In the S20.20, Sec. 8.4 (Table 4), the Dissipative packaging is (> 1.0 x 104 to < 1.0 x 1011) with STM11.13 for Product Qualification and ESD TR53 Compliance Verification as the test methods.
Our material documentation from the manufacturer uses ASTM D257 as the test method with a value of (> 1.0 x 105 to < 1.0 x 1011).
Is the ASTM D257 compatible with STM11.13? Are the values provided by the manufacturer sufficient for product qualification or are we required to requalify the material in-house to the STM11.13?
D257 is really an insulation measurement. That specification allows for multiple types of probes and voltages. It is not compatible with ANSI/ESD STM 11.11. It should be requalified by the supplier using the correct standard.
If it is possible, do the measurements using the correct probe and voltage according to ANSI/ESD STM 11.11 as an action plan until you can get the proper data. Ensure that there is a compliance verification plan for the material as a corrective action.
John,
You referenced STM11.11 for planar surfaces. We will be testing our packaging material. JEDEC trays, bags, etc. We purchased STM11.13 for 2-point probe and STM11.31 for Bags. Will those be sufficient?
Yes, that should be sufficient. The 2 point probe may give different results depending on the JEDEC tray construction. With carbon loading you may find a wide range of resistances. Just be aware.
John,
Following up from a year ago. It has been interesting to observe the responses received from JEDEC tray manufacturers. Every product specification we have received calls out the ASTM D-257 test method and of course, this is not compatible with the requirements of the S20-20. Based on that, it seems that puts us distributors in a place where nearly 100% of all ESD packaging must be retested and requalified prior to use even if the product manufacturers assure that the material is ESD compliant.
Just looking for some guidance on bridging this gap. Is there any test data that the manufacturers could provide that would be acceptable or is requalification the only solution?
The way D257 is structured, there is no way to make the bridge to standards like ANSI/ESD STM11.11/11.12/11.13. D257 allows for many different types of probes and allows for the voltage to be much greater then 100 volts When measuring insulation, 500 or even 1000 volts is used.I also think the enviromental conditions are different.
I suppose if they could tell you the probe configuration and voltage used, then if is was a similar probe and the voltage was set at 100 volts a bridge could be made. Of course it would require more data from your supplier. And the testing must be done at 12% Rh and 23C.