of SEMI E129 and is not
intended to modify or supersede the guide in any way. These notes are provided as a source of information to aid in
the application of the guide, and are to be considered reference material. Determination of the suitability of the
material is solely the responsibility of the user. This related information was approved by full letter ballot
procedures on September 3, 2003.
R1-1 ESD Damage
R1-1.1 Introduction
R1-1.1.1 ESD damage to devices occurs when they
come into contact with personnel and facility or
equipment surfaces. Either may store a residual charge
large enough to destroy the device if a discharge occurs.
It is also possible that charge stored on insulating parts
of products or reticles will induce charges on their
conductive parts. Discharges may occur between
conductive parts at different potentials or when the
conductive parts touch ground. The same types of
induced charge can be produced when products or
reticles are placed in the electrostatic field produced by
static charge on facility or equipment surfaces that are
insulative or isolated from ground. In the
semiconductor industry, it has been established that
significant proportions of customer field returns are
attributed to damage resulting from ESD.
R1-1.2 Description of ESD Damage Mechanisms
R1-1.2.1 ESD failures are the result of either a current-
induced phenomenon or a charge-induced phenomenon,
and the damage can either be junction, contact,
dielectric or oxide related. The apparent similarity in
current-induced damage resulting from ESD due to
human body model (HBM) discharges or machine
model (MM) discharges results from the thermal nature
of both of these processes. The HBM and MM
damages result when the temperature (joule heating) of
the region dissipating the ESD pulse energy reaches a
critical value and melting occurs.
R1-1.2.2 The charged device model (CDM) predicts
charge-induced phenomena. For CDM-type discharges,
oxide punch through occurs when the ESD voltage
applied across the oxide creates a high enough field to
break down the oxide. Excessive current flow results,
causing an oxide short, but there is no heat transfer
(adiabatic process). It should be noted here that the
time duration for typical ESD events from charged
objects and personnel ranges from 10 to 100 ns, while
CDM-type events occur in less than 1 ns.
R1-1.3 Device Testing Models
R1-1.3.1 Human Body Model (HBM) — The HBM is
the oldest and the most widely used of the three ESD
models. The model attempts to replicate the discharge
when a charged human touches a device that is at a
lower potential. Human capacitance and resistance
have been chosen to be 100 pF and 1500 Ω
respectively. The values were chosen after
measurements were made on humans in varying
positions with respect to their surroundings. The
resulting discharge waveform has a double exponential
shape with rise time range of 2–10 ns and a decay
constant (1/e position) of 150 ± 20 ns. The typical peak
currents range from 0.67 A at 1000 V to 2.67 A at 4000
V.
R1-1.3.2 Machine Model (MM) — The MM is
described by the Electronic Industries Association of
Japan (EIAJ) as a worst-case HBM. The model
attempts to replicate the discharge from a metallic arm
of an automatic handler coming into contact with the
metallic leads of a semiconductor device. A
capacitance of 200 pF and ideally zero resistance
produces a sinusoidal decaying waveform with an
effective pulse duration of 200 ns. The typical peak
currents range from 1.75 A at 100 V to 14.0 A at 800 V.
Note that MM failures occur at 5–10 times lower
voltage than HBM.
R1-1.3.3 Charged Device Model (CDM) — The CDM
in its purest form is actually a field-induced model
because the device is actually part of model. This
model attempts to describe a device which itself
becomes charged due to an external field, or due to
triboelectric charging of the device surfaces. During
discharge the parasitics (i.e., capacitance, inductance
and impedance) in the device play a significant role in
the resulting failure. The discharge pulse is a sinusoidal
waveform with an extremely fast rise time of less than
500 ps. The waveform decays rapidly with a total pulse
duration of less than 5 ns. The peak currents range
from 2.0 A at 250 V charging voltage to 18.0 A at 2000
V charging voltage.
R1-1.3.4 Correlation Between Models — Whether or
not a correlation exists between HBM and MM is
debatable. While some companies report a correlation

SEMI E129-1103 © SEMI 2003 15
of roughly 10:1 between the two models, other
companies have seen anywhere from 5–20:1 differences
in passing voltages between the two models. There is
also no established voltage correlation between CDM
damage and HBM or MM ESD events. In equipment,
ESD damage events will be related to the MM or CDM
types of ESD. Users will need to determine the type of
ESD hazard to their devices and choose the test method
accordingly.
R1-2 ESD Laboratory Simulation Testing
R1-2.1 Description of Test Methods — Test procedures
discussed here for ESD simulation conform to those
established by the ESD STM5.1, ANSI ESD STM5.2,
ANSI ESD STM5.3.1 and MIL-STD 883 Method
3015.7. Details are to be found in these standards.
Devices are qualified at a level corresponding to the
highest ESD stress they are able to withstand.
R1-2.2 Simulation Test Results — In general all units
must be data-logged both pre- and post-stress test. Any
leakage current equal to or greater than a specific
amount (company dependent—typically 10 µA or less)
is “flagged” as a failure, and any current shift greater
than about 200 nA is marked on the record.
R1-2.3 HBM Stress Testing — A resistance-
capacitance (R-C) network is used to simulate the ESD
event. In an HBM ESD Simulator, a high voltage is
used to charge the capacitor (100 pF) which discharges
through the resistor (1500 Ω) into the device under test.
The present standard test method requires a minimum
of 2 discharges (i.e., 1 positive and 1 negative) per
voltage level.
R1-2.4 MM Stress Testing — An R-C network is also
used in the MM ESD Simulator for ESD testing. High
voltage charges the capacitor (200 pF) which
discharges through the short wire (~0 Ω) into the device
under test. The present standard requires a minimum of
6 discharges (i.e., 3 positive and 3 negative).
R1-2.5 CDM Stress Testing — The package and lead
frame of the device are charged by direct charging or
field induction.
R1-2.5.1 For the Direct Charging Method, direct
contact is made to one of the device leads connected to
the substrate or bulk material of the device. The device
is then discharged via a 1-ohm resistor to ground.
R1-2.5.2 For the Field Induced Method, the device is
placed on a metallic charging plate with the device
packaging material touching the plate. Applying a
voltage to the charging plate raises the potential of the
device. The induced voltage on the device is
discharged to ground through a 1-ohm resistor that
contacts each device lead. The present standard
requires a minimum of 6 discharges (i.e., 3 positive and
3 negative) from each device lead.
R1-3 References
R1-3.1 ESD Association Standards and Advisories
ANSI ESD STM5.2 — Electrostatic Discharge
Sensitivity Testing
– Machine Model
ANSI ESD STM5.3.1 — Charged Device Model
(CDM) – Component Level
ESD ADV11.2 — Triboelectric Charge Accumulation
Testing
ESD S6.1 — Grounding - Recommended Practices
ESD STM5.1 — Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity
Testing – Human Body Model
ESD TR11-01 — Electrostatic Guidelines and
Considerations for Cleanrooms and Clean
Manufacturing
R1-3.2 JEDEC Documents
JESD22-A114 — Electrostatic Discharge (ESD)
Sensitivity Testing Human Body Model (HBM)
JESD22-C101 — Field-Induced Charged-Device
Model Test Methods for Electrostatic Discharge
Withstand Thresholds of Microelectronic Components
JESD625 — Requirements for Handling Electrostatic-
Discharge-Sensitive (ESDS) Devices
R1-3.3 Other Documents
ANSI IEEE STD 142 — IEEE Recommended Practice
for Grounding of Industrial and Commercial Power
Systems
ANSI/NFPA 70 — National Electrical Code
MIL-STD 883 — Test Method Standard Microcircuits
(Method 3015.7
– Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity
Classification), Defense Supply Center Columbus, P.O.
Box 3990, Columbus, OH 43216-5000, USA
(
www.dscc.dla.mil)
Avery, L.R., “ESD Protection Structures to Survive the
Charged Device Model (CDM)”, Proceedings of the
EOS/ESD Symposium, Orlando, FL (1987), pp. 186-
191.
Avery, L.R., “Charged Device Model Testing: Trying
to Duplicate Reality”, Proceedings of the EOS/ESD
Symposium, Orlando, FL (1987), pp. 88-92.
Cook, C., Daniel, S., “Characterization and Failure
Analysis of Advanced CMOS Sub-Micron ESD
Protection Structures”, Proceedings of the EOS/ESD
Symposium, Dallas, TX (1992), pp. 149-157.