While product safety and reliability are core principles of virtually every manufacturer designing equipment for the telecom industry, the Telcordia Generic Requirements (GRs) that ensure the integrity of such devices and systems are not commonly understood by manufacturers around the globe.

As an increasing amount of equipment used in telecommunications networks is being produced in different parts of the world, recognizing and adhering to these standards and requirements is essential to competing in this ever-expanding market.

Among these requirements is the NEBS family of requirements, which stands for Network Equipment Building System. Unlike more traditional product safety standards, compliance to the NEBS family of standards ensures the personal safety of equipment operators and service technicians and the protection of facilities housing equipment, all while ensuring the integrity of an overall telecommunications network. This family of requirements is what members of the Telecommunication Carrier Group (TCG), such as Verizon and AT&T, and smaller local service providers use to evaluate telecommunications equipment to ensure network integrity and protect against hazards associated with the location of equipment.

It is this all-encompassing focus on safety, reliability and performance of network equipment and its impact on the environment of telecom facilities that distinguishes NEBS requirements from other telecommunications standards. NEBS requirements are designed to:

Protect personnel
Streamline equipment design and installation
Prevent service outages and interference in a network caused by incompatible equipment
Reduce the risks of fire in network facilities
Guard against the potential negative impacts on equipment from extreme temperatures, vibration and airborne contamination
Support equipment compatibility with the network’s electrical environment.

Like other industry requirements, meeting NEBS requirements can positively impact a manufacturer’s bottom line. NEBS requirements consist of three levels of compliance, each ensuring a different stage of network protection. Understanding in advance the required level of compliance for a particular product can help a manufacturer minimize product development, installation and maintenance costs. Increasingly, telecommunications equipment manufacturers around the world are requiring their component suppliers to demonstrate compliance with NEBS and including this stipulation in requests for proposal (RFPs) and supplier contracts. In fact, requirements are beginning to apply to both wire line installations as well as wireless applications.

Understanding Levels of Compliance

As most TCG members require demonstration of NEBS compliance prior to the purchase and/or deployment on their telecommunication network infrastructure, equipment manufacturers document compliance to NEBS requirements by having testing performed by an ISO 17025 accredited third-party test laboratory. In certain circumstances, NEBS-related testing can be performed in-house, assuming an internal laboratory is properly accredited to ISO 17025. However, some TCG members require all testing to be performed or witnessed by an accredited independent test laboratory (ITL).

NEBS requirements apply to telecommunications equipment installed in a Central Office (CO) environment, certain Outside Plant applications (OSP), and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). There are generally two primary GRs that apply to most equipment designated for use in a CO: GR-1089-CORE (Issue 6), which covers electromagnetic compatibility, electrical transients and electrical safety; and GR-63-CORE (Issue 4), which covers physical requirements. GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE together are commonly referred to as the “NEBS Criteria.” It’s important to understand that individual TCGs may have additional requirements beyond those found in GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE.

Helping to speed and simplify the compliance process without jeopardizing network reliability in the deployment of new equipment, the Telcordia special report SR-3580, NEBS Criteria Levels, divides NEBS requirements into three levels of compliance.

Level 1 is the minimum acceptable level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to preclude hazards and degradation of a network facility and hazards to personnel. Level 1 comprises only safety and risk criteria. Conformance to Level 1 does not assure equipment operability or service continuity. Level 1 is typically used by service providers for early deployment into their COs and/or interoperability laboratories, and to allow collocaters to install equipment in a central office. A collocater is a company that rents space in a central office and provides some type of communications service (such as Internet access or long distance).
Level 2 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide some limited assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. This assurance of operability is limited to the controlled or normal environments as defined by the criteria. Rarely a focus of customers, Level 2 includes all requirements of Level 1 with some added level of operability reliability.
Level 3 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide maximum assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. The Level 3 criteria provide the highest assurance of product operability. Level 3 criteria are suited for equipment applications that demand minimal service interruptions over the equipment’s life. Most TCGs require NEBS Level 3 prior to acceptance/installation on the network as they require this level of compliance for equipment operation in the central office, but not collocated equipment.

While SR-3580 identifies the tests required by the three levels, most equipment manufacturers submit their equipment to be evaluated to NEBS Level 3. Even in pursuing the highest assurance of product operability that Level 3 provides, manufacturers should know where their product is going to be deployed on a network: in a CO operated by telecom carriers, outside plant environment or customer premises. The setting of product deployment determines the tests that need to be performed to meet NEBS requirements. For example, specific environmental testing, in accordance with GR-63-CORE, simulates exposure to extreme environments that include high/low temperatures, high humidity, shock and exposure, fire ignition and flame spread, seismic conditions and airborne contaminates. By understanding the testing process, and the additional tests that may be required by specific carriers, manufacturers are better able to work most effectively and efficiently with third-party testing laboratories.

Exploring Qualified NEBS Testing Laboratories

Choosing the right NEBS testing laboratory to work with involves considering a host of issues, from laboratory capabilities and accreditations to staff expertise. Equipment manufacturers might also examine whether a provider is able to outline start dates and availability for project planning well before testing actually begins.

In assessing provider capabilities, manufacturers should:

be aware that product size and weight limitations might preclude some laboratories from completing certain test profiles.
make sure the NEBS test facility is ISO 17025 accredited and qualified under any carrier specific laboratory accreditation programs, such as the Verizon ITL program.
inquire about the training and expertise of testing staff and ensure engineers are actively engaged in industry technical committees, regularly attend industry symposia and are current with any applicable professional certifications.

It’s important to note that a comprehensive, full service laboratory will support NEBS testing with the following:

Full EMC test facility capable of conducting both immunity and emissions testing
Environmental chambers to conduct temperature and altitude testing
Vibration and seismic test facilities
Full-scale fire facility
Facilities to support acoustic power measurements
Various test facilities to support lightning surge and power fault simulations, DC power measurements
Conditioning chambers to support mixed flowing gas testing and test apparatus to support hygroscopic dust exposure

These laboratories should document and deliver a test report that outlines an overall test strategy and contains individual test methods and results. The test laboratory should also include separate videos of the large-scale fire tests and seismic tests.

In addition to the Telcordia Generic Requirements, a testing laboratory should be familiar with the related American National Standards developed by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). These standards, such as ATIS-0600319, Equipment Assemblies – Fire Propagation Risk Assessment, or the ATIS-0600015 series of energy efficiency testing standards are often referenced in the Telcordia GRs or, in some cases, are specifically required by the service provider community.

A full service laboratory should also be able to support testing to international standards for manufacturers that seek compliance for the global marketplace. Examples of these standards include the ETSI 300 019 and 300 386 series of standards dealing with the physical and EMC environments, respectively. No matter the current or future setting of laboratory testing, telecom equipment manufacturers should ensure that their equipment undergoes proper NEBS and customer specific required testing. Viewing this commitment as an important part of product investment, manufacturers should seek out an ITL with the technological tools and expertise to carry out the testing process, including test methods that address any modifications to requirements.

In understanding and achieving NEBS compliance, a manufacturer gains standing as a company whose equipment enhances rather than jeopardizes network integrity and protects the safety of the personnel who operate it. The return on this product investment not only includes reduced design and related costs over the long term, but the advantage of being positioned to make great strides in an evolving worldwide marketplace that presents exciting, new opportunities every day.

UL is a premier global safety science company with more than 100 years of proven history. A pioneer in NEBS testing since 1992, UL operates three full service EMC facilities located throughout North America. Each has a variety of NEBS capabilities and is staffed with highly trained, experienced, and NARTE certified engineers. favicon

© UL LLC 2013. Reprinted with permission.

Matt Marotto
is currently the North American Wireless & EMC Quality Manager for UL. In 2008, Marotto served as Global NEBS Program Development Manager and was responsible for developing and implementing UL’s NEBS Fastrack Program, which enables international Telecom manufacturers to perform NEBS and telecom related testing in their own laboratories under the witness of UL staff. Prior to that, Marotto was Operations Manager for UL’s EMC and NEBS testing laboratories in Research Triangle Park, N.C. Matt received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Alabama and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

Randy Ivans
is UL’s Principal Engineer in the high tech and telecommunications area. He is responsible for the development, implementation and maintenance of various UL Standards and certification programs including UL’s NEBS Mark program. Randy is a member of the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, Code Making Panel No. 16 that is responsible for Chapter 8 covering communications systems. He is chairman of the TIA TR41.7 Committee on Environmental and Safety Issues and is a member of the ATIS Sustainability in Telecom: Energy and Protection Committee (STEP) in which he chairs the NPP subcommittee on physical protection. Randy received his bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering and his master of science in technology management from Polytechnic University and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

1403 F9 cover “Today knowledge has power. It controls access to opportunity and advancement.” – Peter Drucker

In the age of “The Internet of Everything” and an increasingly networked world, our neighbors and trading partners to the south are joining in and demanding access to the same electronic products and associated services that we enjoy in the US and Canada. As the economies in Mexico and the countries of Central and South America grow and develop, so do their wages and middle class populations, becoming an ever-larger source of new customers and profits for global companies and corporations. Those wanting to enter these markets need to understand the legislation, regulations, and certification programs for each.

A good place to start is with the regulatory agencies, which will be discussed in this overview article, along with the basic compliance requirements for ITE and consumer electronics products

We will see many differences in compliance programs, as we look at Mexico, the seven countries in Central America, and the ten largest countries in South America. Some, such as Mexico and Brazil, have comprehensive regulatory compliance programs and modern telecommunications systems in place, similar to the US and Canadian systems, with regulatory requirements for EMC, product safety, wireless, and telecom, and will be covered in more depth. Others have only limited compliance requirements and outdated communications infrastructures, perhaps only concerned with frequency spectrum, and accepting proof of compliance from the regulatory engineering reports of other countries. What they all share in common are citizens that want access to the wealth of information, entertainment, and communication services that are readily available to others, so they can have the opportunity to join in, benefit from, and contribute to our ever-increasingly wired (and wireless) world.

Please note that this article should not be your sole source of information when you begin seeking product approvals. This is just a high-level overview of the national agencies and requirements; the official standards should be obtained for each country, and an experienced regulatory consultant should be utilized if in-house expertise is not available. Also remember that local customs facilitators can be a valuable source of information on the importation of products.

So let’s get started on our southbound trip, and see if we can map out the path for offering our products to our hemispheric neighbors.

Mexico

As a NAFTA trading partner, Mexico enjoys economic ties to the US and Canada, and has similar regulatory structures, although with more government involvement. While the US and Canada have worked out Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA) for the acceptance of regulatory compliance approvals between their countries, the development of a similar agreement with Mexico is still in the beginning stages, so for now electronic product approvals must be obtained from the regulatory bodies for telecommunications and national standards.

Telecommunications Federal Institute – IFT
www.ift.org.mx/iftweb

The Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) is the telecom authority of Mexico, translated in English as the Telecommunications Federal Institute. This agency was recently created, in September of 2013, to completely replace the previous telecom agency, the Federal Commission of Telecommunications (COFETEL). As with the previous COFETEL agency, IFT will be the responsible agency for all type approvals for specified telecom equipment imported into Mexico.

IFT will also take over all other agency duties, such as radio frequency spectrum management and assignments for telecommunications and broadcasting, publishing telecom regulations and updates, telecom and broadcast concession grants and transfers, and regulating any telecom or broadcasting monopolies in Mexico. “Grandfathering” does apply to products approved under the previous COFETEL system, with the same previous requirements for displaying the COFETEL homologation number on the product label.

IFT defines the mandatory approval requirements for wireless and telecom products in Mexico, including requirements for product safety. The existing NOM national regulations and approval requirements will continue to be used until IFT publishes replacements.

The typical “PEC” approval process, which is the conformity assessment evaluation process for most consumer electronic products with telecom or wireless features, starts with the receipt of required test samples, which must be tested in authorized labs in Mexico. Under the “traditional” approval process, which applies to specific types of short range wireless devices, no sample testing is needed, and FCC or CE R&TTE reports can be accepted for proof of compliance. The next step is for an authorized Notified Body, such as NYCE or ANCE, to review the test reports and issue a Certificate of Conformity. The final stage is the IFT review, which will issue a Certificate of Homologation, containing an IFT certificate number, which must be displayed on the product label. This entire process typically takes 6 to 8 weeks, but can take much longer depending on seasonal factors, such as in advance of the December holiday selling season.

A local representative is required in Mexico, to serve as an official company representative, and also to retain the original product certifications. This can be a person at a branch office from a company, or a third-party who is registered as a business in Mexico. In either case, the certificate holder must be registered with IFT.

Certificates issued under the PEC program are permanent, as long as the product does not change, but under the traditional program they are only valid for one year, and must be renewed if the product will continue to be sold in Mexico. It is recommended to start the renewal process at least 60 days before the certificate expires.

Mexican National Standards – NOM
www.economia.gob.mx/standards/national

Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM) are the official national standards of Mexico. Each NOM is the official standard that contains the mandatory requirements and regulations for specific types of products or activities.

For electronic products, the NOM standards define and establish minimum product requirements in the areas of product safety, telecom, and EMC, depending on the specific type of device. Beyond these attributes, compulsory requirements for user manual warning statements and packaging labeling requirements are also provided.

These standards are available for free from the referenced NOM website in this article, albeit in Spanish-language. Here are some of the more common NOM standards applicable to consumer electronics:

NOM-001-SCFI-1993, “Household electronic and similar appliances” (IEC 60065)
NOM-008-SCFI-1993, “NOM label marking requirements”
NOM-016-SCFI-1993, “Electronic office equipment” (IEC 60335)
NOM-019-SCFI-1998, “Safety in Data processing equipment” (IEC 60950)
NOM-121-SCT1-2009, “Radio communication systems operating in the bands 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850”

Central America

Belize
www.puc.bz

In Belize there are only regulatory compliance requirements related to the frequency spectrum and telecommunications infrastructure for most consumer electronics. The Public Utilities Commission is the government agency that grants and regulates telecom and wireless approvals, and in most cases they will allow regulatory reports from other countries to be submitted as proof of compliance, such as FCC or CE R&TTE compliance reports.

There are no requirements in Belize for local testing, marking/labeling, or a local in-country representative, and the certificate remains valid as long as the product remains unchanged. Approval times can range from 4 to 12 weeks, but typically are completed in less than 6 weeks, if the agency payment is included with the documentation submittal package.

Costa Rica
www.sutel.go.cr

Costa Rica is also mainly concerned about telecommunications equipment and radio frequency spectrum usage. Superintendenci de Telecommunicaciones (SUTEL) is the body that grants and regulates telecom and wireless approvals, and they specifically allow FCC reports and grants to serve as proof of compliance in their country.

A local importer is required in Costa Rica and multiple distributors are allowed. Fully-configured product samples are required for in-country testing, and the software operating system version must be documented, as it will appear on the SUTEL approval certificate. The equipment code listed on the certificate must be printed on the product label, along with the SUTEL logo or name. One unique requirement is for notarized letters for the local representative, product label, product information, and estimated quantities of product to be sold. It is important to consult with an experienced regulatory consultant to verify the specific requirements for your product.

Once issued by SUTEL, the certificate remains valid indefinitely, unless the product design is changed. Approval times are typically 6 to 8 weeks, after the agency has received all of the required documentation and samples, including the notarized letters.

El Salvador
www.siget.gob.sv

Superintendencia General de Electricidad y Telecomunicaciones (SIGET) is the government regulating body tasked with managing the electricity generation and telecommunications infrastructure and industries in El Salvador, including radio spectrum usage and assignments for the frequencies from 3 KHz to 3000 GHz. SIGET accepts CE R&TTE reports to be submitted as proof of compliance for telecom products, allowing for importation of products into the country.

In practice, this means that SIGET certification is not required. For example, for a WLAN device operating in the 5 GHz frequency bands, if the product has a CE report showing that it meets the criteria of the R&TTE Directive, then this is accepted as proof of product compliance, allowing registration of the device for use and importation in El Salvador.

Guatemala
www.sit.gob.gt

The Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (SIT) is the high-tech body of the Ministry of Communications, Infrastructure, and Housing. SIT manages and oversees the operation of the radio spectrum and telecommunications register, and is the enforcement agency for the General Telecommunications Law. While the General Telecommunications Law of Guatemala does not specifically require prior approval of electronic equipment that is imported into the country, the SIT approval can be requested by sending a letter of inquiry to the agency, along with the technical specifications for the product.
There are numerous exemptions for most common wireless telecom products; for example, Wi-Fi products used indoors with transmitted power output less than 500 mW can be imported without notifying SIT. However, for transmitting outdoors, especially in regulated bands such as 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz, an inquiry should be made to SIT to obtain their ruling on the specific product. In most cases SIT will accept proof of compliance from other countries, such as CE R&TTE compliance reports.

Honduras
www.conatel.gob.hn

Comison Nacional de Telecomuncaciones (CONATEL) is the national telecommunications commission and regulatory authority of Honduras. CONATEL is a decentralized government agency that issues regulations and technical standards required for telecommunications services and adopts rules concerning the approval of telecommunications equipment and apparatus. While requirements for telecom and product safety compliance are legally required in this country, the CE R&TTE compliance report is allowed to satisfy the telecom for importation, and the CE mark is accepted as proof of product safety compliance.

Nicaragua
www.telcor.gob.ni

TELCOR is the Nicaraguan Institute and Regulatory Agency for Telecommunications and Postal Services. Tasked with managing the telecommunications sector, it seeks to encourage technology access for all of its citizens, while insuring compliance by service and equipment providers. Nicaragua does not have a comprehensive regulatory scheme in place, and will allow FCC grants and compliance reports and US Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL) certification to serve as proof of product compliance when importing products.

Panama
www.asep.gob.pa

Autoridad Nacional de los Servicios Públicos (ASEP) is the national public services authority in Panama, responsible for water, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure and services. Our interest lies with the telecom section of this agency, which manages and enforces the telecom equipment requirements, along with management and allocation of the radio frequency spectrum. ASEP recognizes FCC grants and reports to demonstrate compliance for telecom and wireless product certification applications, and a US NRTL certification is allowed to show product safety compliance for importation. The normal timeline for certification is 4 to 6 weeks after ASEP receives all of the required documentation

South America

Argentina
Our first country in South America has mandatory approval requirements for telecom and product safety, with two separate agencies. Argentina is a modern, Internet-savvy, country with a robust telecommunications infrastructure, and an attractive pool of consumers for electronic devices.

The National Telecommunications Commission – CNC
www.cnc.gov.ar

Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CNC) is the government telecom authority for Argentina. CNC approvals are a mandatory requirement for any device that connects to telephone lines, or that utilize radio frequency spectrum for the transmission of information. CNC publishes standards (Normativa) for each type of regulated product, which can be downloaded for free from their website at this location: www.cnc.gob.ar/infotecnica/homologaciones/normativa.asp

The applicant for CNC approvals must be the local company-authorized importer in Argentina, in order to receive the homologation certificates. The equipment must be tested according to the CNC standards at an authorized in-country test lab; they do not accept foreign test reports, except for allowing FCC or CE compliance test reports for GSM technology. Thus, product samples will be required for these approvals, and the number will depend on the type of product.

Along with the device samples, all of the typical items for a regulatory agency submittal package are required, such as technical specs, user manual, schematics, block diagrams, internal and external photos, and test setup instructions. In addition, the local importer will have to provide signed copies of authorization letters.

After a normal approval cycle of 8 weeks, the CNC certificate will be issued within an additional 4 to 6 weeks. The certificate will remain valid for three years from the date of issue, and must be renewed if the product will continue to be sold in Argentina. CNC requires that the product label contain the company trademark, model number, CNC registration number, and serial number.

The Argentina Institute of Standards and Certification – IRAM
www.iram.org.ar

Resolution 92/1998 requires all electric and electronic products to be safety certified under IRAM or the international IEC standards. The S-Mark Certification Scheme is the product safety approval to be obtained for ITE and specified consumer electronics products.

In Argentina the manufacturers or importers, depending on the type of product, can choose one of three categories of certification schemes for products sold in the Argentina Marketplace, as detailed in Resolution 197/2004. The first category is ISO 4, Type certification, where the product is marked based on compliance of IRAM or IEC standards, the certificate number is labeled on the product, and market surveillance is performed on two selected test samples per year, and there is no factory follow-up inspections. Category ISO 5, Mark certification, requires factory quality system evaluation and approval, market surveillance on a product sample once a year, factory follow-up inspections, and a full technical file submittal, including either a CB report or a product sample. And the third option, ISO 7, is Lot certification, where the product is marked based on compliance of IRAM or IEC standards, the lot number and certificate number is labeled on the product, and there is no market surveillance and no factory follow-up inspections.

Bolivia
www.att.gob.bo

Autoridad de Telecomunicaciones y Transporte (ATT) is the telecommunications and transportation authority of Bolivia, which recently mandated type approval requirements for wireless and telecom products. Local testing is not required, and FCC or CE R&TTE compliance reports are accepted as proof of compliance, along with the required application letter. An in-country local representative is not required, but an agent registered with the ATT agency must make the application. Factory inspections are not required, nor are there any labeling requirements. The initial estimates are 6 to 8 weeks for receiving approval, starting from the time the agency receives the full submittal package. Once issued, the certificate will be valid for 5 years, and can be renewed if needed.

Brazil
Brazil has mandatory approval requirements for wireless, telecom, EMC, and product safety, with the applicability depending on the specific type of device.

The National Telecommunications Agency – ANATEL
www.anatel.gov.br

Agencia Nacional de Telecomunicacoes (ANATEL) is the telecom authority in Brazil, responsible for setting the requirements for telecommunication products, including the establishment of authorized bodies for certification and testing activities for EMC, wireless/telecom, product safety, and SAR. Testing must be performed in authorized labs in Brazil, according to the standards, which are called “Resolutions.” The most common of these for consumer electronics and ITE are:

Resolution 442: Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)
Resolution 506: Wireless/Telecom
Resolution 529: Product Safety
Resolution 533: Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)

Once the required tests are completed, and a test report generated it is reviewed by an authorized in-country Organismo de Certificacao Designado (OCD), or Designated Certification Body. If the documentation passes review, the OCD will issue a Certificate of Conformity (CoC) which is then submitted to ANATEL, on behalf of the local company representative, along with the complete technical documentation package. Please note that this means a local in-country company representative is required for ANATEL certification. After passing a review by ANATEL, they issue a Certificate of Homologation, which completes the initial approval process. All of this typically takes from 8 to 10 weeks to complete, starting with the receipt of all the required items by the authorized test lab.

While factory inspections are not required, submittal of factory ISO 9001 certificates are required for products that are connected to the telecommunications infrastructure, such as cell phones or fax machines, or when the CoC will list two or more factories. Labels with the ANATEL logo and required certification numbers and assigned bar code must be on each approved product. Depending on the specific type of product, certificates will remain valid for one year, two years, or indefinitely if the product is not changed. Any of the expiring certificates can be renewed, if the product is still sold in the Brazil market.

The National Institute of Metrology, Standardization and Industrial Quality – INMETRO
www.inmetro.gov.br

Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalização e Qualidade Industrial (INMETRO) is the governmental agency that was established to develop and implement the certification system in Brazil. Tasked with maintaining the national standards, INMETRO is also the national developer of conformity assessment programs as well as the main Accreditation Body of certification bodies and laboratories.

INMETRO has mandatory certification requirements for 80 products with potential critical safety impacts, including medical products, hazardous location equipment, electrical cords, circuit breakers, and electrical switches, among others. The approval process is very similar to the ANATEL process, with a requirement to interface with a Product Certification Body (OCP) accredited by INMETRO, and the product testing must be performed by a laboratory from RBLE (Brazilian network of testing laboratories) which are also accredited by INMETRO, in accordance with the ISO/IEC 17025 quality management systems standard for test labs.

Chile
www.subtel.gob.cl

Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones (SUBTEL) is the telecommunications regulatory agency for Chile, mandating approval requirements for wireless and telecom devices. FCC or CE test reports are accepted as proof of compliance for most products, with the exception of hard-wired devices that connect to the telecommunications network, such as analogue telephones or fax machines, which must be tested in-country.

A local representative is not required, and factory inspections are also not required. There is not a product labeling requirement for wireless devices, however, there is for analogue telephones and printers; for those products the SUBTEL certification number must be on the label, preceded by the acronym “SUBTEL”. The normal approval cycle is 4 to 6 weeks from the time of delivery of the submittal package to the agency, and the certificate has no expiration date, with no need for renewals.

Colombia
www.crcom.gov.co

The Comision de Regulacion de Comunicaciones (CRC) is the telecom regulatory commission of Colombia, which has voluntary approvals for all telecom equipment except for products that have voice communication functions, such as mobile phones, and for specific types of satellite communication products. All other products can simply obtain a “Letter of Voluntary Approval” from the CRC, in which they state that the product is exempt from type approval requirements, and may be imported and sold in Colombia, and this letter can usually be prepared by CRC within 2 weeks.

For those products that do require type approvals, note that local testing, factory inspections, product labels, and a local company representative are all not required. FCC grants and reports, or CE R&TTE reports, can be used to obtain the type approvals for these regulated devices. The typical turnaround time for completing the mandatory type approval certification is 4 to 6 weeks, and it has no expiry date, so renewals are not required.

Ecuador
www.supertel.gob.ec

The telecom authority in Ecuador is Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (SUPERTEL), and there are mandatory approval requirements for wireless, telecom, and product safety. However, if the output transmit power of any radio device is below 50 mW EIRP, or for any telecom product, approval is voluntary, and voluntary approval letters can be obtained, if desired.

For any type of radio communications product which has an output transmit power higher than 50 mW EIRP, SUPERTEL certifications is mandatory, so product samples are required for in-country testing. Proof of compliance can be shown through other national approvals, such as an FCC grant and report, or EU Notified Body certificate along with the associated test reports.

There are no requirements for factory inspections, local company representative, or product labeling. Once the certificate is issued, it never expires, so there is no need for certificate renewals. The typical timeline from start to finish is 4 to 6 weeks for approval.

Paraguay
www.conatel.gov.py

Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL) is the national telecommunications commission of Paraguay, which mandates wireless and telecom approvals for products sold in this country. Local testing is not required, and FCC or CE R&TTE reports can be used as proof of compliance with CONATEL. A local company representative is required, and they must have a letter of authority that is issued directly to them by the product manufacturer. Factory inspections and product labeling are not required, but having the FCC mark or CE mark on the label will insure smoother entry of the product through the customs importation process. The entire approval process will normally take around 8 to 10 weeks, and the certificates are valid for a period of 5 years. Renewals can be submitted at any time prior to or after the expiration date, but if a certificate expires products can not be sold until the renewal certificate is issued.

Peru
www.mtc.gob.pe

Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones (MTC) is the Ministry of Transportations and Communications, with mandatory compliance requirements for wireless and telecom products. No factory inspections or in-country representatives are required, nor is in-country testing required, as this agency recognizes FCC or Industry Canada (IC) grants as proof of compliance, which can be submitted with the required submittal documents detailing the company name, brand name, product name, and model number, along with internal and external product photos. The FCC or IC marking must be on the product label, depending on which agency grant was used to obtain approval with MTC. There will not be a certificate issued, as the approval information, including the MTC registration number, is posted on the MTC website. This registration number will be needed by the importer in order to clear customs. These approvals are permanent, making renewals unnecessary, and take from 2 to 4 weeks on average. One exemption to note: if the output transmit power is below 10 mW, and it operates in unlicensed bands, then approval is voluntary.

Uruguay
This country has two regulatory bodies for telecommunications approvals, one for wireless, and the other for hard-wired telecom equipment.

The Communications Regulatory Agency – URSEC
www.ursec.gub.uy

Unidad Reguladora de Servicio de Comunicaciones (URSEC) is the telecommunications regulatory agency of Uruguay, which grants approvals for wireless devices. A local company representative and factory inspections are not required by this agency. URSEC recognizes FCC and CE R&TTE reports as adequate demonstration of product compliance, meaning that no local testing is required. There is no product labeling requirement, but it is highly advised to include the FCC or CE marking on the product, depending on which report the URSEC approval is based on. Approvals typically take about 2 weeks for wireless devices.

The Uruguayan Communications Company – ANTEL
www.antel.com.uy/antel

ANTEL is the government-authorized sole telephone company in Uruguay, which serves as the telecom authority for all non-wireless telecom equipment. FCC or CE R&TTE reports can normally be utilized to prove compliance, making local testing unnecessary. Local company representatives are not needed, and factory inspections are not required for ANTEL approvals. While product labeling requirements are not mandatory, it is best to make sure the FCC or CE marking is present on the label, dependent on which agency report was used to show compliance. The ANTEL certificates are valid for five years, and renewals must be submitted prior to the expiration date on the current certificate. The approval timeline is typically around 4 weeks.

Venezuela
www.conatel.gob.ve

Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL) is the national telecommunications commission of Venezuela, dictating the mandatory certification requirements for wireless and telecom products. FCC or CE R&TTE reports are accepted as proof of compliance, eliminating the need for local in-country testing. Local company representatives are not required, and neither are factory inspections. CONATEL does not have their own logo labeling requirement, but they do require the FCC or CE mark to appear on the product label, depending on which agency report was used as proof of compliance.

One item to note is that CONATEL will issue a stamped receipt upon receipt of the application package, which the manufacturer can use to start the importation of the product into Venezuela, while it is still in the agency review process at CONATEL. The agency does not provide certificates, instead the approved products are listed on the CONATEL website. The entire approval process normally takes from 4 to 6 weeks to complete, and once the approval is issued it is permanent, so there is no need for renewals.

We have now followed our path, all the way from Mexico down to the southern tip of South America, but we have not yet completed our journey, for the regulatory compliance landscape is constantly changing, especially in dynamic and growing countries such as these. While we have identified the current regulatory agencies and examined their certification and approval programs, giving us a foundation and review of the requirements in place today, we must stay connected to our own communications networks in the regulatory field, so we can continue to learn and adapt in order to help our companies grow and prosper.

Engineering and regulatory compliance affinity groups are an invaluable resource in staying current on the latest changes to the regulatory compliance standards and processes. The local chapters of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), such as the IEEE EMC Society and the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society, provide presentations and opportunities for networking with regulatory compliance engineers on the shifting certification requirements. In addition, social media site Linked In has a wealth of different regulatory compliance related groups that can be joined at no cost, such as the “International Approvals/Certifications” group, where the latest news on country-specific regulatory criteria is shared with other group members. favicon

Mark Maynard
is a Director at SIEMIC, a global compliance testing and certification services firm with strategic locations worldwide. He is also an IEEE Senior Member, iNARTE Certified Product Safety Engineer, and a certified Project Management Professional (PMP). Mark holds two degrees from Texas State University, a BS in Mathematics, and a BAAS in Marketing and Business. Prior to SIEMIC, he worked for over 20 years at Dell, in international regulatory compliance and product certifications, with various compliance engineering positions including wireless, telecom, EMC, product safety, and environmental design. He can be reached at mark.maynard@siemic.com.

Protect personnel
Streamline equipment design and installation
Prevent service outages and interference in a network caused by incompatible equipment
Reduce the risks of fire in network facilities
Guard against the potential negative impacts on equipment from extreme temperatures, vibration and airborne contamination
Support equipment compatibility with the network’s electrical environment.

Understanding Levels of Compliance

Level 1 is the minimum acceptable level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to preclude hazards and degradation of a network facility and hazards to personnel. Level 1 comprises only safety and risk criteria. Conformance to Level 1 does not assure equipment operability or service continuity. Level 1 is typically used by service providers for early deployment into their COs and/or interoperability laboratories, and to allow collocaters to install equipment in a central office. A collocater is a company that rents space in a central office and provides some type of communications service (such as Internet access or long distance).
Level 2 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide some limited assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. This assurance of operability is limited to the controlled or normal environments as defined by the criteria. Rarely a focus of customers, Level 2 includes all requirements of Level 1 with some added level of operability reliability.
Level 3 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide maximum assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. The Level 3 criteria provide the highest assurance of product operability. Level 3 criteria are suited for equipment applications that demand minimal service interruptions over the equipment’s life. Most TCGs require NEBS Level 3 prior to acceptance/installation on the network as they require this level of compliance for equipment operation in the central office, but not collocated equipment.

Exploring Qualified NEBS Testing Laboratories

In assessing provider capabilities, manufacturers should:

be aware that product size and weight limitations might preclude some laboratories from completing certain test profiles.
make sure the NEBS test facility is ISO 17025 accredited and qualified under any carrier specific laboratory accreditation programs, such as the Verizon ITL program.
inquire about the training and expertise of testing staff and ensure engineers are actively engaged in industry technical committees, regularly attend industry symposia and are current with any applicable professional certifications.

It’s important to note that a comprehensive, full service laboratory will support NEBS testing with the following:

Full EMC test facility capable of conducting both immunity and emissions testing
Environmental chambers to conduct temperature and altitude testing
Vibration and seismic test facilities
Full-scale fire facility
Facilities to support acoustic power measurements
Various test facilities to support lightning surge and power fault simulations, DC power measurements
Conditioning chambers to support mixed flowing gas testing and test apparatus to support hygroscopic dust exposure

© UL LLC 2013. Reprinted with permission.

1311 F1 cover The first broadcasting station in Japan went on-air in 1925, a scant five years after the first radio station went live in the United States. A year later, Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai (NHK) was chartered by the Japanese government and is still the official public broadcast entity. The build-out of NHK’s network into the Pacific was extensive in the 1930s and during the early years of WWII and followed the expansion of Japan’s imperial armed forces across the Pacific.

“Tokyo Rose,” a nom d’aether attributed to several different NHK “correspondents,” was a famous voice of propaganda that teased and titillated US troops in the Pacific. After the war and during the subsequent occupation by Allied forces, all radio broadcasting was controlled by the U.S. and for some years international broadcasting by NHK was severely limited.

The rise of broadcasting naturally created a need for radio receiving equipment and the radio manufacturing industry in Japan was heavily influenced by Mr. Tokuji Hayakawa, who developed the first tube radio set (patterned after more expensive import versions). (A fascinating history of the Sharp Corporation can be found by clicking here.) Hayakawa-san was a creative, driven individual who began his long career of design and development with the patented “Ever-Sharp Pencil” (a breakthrough in the development of mechanical pencils—engineers everywhere should thank him for that). After shifting from pencils to power tubes, Hayakawa appropriated the word “SHARP” for his growing radio business and developed numerous models of broadcast receivers under that name, now a global brand for everything from components, cameras, phone and solar products.

In 1950, the first legislation governing the operation of radio stations (Law Number 131) came into being. This wide-reaching Radio Law may be considered a parallel of the Communications Act of 1934, which established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Japan Radio Law has been amended numerous times and was followed, in 1984, by the Telecommunications Business Law (Law Number 86). Both the Japan Radio Law and the Telecommunications Business Law are key parts of the requirements for certification of telecommunications products in Japan.

Under the Japanese system, there are specific levels of regulations that govern approvals for wired and wireless equipment. They are structured as specific laws and ordinances (Table 1). The Ordinances contain the technical requirements and the process for approvals (conformity assessment).

	Radio Equipment	Terminal Equipment
*Laws*	*Radio Law*	*Telecommunications Business Law*
Ordinances regarding Technical Requirements	Ordinance regulating radio equipment (Radio Regulatory Commission Regulation No. 18, 1950)	Ordinance concerning terminal facilities, etc. (MPT Ordinance No. 31, 1985)
Ordinances regarding Conformity Assessment Procedures	Ordinance concerning technical regulations and conformity certification of specified radio equipment (MPT Ordinance, referred to as “Certification Ordinance”)	Ordinance concerning technical conditions and compliance approval of terminal equipment (MIC Ordinance No 15, 2004, referred to as “Approval Ordinance”)

Table 1

Certification Body processes are outlined in the “Ordinances regarding Conformity Assessment Procedures” which applies to all RCBs, including MIC’s own TELEC.

Another critical ordinance is MIC Notice 88, January 26, 2004 (Test Methods and Appendix to Post of the Ministerial Ordinance No. 37, November 21, 1981). These documents contain the test methods for the various types of radio equipment. Original Japanese documents cab be found by clicking here. Very few official English-language texts of the test methods are available, which has been a challenge for the English-speaking-only test industry.

One source of documents that can be used for reference purposes are available through the Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB). This organization has translated several of the common documents, however, it is important to note that the MIC procedures must be referenced or cross-referenced to equivalent methods. This cross-reference protocol was agreed to because of the challenge of translation of test methods and procedures.

Mutual Recognition Agreements Open Markets

These past dozen years or so have seen the successful implementation of Mutual Recognition Agreements and Arrangements across multiple economies, spurring trade between the United States, European Union and Asia. MRAs, as they are called, are high-level agreements that are signed by regulatory bodies in each economy.

The MRA between the United States and Europe is an example of one of the most successful cross-barrier agreements for technology product, allowing manufacturers to test products in their home countries for international markets. This has added to the expansion of global trade since the arrangement was first implemented in December 1998. For the past fifteen years, the trade between the US and Europe has expanded many fold, notably in the critical industries of high technology, electronics and communications. Coupled with the EU’s CE Marking, the MRA has dramatically increased market access for domestic and European manufacturers.

The US-Japan Mutual Recognition Arrangement has been active for the past five years, with real implementation coming on-line around 2010. Negotiated, in part, under the umbrella of the multi-lateral Asia-Pacific Telecommunications MRA, the bilateral agreement was staked out to cover both wireless and wired telecom products and is the sixth such MRA covering certification.

Certification for the Japan market, regulated by Japan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) is directly available for US manufacturers and laboratories.

This has opened the door for manufacturers to get access to the Japan technology market, and “is expected to enhance speed to market, and lower costs in the $2.2 billion trade in telecommunications equipment between the two countries. Japan is now the fifth largest export market for U.S. telecommunications equipment manufacturers, and this agreement is particularly important given the innovation and fast paced growth that characterized both markets.”

Under the terms of the US-Japan MRA, Recognized Certification Bodies (RCBs) have the authority to issue certifications directly. The process lays out the now well-worn path that Certification Bodies have been taking for years: accreditation by an approved Accreditation Body and Designation by (in the US) NIST. The agreement specifies the objective “…to designate private-sector entities in their respective territories to test and certify telecommunications terminal and radio equipment as meeting the technical requirements of the other country.”

Products covered by the MRA include unlicensed and licensed devices. The range of the agreements covering both regulatory structures is summarized in Table 2 (from the MRA).

United States	Japan
Any equipment subject to certification, as defined in 47 CFR 2.907, that falls with the scope of the 47 CFR parts listed in paragraph 2 of the Section I of the Annex, except Unintentional Radiators and Industrial, Scientific and Medical Equipment as defined in 47 CFR 15.3(z) and 47 CFR 18.107(c), respectively.	Any equipment defined as Specified Radio Equipment in Radio Law (Law No. 131, 1950) and amendments thereto; and Any equipment defined as Terminal Equipment in Telecommunications Business Law (Law No. 86, 1984) and amendments thereto.

Table 2

Note the designation of “Specified Radio Equipment” which is a listing of devices according to function in each of three categories. In Japanese parlance, every radio device is a somewhat anachronistic “Station”. The three categories of equipment are as follows:

Category 1: Unlicensed station: 17 classes (Specified Radio Equipment specified in Article 38-2, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Radio Act). These are generally low power (< 1W) devices.
Category 2: Licensed station (Blanket License): 31 classes (e.g., mobile phones) (Specified Radio Equipment specified in Article 38-2, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Radio Act).
Category 3: Licensed station (Others): 75 classes (e.g., basestations) (Specified Radio Equipment specified in Article 38-2, paragraph 1, item 3 of the Radio Act).

Processes

The process for Japan Certification has some unique aspects, at least in terms of practice (when compared to the US/Canada system and the Notified Body process for the EU). This is largely because of the way the system evolved; the radio testing and certification community in Japan is relatively close-knit and the processes were built around the notion of trust, confidence and mutual agreement within that community.

Some of the primary characteristics of the Japan certification system, in practice, are:

The RCBs have the authority to directly certify, using forms and formats of their own design.
The Certification Number is required on the product, but the number is issued by the RCB (contrast that with the system in the US wherein the grantee chooses the FCC ID and the system in Canada where IC issues the IC number. Further contrast that with the notion of the TCF number under the EU Directives)
There is no accreditation requirement for the test lab. The RCB must establish “trust” with the test provider. This became a bit of a complication when implementation discussions were underway; the US system is heavily dependent on accreditation and the ‘chain of authority’.
US RCBs are obligated to report to the MIC the certifications performed in a given month. All information on the device (reports, manuals, technical information) stays with the RCB and there is no formal “dismissal” process as with the FCC. Compliance is typically monitored once a device hits the Japan market.
MIC grants more ‘interpretation’ powers to the RCB. This is largely due to the manner in which the system evolved.

Documents Required for Certification

Many of the same documents and information required for Japan certification are also required for other regulatory regimens. The primary information is as follows:

Application Form
Agency Letter (if needed)
Quality Management System Declaration and Letter of Quality Control Management
Manufacturer’s ISO 9001 Certificate
Construction Protection Confirmation
Schematics, BOM and Block Diagram
Antenna Information
Internal and External Photos
Label Information and Location
Test Report
User’s Manual

Note: RF exposure requirements are currently being developed with potential implementation in the first half of 2014. It is understood that Japan will follow, more or less, the European model for dealing with RF hazards.

1311 F1 fig1

Japan Label

There are a few items that are somewhat unique, notably the requirement for directly addressing the manufacturer’s quality assurance processes. An ISO 9001 certificate is usually all that is necessary, but lacking that, a definitive statement and/or process that address QA management needs to be supplied. Another requirement is the “Construction Protection Confirmation” which states that the radio section of the device must not be easily opened, must have a unique type of fastener, or must be manufactured such that opening the enclosure would render it inoperable (by potting, ultrasonic welding or gluing).

There are also requirements for measuring all parameters when the input power to the device is subject to +/-10% input voltage variation. The input voltage variation test can be limited, however, if the unit employs a regulator that keeps the output voltage to less than 1% variation when the input is varied by +/-10%. This is not a very difficult control, frankly, and can limit the number of tests that have to be performed on the device.

There are also specific variations on output power, wherein the device must “hold” the power between plus 20% minus 80% variation across the operating band.

There is an allowance for equipment in Japan that does not need any certification. These devices can radiate anywhere in the spectrum as long as the field strength limits at 3 m are very, very low (on the order of Class B emissions limits). These devices are referred to as “extremely low power radio stations.”

1311 F1 fig2

Extremely low power radio stations

Modular Approvals

The Japan regulations refer to radio modules as stations that are “Independent of Host” and allow modular approvals. This simplifies the devices approvals for many end-integrators. The module must be tested as a stand-alone device and must be labeled with the certification number assigned by the RCB. There is no provision for the host device to be marked in any way, however additional guidelines are being developed for modular approval certification.

Permissive Changes

The process for handling permissive changes is similar to the FCC/IC process, that is, a certain limited number of changes can be applied to the device before a new certification number is needed, namely: 1) additional antennas (as long as EIRP limits are observed), and 2) changes in RF components that occupy the same footprint, perform the same function, and donot alter the characteristics of the radio.

Since the certification process is generally a close coordination between the applicant (or agent of the lab), the process for amended certificates is usually not filed with MIC as the basic information on the certificate is not supposed to change (operating power, frequency of operation, model name).

Equipment Connected to the Public Network

The Telecommunications Business Law, introduced earlier in this article, is primarily directed at TTE equipment and other devices that connect to the public networks. Common examples include wired TTE equipment as well as wireless devices (such as mobile phones). In addition to the requirements for conformance with the Radio Law, wireless phones and devices that provide public connectivity (public “hotspots” that are common in coffee shops and the like) must also conform to the Telecommunications Business Law. The primary requirements include protocols and related matters that dictate device connection to the public network. These devices must also have an additional label element, which consists of a “T in a box”.

A Note on Electromagnetic Compatibility

EMC in Japan is largely unregulated and is under the auspices of the Voluntary Control Council for Interference (VCCI), which has been operating with great effectiveness since 1985. The requirements deal solely with emissions from equipment and, as the name of the council states, compliance is voluntary. Most adherents to the VCCI process use it for market-acceptance. As one might imagine, the VCCI mark is very important in the Japanese consumer marketplace.

Summary

The access for obtaining wireless certifications for Japan has been opened up significantly. The United States has joined the European Union in signing an MRA that allows for mutually acceptable conformity assessment procedures. In addition to the simple fact that market access has improved for Japanese and American manufacturers, the opening of these requirements has also led to further cooperation and participation in global forums, such as the APEC TEL MRA Working Group, whose purpose is to examine ways to enhance the MRAs and look at matters that arise from the regulatory regimens, representing a firm example of cooperation and underscoring the access that powers global trade in the high technology industry. favicon

Mike Violette
is Director and Founder of American Certification Body. He can be reached at mikev@wll.com.

Protect personnel
Streamline equipment design and installation
Prevent service outages and interference in a network caused by incompatible equipment
Reduce the risks of fire in network facilities
Guard against the potential negative impacts on equipment from extreme temperatures, vibration and airborne contamination
Support equipment compatibility with the network’s electrical environment.

Understanding Levels of Compliance

Level 1 is the minimum acceptable level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to preclude hazards and degradation of a network facility and hazards to personnel. Level 1 comprises only safety and risk criteria. Conformance to Level 1 does not assure equipment operability or service continuity. Level 1 is typically used by service providers for early deployment into their COs and/or interoperability laboratories, and to allow collocaters to install equipment in a central office. A collocater is a company that rents space in a central office and provides some type of communications service (such as Internet access or long distance).
Level 2 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide some limited assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. This assurance of operability is limited to the controlled or normal environments as defined by the criteria. Rarely a focus of customers, Level 2 includes all requirements of Level 1 with some added level of operability reliability.
Level 3 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide maximum assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. The Level 3 criteria provide the highest assurance of product operability. Level 3 criteria are suited for equipment applications that demand minimal service interruptions over the equipment’s life. Most TCGs require NEBS Level 3 prior to acceptance/installation on the network as they require this level of compliance for equipment operation in the central office, but not collocated equipment.

Exploring Qualified NEBS Testing Laboratories

In assessing provider capabilities, manufacturers should:

be aware that product size and weight limitations might preclude some laboratories from completing certain test profiles.
make sure the NEBS test facility is ISO 17025 accredited and qualified under any carrier specific laboratory accreditation programs, such as the Verizon ITL program.
inquire about the training and expertise of testing staff and ensure engineers are actively engaged in industry technical committees, regularly attend industry symposia and are current with any applicable professional certifications.

It’s important to note that a comprehensive, full service laboratory will support NEBS testing with the following:

Full EMC test facility capable of conducting both immunity and emissions testing
Environmental chambers to conduct temperature and altitude testing
Vibration and seismic test facilities
Full-scale fire facility
Facilities to support acoustic power measurements
Various test facilities to support lightning surge and power fault simulations, DC power measurements
Conditioning chambers to support mixed flowing gas testing and test apparatus to support hygroscopic dust exposure

© UL LLC 2013. Reprinted with permission.

1306 F4 cover Industry standards play a major role in providing meaningful metrics and common procedures that allow various manufacturers, customers, and suppliers to communicate from facility to facility around the world. Standards are increasingly important in our global economy.

In manufacturing, uniform quality requirements and testing procedures are necessary to make sure that all involved parties are speaking the same language. In ESD device protection, standard methods have been developed for component ESD stress models to measure a component’s sensitivity to electrostatic discharge from various sources. In ESD control programs, standard test methods for product qualification and periodic evaluation of wrist straps, garments, ionizers, worksurfaces, grounding, flooring, shoes, static dissipative planar materials, shielding bags, packaging, electrical soldering/desoldering hand tools, and flooring/footwear systems have been developed to ensure uniformity around the world.

The EOS/ESD Association, Inc. (ESDA) is dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection and avoidance. The ESDA is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards developer. The Association’s consensus body is called the Standards Committee (STDCOM) which has responsibility for the overall development of documents. Volunteers from the industry participate in working groups to develop new and to update current ESDA documents.

STDCOM is charged with keeping pace with the industry demands for increased performance. The existing standards, standard test methods, standard practices, and technical reports assist in the design and monitoring of the electrostatic protected area (EPA), and also assist in the stress testing of ESD sensitive electronic components. Many of the existing documents relate to controlling electrostatic charge on personnel and stationary work areas. However, with the ever increasing emphasis on automated handling, the need to evaluate and monitor what is occurring inside of process equipment is growing daily. Since automation has become more dominant, the charged device model (CDM) has become the primary cause of ESD failures and thus the more urgent concern. Together, the human body model (HBM) and charged device model cover the vast majority of ESD events that might occur in a typical factory.

The ESD Association document categories are:

Standard (S): A precise statement of a set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, system or process that also specifies the procedures for determining whether each of the requirements is satisfied.
Standard Test Method (STM): A definitive procedure for the identification, measurement and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics or properties of a material, product, system or process that yield a reproducible test result.
Standard Practice (SP): A procedure for performing one or more operations or functions that may or may not yield a test result. Note: if a test result is obtained it may not be reproducible.
Technical Report (TR): A collection of technical data or test results published as an informational reference on a specific material, product, system or process.

The ESDA Technology Roadmap is compiled by industry experts in IC protection design and test to provide a look into future ESD design and manufacturing challenges. The roadmap previously pointed out that numerous mainstream electronic parts and components would reach assembly factories with a lower level of ESD protection than could have been expected just a few years earlier. This prediction has proven to be rather accurate. As with any roadmap, the view of the future is constantly changing and requires updating on the basis of technology trend updates, market forces, supply chain evolution, and field return data. An updated roadmap has been published in March 2013 and industry experts extended the horizon beyond the 2013 predictions. It contains, for the first time, a roadmap for the evolution of ESD stress testing. This includes forward looking views of possible changes in the standard device level tests (HBM and CDM), as well as the expected progress in other important areas, such as transmission line pulsing (TLP), transient latch-up (TLU), cable discharge events (CDE), and charged board events (CBE). A view of work on electrical overstress (EOS) has also been included. EOS is an area that has long been overlooked by the industry, not because it was not important but because it could be a difficult threat to define and mitigate. Recently, a working group has been focusing on this area and will soon be publishing a Technical Report (TR) that helps establish some fundamental definitions and distinctions between various EOS threats. The TR will be followed up with a “best practices” document outlining ways to mitigate EOS threats. Another development has been a request by the aerospace industry for an ESD control document that defines more definitively what ESD controls need to be in place in factories that are in the aerospace industry. This document will be predicated on ANSI/ESD S20.20 but will introduce further limits and controls.

The ESDA Standards Committee is continuing several joint document development activities with the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association. Under the Memorandum of Understanding agreement, the ESDA and JEDEC formed a joint task force for the standardization work in which volunteers from the ESDA and JEDEC member companies can participate. This collaboration between the two organizations has paved the way for the development of harmonized test methods for ESD, which will ultimately reduce uncertainty about test standards among manufacturers and suppliers in the solid state industry. At the time of this publication, ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2012, a third revision of the joint HBM document, has been released for distribution. This document replaces ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2011, the current industry test methods and specifications for human body model device testing. A second joint committee is currently working on a joint charged device model (CDM) document with a goal of publishing in 2014. These efforts will assist manufacturers of devices by providing one test method and specification instead of multiple, almost – but not quite – identical, versions of device testing methods.

The ESDA is also working on a process assessment document. The purpose of this document is to describe a set of methodologies, techniques, and tools that can be used to characterize a process where ESD sensitive items are handled. The goal is to characterize the ability of a process to safely handle ESD sensitive devices that have been characterized by the relevant device testing models. The document will apply to activities that manufacture, process, assemble, install, package, label, service, test, inspect, transport, or otherwise handle electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to damage by electrostatic discharges. At the present time, this document will not apply to electrically-initiated explosive devices, flammable liquids, or powders.

The ESDA standard covering the requirements for creating and managing an ESD control program is ANSI/ESD S20.20 “ESD Association Standard for the Development of an Electrostatic Discharge Control Program for – Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)”. ANSI/ESD S20.20 is a commercial update of and replacement for MIL-STD-1686 and has been adopted by the United States Department of Defense. In addition, the 2007-2008 update of IEC 61340-5-1 edition 1.0 “Electrostatics – Part 5-1: Protection of Electronic Devices from Electrostatic Phenomena General Requirements” is technically equivalent to ANSI/ESD S20.20. A five-year review of ANSI/ESD S20.20 has begun and technical changes are being made to the document based on industry changes and user requests. There are unique constraints with the revision that must be taken into account, including facility certification and continued harmonization with other standards – IEC 61340-5-1 and newly revised JEDEC 625B. A target date of September 2013 has been given for the release of a draft document.

In order to meet the global need in the electronics industry for technically sound ESD Control Programs, the ESDA has established an independent third party certification program. The program is administered by EOS/ESD Association, Inc. through country-accredited ISO9000 certification bodies that have met the requirements of this program. The facility certification program evaluates a facility’s ESD program to ensure that the basic requirements from industry standards ANSI/ESD S20.20 or IEC 61340-5-1 are being followed. More than 519 facilities have been certified worldwide since inception of the program. The factory certification bodies report strong interest in certification to ANSI/ESD S20.20, and consultants in this area report that inquiries for assistance remain at a very high level. Individual education also seems of interest once again as 46 professionals have obtained Certified ESD Program Manager status and many more are attempting to qualify as Certified ESD Control Program Managers. A large percentage of the certification program requirements are based on Standards and the other related documents produced by the ESD Association Standards Committee.

Current ESD Association Standards Committee Documents

Charged Device Model (CDM)

ANSI/ESD S5.3.1-2009 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Charged Device Model (CDM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined CDM.

Cleanrooms

ESD TR55.0-01-04 Electrostatic Guidelines and Considerations for Cleanrooms and Clean Manufacturing
Identifies considerations and provides guidelines for the selection and implementation of materials and processes for electrostatic control in cleanroom and clean manufacturing environments. (Formerly TR11-04)

Compliance Verification

ESD TR53-01-06 Compliance Verification of ESD Protective Equipment and Materials
Describes the test methods and instrumentation that can be used to periodically verify the performance of ESD protective equipment and materials.

Electronic Design Automation (EDA)

ESD TR18.0.01-11 – ESD Electronic Design Automation Checks
Provides guidance for both the EDA industry and the ESD design community for establishing a comprehensive ESD electronic design automation (EDA) verification flow satisfying the ESD design challenges of modern ICs.

ESD Control Program

ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007 Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)
Provides administrative and technical requirements for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an ESD Control Program to protect electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to ESD damage from Human Body Model (HBM) discharges greater than or equal to 100 volts.

ESD TR 20.20-2008—ESD Handbook (Companion to ANSI/ESD S20.20)
Produced specifically to support ANSI/ESD S20.20 ESD Control Program standard, this 132-page document is a major rewrite of the previous handbook. It focuses on providing guidance that can be used for developing, implementing, and monitoring an ESD control program in accordance with the S20.20 standard.

Flooring

ANSI/ESD STM7.1-2012 Resistive Characterization of Materials – Floor Materials
Covers measurement of the electrical resistance of various floor materials, such as floor coverings, mats, and floor finishes. It provides test methods for qualifying floor materials before installation or application, and for evaluating and monitoring materials after installation or application.

ESD TR7.0-01-11 Static Protective Floor Materials
This technical report reviews the use of floor materials to dissipate electrostatic charge. It provides an overview on floor coverings, floor finishes, topical antistats, floor mats, paints and coatings. It also covers a variety of other issues related to floor material selection, installation and maintenance.

Flooring and Footwear Systems

ANSI/ESD STM97.1-2006 Floor Materials and Footwear – Resistance Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical system resistance of floor materials in combination with person wearing static control footwear.

ANSI/ESD STM97.2-2006 Floor Materials and Footwear – Voltage Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides for measuring the electrostatic voltage on a person in combination with floor materials and footwear, as a system.

Footwear

ANSI/ESD STM9.1-2006 Footwear – Resistive Characterization
Defines a test method for measuring the electrical resistance of shoes used for ESD control in the electronics environment (not to include heel straps and toe grounders).

ESD SP9.2-2003 Footwear – Foot Grounders Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for evaluating foot grounders and foot grounder systems used to electrically bond or ground personnel as part of an ESD Control Program. Static Control Shoes are tested using ANSI/ESD STM9.1.

Garments

ESD DSTM2.1-2013 Garments – Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of garments. It covers procedures for measuring sleeve-to-sleeve resistance and point-to-point resistance.

This is a draft document.

ESD TR2.0-01-00 Consideration for Developing ESD Garment Specifications
Addresses concerns about effective ESD garments by starting with an understanding of electrostatic measurements and how they relate to ESD protection. (Formerly TR05-00)

ESD TR2.0-02-00 Static Electricity Hazards of Triboelectrically Charged Garments
Intended to provide some insight to the electrostatic hazards present when a garment is worn in a flammable or explosive environment. (Formerly TR06-00)

Glossary

ESD ADV1.0-2012 Glossary of Terms
Definitions and explanations of various terms used in Association Standards and documents are covered in this Advisory. It also includes other terms commonly used in the electronics industry.

Gloves and Finger Cots

ANSI/ESD SP15.1-2011 In-Use Resistance Testing of Gloves and Finger Cots
Provides test procedures for measuring the intrinsic electrical resistance of gloves and finger cots.

ESD TR15.0-01-99 ESD Glove and Finger Cots
Reviews the existing known industry test methods for the qualification of ESD protective gloves and finger cots. (Formerly TR03-99)

Grounding

ANSI/ESD S6.1-2009 Grounding
Specifies the parameters, materials, equipment, and test procedures necessary to choose, establish, vary, and maintain an Electrostatic Discharge Control grounding system for use within an ESD Protected Area for protection of ESD susceptible items, and specifies the criteria for establishing ESD Bonding.

Handlers

ANSI/ESD SP10.1-2007 Automated Handling Equipment (AHE)
Provides procedures for evaluating the electrostatic environment associated with automated handling equipment.

ESD TR10.0-01-02 Measurement and ESD Control Issues for Automated Equipment Handling of ESD Sensitive Devices below 100 Volts
Provides guidance and considerations that an equipment manufacturer should use when designing automated handling equipment for these low voltage sensitive devices. (Formerly TR14-02)

Hand Tools

ESD STM13.1-2000 Electrical Soldering/Desoldering Hand Tools
Provides electric soldering/desoldering hand tool test methods for measuring the electrical leakage and tip to ground reference point resistance, and provides parameters for EOS safe soldering operation.

ESD TR13.0-01-99 EOS Safe Soldering Iron Requirements
Discusses soldering iron requirements that must be based on the sensitivity of the most susceptible devices that are to be soldered. (Formerly TR04-99)

Human Body Model (HBM)

ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2012 ESDA/JEDEC Joint Standard for Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Body Model (HBM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the electrostatic discharge sensitivity of components to the defined human body model (HBM).

ESD JTR001-01-12, ESD Association Technical Report User Guide of ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 Human Body Model Testing of Integrated Circuits
Describes the technical changes made in ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2011 contained in the new 2012 version) and explains how to use those changes to apply HBM (Human Body Model) tests to IC components.

Human Metal Model (HMM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.6-2009 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Metal Model (HMM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined HMM.

ESD TR5.6-01-09 Human Metal Model (HMM)
Addresses the need for a standard method of applying the IEC contact discharge waveform to devices and components.

Ionization

ANSI/ESD STM3.1-2006 Ionization
Test methods and procedures for evaluating and selecting air ionization equipment and systems are covered in this standard test method. The document establishes measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers.

ANSI/ESD SP3.3-2012 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizers
Provides test methods and procedures for periodic verification of the performance of air ionization equipment and systems (ionizers).

ANSI/ESD SP3.4-2012 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizer Performance Using a Small Test Fixture
Provides a test fixture example and procedures for performance verification of air ionization used in confined spaces where it may not be possible to use the test fixtures defined in ANSI/ESD STM3.1 or ANSI/ESD SP3.3.

ESD TR3.0-01-02 Alternate Techniques for Measuring Ionizer Offset Voltage and Discharge Time
Investigates measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers. (Formerly TR13-02)

ESD TR3.0-02-05 Selection and Acceptance of Air Ionizers
Reviews and provides a guideline for creating a performance specification for the four ionizer types contained in ANSI/ESD STM3.1: room (systems), laminar flow hood, worksurface (e.g., blowers), and compressed gas (nozzles & guns). (Formerly ADV3.2-1995)

Machine Model (MM)

ANSI/ESD STM5.2-2012 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Machine Model (MM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined MM.

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.1-2012 Human Body Model (HBM) and Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Supply Pin Ganging – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Human Body Model or Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP5.1.1-2006)

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.2-2012 Human Body Model (HBM) and Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Split Signal Pin – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Human Body Model or Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP5.1.2-2006)

ESD TR5.2-01-01 Machine Model (MM) Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Investigation – Reduction in Pulse Number and Delay Time
Provides the procedures, results, and conclusions of evaluating a proposed change from 3 pulses (present requirement) to 1 pulse while using a delay time of both 1 second (present requirement) and 0.5 second. (Formerly TR10-01)

Ohmmeters

ESD TR50.0-02-99 High Resistance Ohmmeters–Voltage Measurements
Discusses a number of parameters that can cause different readings from high resistance meters when improper instrumentation and techniques are used and the techniques and precautions to be used in order to ensure the measurement will be as accurate and repeatable as possible for high resistance measurement of materials. (Formerly TR02-99)

Packaging

ANSI/ESD STM11.11-2006 Surface Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Defines a direct current test method for measuring electrical resistance, replacing ASTM D257-78. This test method is designed specifically for static dissipative planar materials used in packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.12-2007 Volume Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Provides test methods for measuring the volume resistance of static dissipative planar materials used in the packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.13-2004 Two-Point Resistance Measurement
Measures the resistance between two points on a material’s surface without consideration of the material’s means of achieving conductivity. This test method was established for measuring resistance where the concentric ring electrodes of ANSI/ESD STM11.11 cannot be used.

ANSI/ESD STM11.31-2012 Bags
Provides a method for testing and determining the shielding capabilities of electrostatic shielding bags.

ANSI/ESD S11.4-2012 Performance Limits for Bags
Establishes performance limits for bags that are intended to protect electronic parts and products from damage due to static electricity and moisture during common electronic manufacturing industry transport and storage applications.

This is a draft document.

ANSI/ESD S541-2008 Packaging Materials for ESD Sensitive Items
Describes the packaging material properties needed to protect electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitive electronic items, and references the testing methods for evaluating packaging and packaging materials for those properties. Where possible, performance limits are provided. Guidance for selecting the types of packaging with protective properties appropriate for specific applications is provided. Other considerations for protective packaging are also provided.

ESD ADV11.2-1995 Triboelectric Charge Accumulation Testing
Provides guidance in understanding the triboelectric phenomenon and relates current information and experience regarding tribocharge testing as used in static control for electronics.

Seating

ESD DSTM12.1-2013 Seating – Resistive Measurement
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of seating used for the control of electrostatic charge or discharge. It contains test methods for the qualification of seating prior to installation or application, as well as test methods for evaluating and monitoring seating after installation or application.

This is a draft document.

Socketed Device Model (SDM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.3.2-2008 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Socketed Device (SDM) – Component Level
Provides a test method for generating a Socketed Device Model (SDM) test on a component integrated circuit (IC) device.

ESD TR5.3.2-01-00 Socket Device Model (SDM) Tester
Helps the user understand how existing SDM testers function, offers help with the interpretation of ESD data generated by SDM test systems, and defines the important properties of an “ideal” socketed-CDM test system. (Formerly TR08-00)

Static Electricity

ESD TR50.0-01-99 Can Static Electricity Be Measured?
Gives an overview of fundamental electrostatic concepts, electrostatic effects, and most importantly of electrostatic metrology, especially what can and what cannot be measured. (Formerly TR01-99)

Susceptible Device Concepts

ESD TR50.0-03-03 Voltage and Energy Susceptible Device Concepts, Including Latency Considerations
Contains information to promote an understanding of the differences between energy and voltage susceptible types of devices and their sensitivity levels. (Formerly TR16-03)

Symbols

ANSI/ESD S8.1-2012 Symbols – ESD Awareness
Three types of ESD awareness symbols are established by this document. The first one is to be used on a device or assembly to indicate that it is susceptible to electrostatic charge. The second is to be used on items and materials intended to provide electrostatic protection. The third symbol indicates the common point ground.

System Level ESD

ESD TR14.0-01-00 Calculation of Uncertainty Associated with Measurement of Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Current
Provides guidance on measuring uncertainty based on an uncertainty budget. (Formerly TR07-00)

ESD TR14.0-02-13 System Level Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Simulator Verification
Developed to provide guidance to designers, manufacturers, and calibration facilities for verification and specification of the systems and fixtures used to measure simulator discharge currents. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP14.1)

Transient Latch-up

ESD TR5.4-01-00 Transient Induced Latch-Up (TLU)
Provides a brief background on early latch-up work, reviews the issues surrounding the power supply response requirements, and discusses the efforts on RLC TLU testing, transmission line pulse (TLP) stressing, and the new bi-polar stress TLU methodology. (Formerly TR09-00)

ESD TR5.4-02-08 Determination of CMOS Latch-up Susceptibility – Transient Latch-up – Technical Report No. 2
Intended to provide background information pertaining to the development of the transient latch-up standard practice originally published in 2004 and additional data presented to the group since publication.

ESD TR5.4-03-11 Latch-up Sensitivity Testing of CMOS/Bi CMOS Integrated Circuits – Transient Latch-up Testing – Component Level Supply Transient Stimulation
Developed to instruct the reader on the methods and materials needed to perform Transient Latch-Up Testing.

Transmission Line Pulse

ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1-2008 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. The purpose of this document is to establish a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with TLP testing.

ANSI/ESD SP5.5.2-2007, Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. It establishes guidelines and standard practices presently used by development, research, and reliability engineers in both universities and industry for VF-TLP testing. This document explains a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with VF-TLP testing.

ESD TR5.5-01-08 Transmission Line Pulse (TLP)
A compilation of the information gathered during the writing of ANSI/ESD SP5.5.1 and the information gathered in support of moving the standard practice toward re-designation as a standard test method.

ESD TR5.5-02-08 Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Intended to provide data on the repeatability and reproducibility limits of the methods of ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1.

Workstations

ESD ADV53.1-1995 ESD Protective Workstations
Defines the minimum requirements for a basic ESD protective workstation used in ESD sensitive areas. It provides a test method for evaluating and monitoring workstations. It defines workstations as having the following components: support structure, static dissipative worksurface, a means of grounding personnel, and any attached shelving or drawers.

Worksurfaces

ANSI/ESD S4.1-2006 Worksurface – Resistance Measurements
Provides test methods for evaluating and selecting worksurface materials, testing of new worksurface installations, and the testing of previously installed worksurfaces.

ANSI/ESD STM4.2-2012 ESD Protective Worksurfaces – Charge Dissipation Characteristics
Aids in determining the ability of ESD protective worksurfaces to dissipate charge from a conductive test object placed on them.

ESD TR4.0-01-02 Survey of Worksurfaces and Grounding Mechanisms
Provides guidance for understanding the attributes of worksurface materials and their grounding mechanisms. (Formerly TR15-02)

Wrist Straps

ESD DS1.1-2013 Wrist Straps
A successor to EOS/ESD S1.0, this document establishes test methods for evaluating the electrical and mechanical characteristics of wrist straps. It includes improved test methods and performance limits for evaluation, acceptance, and functional testing of wrist straps.

This is a draft document.

ESD TR1.0-01-01 Survey of Constant (Continuous) Monitors for Wrist Straps
Provides guidance to ensure that wrist straps are functional and are connected to people and ground. (Formerly TR12-01)

About the EOS/ESD Association, Inc.
Founded in 1982, the EOS/ESD Association, Inc. is a professional voluntary association dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) avoidance. From fewer than 100 members, the Association has grown to more than 2,000 throughout the world. From an initial emphasis on the effects of ESD on electronic components, the Association has broadened its horizons to include areas such as textiles, plastics, web processing, cleanrooms, and graphic arts. To meet the needs of a continually changing environment, the Association is chartered to expand ESD awareness through standards development, educational programs, local chapters, publications, tutorials, certification,
and symposia.

Protect personnel
Streamline equipment design and installation
Prevent service outages and interference in a network caused by incompatible equipment
Reduce the risks of fire in network facilities
Guard against the potential negative impacts on equipment from extreme temperatures, vibration and airborne contamination
Support equipment compatibility with the network’s electrical environment.

Understanding Levels of Compliance

Level 1 is the minimum acceptable level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to preclude hazards and degradation of a network facility and hazards to personnel. Level 1 comprises only safety and risk criteria. Conformance to Level 1 does not assure equipment operability or service continuity. Level 1 is typically used by service providers for early deployment into their COs and/or interoperability laboratories, and to allow collocaters to install equipment in a central office. A collocater is a company that rents space in a central office and provides some type of communications service (such as Internet access or long distance).
Level 2 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide some limited assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. This assurance of operability is limited to the controlled or normal environments as defined by the criteria. Rarely a focus of customers, Level 2 includes all requirements of Level 1 with some added level of operability reliability.
Level 3 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide maximum assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. The Level 3 criteria provide the highest assurance of product operability. Level 3 criteria are suited for equipment applications that demand minimal service interruptions over the equipment’s life. Most TCGs require NEBS Level 3 prior to acceptance/installation on the network as they require this level of compliance for equipment operation in the central office, but not collocated equipment.

Exploring Qualified NEBS Testing Laboratories

In assessing provider capabilities, manufacturers should:

be aware that product size and weight limitations might preclude some laboratories from completing certain test profiles.
make sure the NEBS test facility is ISO 17025 accredited and qualified under any carrier specific laboratory accreditation programs, such as the Verizon ITL program.
inquire about the training and expertise of testing staff and ensure engineers are actively engaged in industry technical committees, regularly attend industry symposia and are current with any applicable professional certifications.

It’s important to note that a comprehensive, full service laboratory will support NEBS testing with the following:

Full EMC test facility capable of conducting both immunity and emissions testing
Environmental chambers to conduct temperature and altitude testing
Vibration and seismic test facilities
Full-scale fire facility
Facilities to support acoustic power measurements
Various test facilities to support lightning surge and power fault simulations, DC power measurements
Conditioning chambers to support mixed flowing gas testing and test apparatus to support hygroscopic dust exposure

© UL LLC 2013. Reprinted with permission.

The ESD Association document categories are:

Standard (S): A precise statement of a set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, system or process that also specifies the procedures for determining whether each of the requirements is satisfied.
Standard Test Method (STM): A definitive procedure for the identification, measurement and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics or properties of a material, product, system or process that yield a reproducible test result.
Standard Practice (SP): A procedure for performing one or more operations or functions that may or may not yield a test result. Note: if a test result is obtained it may not be reproducible.
Technical Report (TR): A collection of technical data or test results published as an informational reference on a specific material, product, system or process.

Current ESD Association Standards Committee Documents

Charged Device Model (CDM)

Cleanrooms

Compliance Verification

Electronic Design Automation (EDA)

ESD Control Program

Flooring

Flooring and Footwear Systems

Footwear

Garments

This is a draft document.

Glossary

Gloves and Finger Cots

ANSI/ESD SP15.1-2011 In-Use Resistance Testing of Gloves and Finger Cots
Provides test procedures for measuring the intrinsic electrical resistance of gloves and finger cots.

ESD TR15.0-01-99 ESD Glove and Finger Cots
Reviews the existing known industry test methods for the qualification of ESD protective gloves and finger cots. (Formerly TR03-99)

Grounding

Handlers

ANSI/ESD SP10.1-2007 Automated Handling Equipment (AHE)
Provides procedures for evaluating the electrostatic environment associated with automated handling equipment.

Hand Tools

Human Body Model (HBM)

Human Metal Model (HMM)

ESD TR5.6-01-09 Human Metal Model (HMM)
Addresses the need for a standard method of applying the IEC contact discharge waveform to devices and components.

Ionization

ANSI/ESD SP3.3-2012 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizers
Provides test methods and procedures for periodic verification of the performance of air ionization equipment and systems (ionizers).

Machine Model (MM)

Ohmmeters

Packaging

ANSI/ESD STM11.31-2012 Bags
Provides a method for testing and determining the shielding capabilities of electrostatic shielding bags.

This is a draft document.

Seating

This is a draft document.

Socketed Device Model (SDM)

Static Electricity

Susceptible Device Concepts

Symbols

System Level ESD

Transient Latch-up

Transmission Line Pulse

ESD TR5.5-02-08 Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Intended to provide data on the repeatability and reproducibility limits of the methods of ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1.

Workstations

Worksurfaces

ESD TR4.0-01-02 Survey of Worksurfaces and Grounding Mechanisms
Provides guidance for understanding the attributes of worksurface materials and their grounding mechanisms. (Formerly TR15-02)

Wrist Straps

This is a draft document.

ESD TR1.0-01-01 Survey of Constant (Continuous) Monitors for Wrist Straps
Provides guidance to ensure that wrist straps are functional and are connected to people and ground. (Formerly TR12-01)

The post ESD Standards: An Annual Progress Report appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

Originally published in 1973, the Low Voltage Directive (LVD) has a long history as law in the European Union (EU). Indeed, it was first adopted when the EU was referred to by its original name, the European Economic Community. It would take another two decades for a union intent on socio-political as well as economic integration to become established, and a move into the 21^st century before geographical expansion through accession of ex-Eastern bloc states. The early 1970s was also before one of the signal achievements of the EU – the European Single Market – was completed.

In this respect, the 1973 LVD was somewhat ahead of its time. It sought to harmonize safety requirements and so remove a potential non-tariff technical barrier to trade in electrical equipment before the European Commission created the “New Approach to Technical Harmonization and Standards” to help facilitate the Single Market. Of course, the LVD later became a New Approach law with all the familiar hallmarks of CE marking, presumption of conformity, preparation of technical documentation and so on.

Fundamentally, the LVD has not changed that much in its 45-year history. It has only experienced two revisions, as follows:

Codification in 2006. This saw the European Commission propose a new Directive – Directive 2006/95/EC – to merge the 1973 Directive with legislative amendments adopted over 33 years. Directive 2006/95/EC was adopted and, in 2007, the European Commission published an accompanying set of guidelines. Although lacking the force of law, the guidelines offered interpretation and advice spanning legislative scope, the Directive’s safety requirements, conformity assessment procedures, and the relationships between the LVD and other laws.
Recast in 2014. A legislative recast was proposed by the European Commission to align the LVD with the New Legislative Framework (NLF). The NLF evolves the New Approach such that it continues to require the specification of essential requirements in product law and recourse to standardization to determine the technical details required for implementation (i.e., creation of harmonized standards), CE marking, conformity assessment, etc. while introducing additional elements. One such additional element is the setting of different obligations depending on what businesses (“economic operators”) do within product supply chains. The proposed recast was carried into law as Directive 2014/35/EU. The European Commission subsequently published provisional guidance on the 2014 Directive, first in draft form in 2015 then as final copy in 2016.

The provisional guidance on Directive 2014/35/EU is worth reflecting upon before moving to discuss the new LVD Guide that supersedes it. If anything, the provisional guidance sought to downplay the LVD’s recast. Suggesting that there had been little substantive change to the Directive, the guidance proceeded to answer a series of questions. In doing so, it offered advice on the difference between “placing on the market” and “making available on the market,” what to do regarding placing a name and address on electrical equipment, what constitutes an unacceptable risk, what is to be included in an EU Declaration of Conformity, and clarification around dates of publication/adoption/applicability.

Mindful of this, it may be a little surprising that the new LVD Guide is more than three times the length of the 2007 guidelines. One might then expect the new LVD Guide to reflect a decade’s worth of enquiries to the European Commission from assorted stakeholders, with the outcomes of the Commission’s deliberations documented in a longer set of guidelines. Not so.

If you were already familiar with the 2007 guidelines and had kept pace with the development of the NLF, the LVD’s alignment to it in 2014, and the provisional guidance of 2014-2015, the new LVD Guide does not offer much more by way of interpretation and instruction. The length of the new LVD Guide really reflects a different approach to structuring the guidelines, essentially reproducing the Directive’s recitals and articles verbatim before commenting upon them.

What, then, are the key points of interest if you are involved in making electrical equipment for, and/or supplying this equipment to, EU Member States? This article suggests that these points emerge through consideration of four topics:

Scope of the LVD
Potential overlap with other EU product legislation
Generally applicable economic operator obligations
Obligations specific to certain economic operators (e.g., a manufacturer, a distributor)

These topics will be discussed in turn. In all cases it should be remembered that, while the LVD Guide constitutes official interpretation and advice from the European Commission, it does not have the force of law.

Scope of the LVD

The new LVD Guide offers some useful clarification. This includes the following:

A statement that the LVD applies to all forms of supplying electrical equipment intended for the EU, regardless of the selling technique. This means that if you supply the EU market via distance selling or electronic means you are not without responsibilities.
Regarding the LVD’s voltage rating, it is clear from the legal text that the LVD applies to all electrical equipment designed for use between 50-1000 V AC and 75-1500 V DC. The new LVD Guide clarifies that the rating is for voltage of the electrical input or output, and not to voltages that may appear inside the equipment.
Unless the battery provides a power supply between 75 and 1500 V DC, battery operated electrical equipment is out of scope of the LVD. However, the new LVD Guide makes the point that “…any accompanying battery-charger as well as equipment with integrated power supply unit within the voltage ranges of the LVD are in the scope of the LVD.” A good example in this regard is the power supply that might be provided with a laptop; if the LVD’s voltage rating applies then it will fall within the scope of the Directive. Note that this is true for mains chargers but not for USB chargers.
Whether or not components are in scope of the LVD has been a longstanding question for industry. The following clarification is offered in the new LVD Guide:
- As a point of general principle, the scope of the LVD includes both electrical equipment intended for incorporation into other equipment, and equipment intended to be used directly without being incorporated.
- However, when the safety of components largely depends on how these components are integrated into final products and what the characteristics of the products are, the LVD Guide recognizes that component manufacturers may be unable to perform safety risk assessments. In these circumstances, the LVD Guide suggests that the components are not covered by the LVD and should not be CE marked unless other CE marking legislation applies (e.g., the RoHS Directive).
- Care should be taken with this guidance, though. Seemingly, it applies to basic components such as capacitors and resistors. In contrast, transformers and electrical motors are said to be in scope of the LVD, as are lamps, starters, fuses, switches for household use, and elements of electrical installations. Even though these are often used in conjunction with other electrical equipment and have to be properly installed in order to deliver their useful function, they fall within the scope of the LVD.
When a power cord set has not been placed on the EU market as an individual item but is instead bundled with electrical equipment in scope of the LVD, there is no need to affix the CE marking on the cord set. However, this only applies when the cord set is provided for use with the main article that it accompanies. If a cord set is placed on the EU market as a spare part or as a standalone item for use with various electrical products, it must carry the CE marking. It should also be noted that the manufacturer (or manufacturer’s authorised representative) is responsible for demonstrating that both items placed on the market (i.e., equipment and accompanying cord set) comply with the LVD.

In addition, the new LVD Guide’s Annex VII is of note. In the first instance, this lists 30 example products within or outside the scope of the LVD that provides valuable reference. In the second instance, Annex VII discusses the case of a socket outlet with switch. The advice varies depending on the type of socket outlet:

Type E and Type F socket outlets are generally supplied without a switch, meaning they are not in scope of the LVD and should not be CE marked.
Type E and Type F socket outlets supplied with switches (generally being a socket outlet assembly and a switch assembly supplied as a common assembly) should be CE marked.
With Type G and Type K systems, the switched socket outlets constitute a complete assembly (i.e., a single product). These are only used as part of the national plug and socket outlet system and so are excluded from scope of the LVD and should not be CE marked.

Legislative Overlap

The new LVD Guide highlights that electrical equipment placed on the EU market may be regulated for safety in EU product legislation other than, or in addition to, the LVD. This is an important point. While the LVD exists with EU product legislation that regulates concerns like electromagnetic compatibility and energy efficiency, these laws will typically apply alongside the LVD and do not take precedence over it (the laws are regulating different matters after all). On occasion, however, other EU product legislation can take priority over the LVD when it comes to the protection of health and safety.

The new LVD Guide notes that when electrical equipment with a voltage rating that would ordinarily see it falling in scope of the LVD is also:

a machine, meaning an assembly of linked parts or components, at least one of which moves; or
an item of radio equipment, meaning products that intentionally emit and/or receive radio waves for purpose of radio communication and/or radio determination; or
a part for a passenger or goods lift; or
intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres

Then, subject to certain caveats, other EU legislation applies and takes precedence over the LVD. These laws are, respectively, the Machinery Directive (2006/42/EC), the Radio Equipment Directive (2014/53/EU), the Lifts Directive (2014/33/EU), and the Equipment and Protective Systems intended for use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres (“ATEX”) Directive (2014/34/EU).

Separate to the above, the new LVD Guide discusses three scenarios where the LVD’s safety requirements apply to electrical equipment with a voltage rating of 50-1000 V AC and 75-1500 V DC together with requirements of other EU product safety legislation. The scenarios are as follows:

When the equipment is to be permanently incorporated in construction works: In this instance LVD Annex I safety objectives must be met alongside relevant Construction Products Regulation (No 305/2011) requirements. The new LVD Guide emphasizes that:

“Most importantly, products covered by harmonized standards under Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 have to be assessed in conformity with the applicable standards and be accompanied by a declaration of performance and the CE mark.

…Should these essential conditions not be met, the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 cannot in practice be applied to the relevant electrical equipment.”

When the equipment is intended to be a gas appliance “fitting:” The term “fitting” refers to a safety device, controlling device or regulating device and subassembly designed to be incorporated into an appliance that burns gaseous fuels and is used for cooking, heating, hot water production, refrigeration, lighting or washing. Here LVD Annex I safety objectives must be met together with Gas Appliance Regulation (No 206/426) requirements, but the LVD Guide explains that the latter is specific to “…gas related risks due to the hazards of electrical origin of the appliances or of the fittings.”
When the equipment is intended for consumer use: Under this scenario, specific provisions of the General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC) apply while the LVD maintains precedence as the EU product safety law that must be complied with. Page 85 of the LVD Guide lists the applicable provisions of the General Product Safety Directive.

Generally Applicable Economic Operator Obligations

The LVD specifies obligations for economic operators, a term that spans four different business entities: manufacturers, authorised representatives of manufacturers, importers, and distributors (see Figure 1).

Under the LVD, some obligations are specific to individual entities while others have wider application. In addition, legal obligations falling upon two or more economic operators can sometimes be insufficiently detailed to account for which entity has direct responsibility for their fulfilment. The new LVD Guide recognizes where challenges arise and provides some useful advice for industry that is now discussed.

Provision of information/documentation in response to an authority

Any economic operator involved in the supply of electrical equipment falling within scope of the LVD faces the obligation to provide a competent national authority with “all the information and documentation in paper or electronic form necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the electrical equipment with [the LVD].” Providing this information and documentation should follow what the LVD terms a “reasoned request,” but this is not elaborated upon any further in the Directive.

All the economic operators also share the obligation to “cooperate with [the] authority, at its request, on any action taken to eliminate the risks posed by electrical equipment which they have placed on the market.” As the new LVD Guide acknowledges, there is no specific time limit when it comes to providing requested information and documentation. It is then suggested that this is likely to be judged on a case-by-case basis with a possible default period of 10 working days.

More interestingly, perhaps, is the comment in the LVD Guide that Member States “are free to fix a default period in their national laws,” something that does not appear to have been legislated for to date. Whether a default period is written into any national legislation in the future only time will tell. For the moment, practitioners should keep 10 working days in mind as the window for responding to an authority, should a reasoned request be received.

Translation of instructions and safety information

Manufacturers, importers and distributors share the obligation to ensure that the electrical equipment is accompanied by instructions and safety information “in a language which can be easily understood by consumers and other end-users, as determined by the Member State concerned.” However, as the new LVD Guide points out, the Directive does not state which of the three economic operators is responsible for translating the information.

The LVD Guide’s advice is to begin with a point of principle: it is for each economic operator that makes in-scope electrical equipment available in an EU Member State to ensure that instructions are available in all the languages required. Furthermore, economic operators may wish to share meeting the obligation via contractual arrangements.

The LVD Guide contextualizes this by discussing a situation in which a manufacturer provides the instructions and safety information in a set of languages applicable to the EU Member States where equipment is destined for shipment. However, if the equipment then sees movement into a market not originally intended for supply by the manufacturer, the importer and the distributor must ensure translation into the required language(s). In any case, translations are to be clear, understandable and intelligible.

Translation of the Declaration of Conformity (DoC)

Upon request by a national authority, the DoC is to be made available in the language required by the Member State in whose territory the electrical equipment is placed on the market. Just as with instructions and safety information discussed above, the LVD does not state which economic operator must fulfil this obligation (the manufacturer is to draw up the DoC, but is not necessarily obliged to translate it). Also, just as with instructions and safety information, the LVD Guide suggests that the fulfilment of the obligation is addressed in contractual arrangements between relevant entities.

Addressing formal non-compliance

Article 22 of the LVD identifies various non-compliance issues (e.g., absence of a CE marking, no DoC) that “the relevant economic operator” may be obliged to address, although it says nothing about timings. Unfortunately the new LVD Guide offers little additional direction here, merely suggesting it is for authorities to judge on a case-by-case basis and, for economic operators, good cooperation with the authorities is key.

Presumption of conformity

The presumption of conformity is only conferred when the reference of the harmonized standard is published in the EU Official Journal. Also, it is just the harmonized standard that is relevant; guidance documents on harmonized standards cannot confer the presumption of conformity.

Equipment modification and/or “own labelling” of the equipment by an importer or distributor

Under these circumstances, the LVD Guide is quite clear that the importer or distributor is considered the manufacturer and should assume the corresponding obligations. This means replacing/updating the DoC (it should be in the importer’s or distributor’s name and signed by a suitable representative of the business), but not necessarily replacing test reports, certificates and other accompanying documentation provided this remains relevant.

Obligations Specific to Certain Operators

Relevant advice from the new LVD Guide is presented in Table 1.

Economic Operator	LVD Article	Obligation	Advice Given in the LVD Guide
Manufacturer	6(1)	Electrical equipment shall be designed and manufactured in accordance with LVD safety objectives.	This applies to every single product manufactured and placed on the EU market.
	6(4)	Procedures shall exist for series production to remain in conformity with the Directive.	From page 27: …it is therefore crucial that the manufacturer monitors any changes in hardware/software, developments in applicable standards and legislation and that the state of the art is taken into account adequately. In addition, the considerations given by the manufacturer to these changes shall be reported in the technical documentation.
	6(5)	Electrical equipment shall bear a type, batch or serial number for identification purposes.	From page 28: The important point is that the numbering must allow making a clear link to the relevant documentation that demonstrates the conformity of the specific type of product, in particular the Declaration of Conformity. A barcode can also be used if this is considered by a manufacturer as an appropriate way of enabling the manufacturer to identify and trace its products.
	6(5)	Where the size or nature of the electrical equipment does not allow it, the numbering or other identifier (e.g. barcode) shall be provided on the equipment packaging or in an accompanying document.	If the information is not visible at first sight, it must be easily and safely accessible.
	6(6)	The manufacturer’s name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and the postal address at which they can be contacted shall go on the electrical equipment or, failing that, the equipment packaging or in a document accompanying the equipment.	It is up to the manufacturer to assess where the information is affixed. Relevant factors are size and physical characteristics of the equipment. Aesthetics are not deemed to be reason enough to present the information on the equipment’s packaging or in an accompanying document. From pages 28-29: The address or the country does not necessarily have to be translated into the language of the Member State where the equipment is made available on the market. However, the characters of the language used must allow identifying the origin and the name of the company. This is not possible with certain alphabets. If the information is put inside the electrical equipment, it must be easily accessible to market surveillance authorities without damaging the equipment or the need for disassembling it with specific tools.
	6(7)	Electrical equipment shall be accompanied by instructions and safety information in a language which can be easily understood by consumers and other end-users.	From page 29: The LVD does not make a distinction about who the user of the product is. Both the instructions and safety information accompanying the electrical equipment can be included in a single document. Manufacturers should implement the legal requirements of the Member States regarding languages.
	6(8)	Where the electrical equipment presents a risk, manufacturers shall immediately inform the competent national authorities.	The LVD Guide says little about assessing risk, other than it is the manufacturer’s responsibility and that the assessment should be focused upon the LVD’s Annex I safety objectives.
Authorised representative	7(1)	A manufacturer may appoint an authorised representative by a written mandate.	The LVD Guide says that this is at the choice of the manufacturer and he is not obliged to do so.
Importer	8(2)	The electrical equipment shall be accompanied by required documents.	For an importer, the required documents are only the instructions and safety information.
Importer	8(8)	For 10 years after the electrical equipment is placed on the EU market, the importer shall keep a copy of the DoC and ensure that technical documentation can be made available.	From page 33: …the importer is advised to get formal assurance from the manufacturer that the documents will be made available when requested by the market surveillance authority. The technical documentation can be given directly by the manufacturer to the market surveillance authorities.
Distributor	9(2)	The electrical equipment shall be accompanied by required documents and by instructions and safety information.	For a distributor, the requirements are the instructions and safety information (seemingly there is no other set of required documents beyond these).
Distributor	9(2)	The distributor shall ensure that the manufacturer and the importer have complied with the requirements set out in Article 6(5) and (6) and Article 8(3).	From page 34: The distributor does not have to keep a copy of the Declaration of Conformity or the technical documentation. However he must be able to identify the manufacturer, his authorised representative, the importer or the person who has provided him with the product in order to assist the market surveillance authority in its efforts to obtain the EU Declaration of Conformity and the necessary parts of the technical documentation.

Table 1: Summary of specific obligations with corresponding LVD Guide advice

Conclusion

This article has suggested that for economic operators, the most salient advice given in the new LVD Guide arises in the discussion of the Directive’s scope, overlap with other EU product legislation, and operators’ legal obligations. For instance, the LVD Guide clarifies that, if you are involved in supplying electrical equipment to the EU via distance selling, you will have legal responsibilities, while the LVD’s voltage rating applies to input or output, not to voltages that may appear inside the electrical equipment.

An economic operator should be aware of situations where electrical equipment with a voltage rating of 50-1000 V AC and 75-1500 V DC falls in scope of both the LVD and other EU product safety legislation (e.g., the Construction Products Regulation), or else falls in scope of EU product legislation that takes precedence over the LVD (e.g., the Machinery or Radio Equipment Directives). In the latter case, the laws will still confer a presumption of conformity if LVD harmonized standards are applied to meet electrical safety requirements, only the EU DoC must reference the law that applies (e.g., the Machinery Directive rather than the LVD in the case of electrical machinery).

Finally, LVD legal obligations vary for economic operators, with most falling upon manufacturers. The new LVD Guide offers interpretation and instruction on these obligations, clarifying when importers and distributors might take on manufacturer responsibilities among other issues.

The post A Look at the European Commission’s New Low Voltage Directive Guide appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

An access floor contractor was bidding a project calling for “static dissipative” flooring. Like many contractors, the project manager viewed the terminology from a generic perspective. Most laymen equate the term static dissipative (SD) with any flooring type that is marketed for the purposes of mitigating the discharge of static electricity. They do not realize there is a distinction between a conductive floor and a dissipative floor and that there may be a practical reason for choosing one over the other.

Since the architectural specs did not include electrical resistance parameters, cite-specific industry standards, or require that resistive properties be tested before final acceptance, the project manager felt comfortable bidding any type of ESD flooring. In this instance, she proposed a conductive floor for an FAA flight tower, when in fact the FAA requires flooring to measure in the static-dissipative range.

Similar scenarios occur every day. The root causes almost always involve semantics, with specifiers citing incorrect standards for a specific industry, as well as a general lack of understanding about electricity and static-control flooring.

This creates multiple problems encompassing product liability, economic loss, failure to perform and in compliance with industry standards.

Confusing Conductivity and Specifications

To investigate this dilemma, we need to explore the history of floors used to prevent static-discharge problems.

The roots of the ESD flooring industry hark back to the need for preventing static sparks in medical environments where flammable and explosive gases were administered as anesthesia. Like the static-control wrist straps used in electronics manufacturing today, early versions of static-control products involved some form of single-point grounding and bonding (via tethering) to maintain a single potential between all conductors that came in contact with one another. In general, this was achieved by placing wet towels across the floor to connect the anesthesiologist’s foot with the base of a steel operating table. (Yes, this is real!)

In an article published in 1926, titled “How Can We Eliminate Static from Operating Rooms,” Dr. E. McKesson writes:

“Hence the simplest method of preventing static sparks is to keep the objects concerned in the administration of combustible mixtures in contact—i.e., the patient, the anesthetist and the inhaler. This is usually done and accounts for the relative infrequency of fires from static sparks in the operating room.”¹

As throughout the electronics industry today, McKesson recognized that full reliance on a multi-step human process of tethering and un-tethering of personnel and fixtures with cords and wires assumes a perfectly executed process every time. He writes, “But errors of technique are made, and if the conditions are ‘right,’ a fire occurs.”

McKesson recognized the need for a passive grounding system that does not rely solely on a series of connections that may not always occur. McKesson writes:

“An effort has been made at one hospital to make errors impossible by grounding a mosaic floor, consisting of alternate block of tile and bronze in one or two rooms and a solid metal floor in another. That is, when one steps upon this floor the charge on his body flows through a thick wire to the ground. The operating table, apparatus, instruments, anesthetists, surgeons and all are thus grounded or their charges neutralised.”

McKesson wrote this paper for the British Journal of Anaesthesia – advocating for what we now call ESD flooring – all the way back in 1926. And yet, into the 1960s, there continue to be records of hospitals placing wet towels on the floor to provide electrical bonding between the anesthesiologist and the operating table.

Late in 1950, a Wisconsin company called Natural Products began work on plastic conductive flooring. The following year they would introduce Statmate and rename the company Vinyl Plastics Inc (VPI). VPI’s non-metallic conductive floors gained immediate and widespread acceptance as a highly effective grounded flooring solution in hospitals. Unlike metal, these early conductive plastic floors could be made with inherent and controlled electrical resistive properties. This was and is critical to electrical safety.

Circa 1950, the NFPA had determined that floors in hospitals should not measure below 25,000 (2.5 x 10⁴) ohms or in excess of 1,000,000 ohms (1.0 x 10⁶). Vinyl floors could be manufactured to meet this requirement. This ohms range of 2.5 x 10⁴ to < 1.0 x 10⁶ marks the launching point at which today’s confusion about conductivity, resistance ranges, and the suitability of conductive floors begins.

Resistance Tests Per NFPA Guidelines Are Not Equivalent to ESD/STM 7.1 Tests

Although metal floors were durable and provided effective conductivity, they offered absolutely no safety in the presence of alternating current (A/C). To ensure safety along with a reliable level of conductivity, NFPA bulletin 56 (issued in the 1940s) required a specific electrical resistance range for conductive floors. Electrical resistance was to be tested using an ohmmeter, with 500 volts of applied current. This was because, in 1950, meters – 500 volts was chosen to test for resistance with an emphasis on electrical safety. Wall-mounted meters, such as the Conductometer were installed in ORs and tested both flooring and footwear at 500 volts. Today we test with 10 volts of applied current.

Why does this matter? Ohm’s Law: the higher the applied voltage, the lower the resistance. Likewise, the lower the applied voltage, the higher the resistance.

Figure 1: How voltage affects the resistance of an ESD flooring material

Since ANSI STM 7.1 requires 10-volt electrification, resistance tests of the same material will measure much higher than an NFPA test using 500 V of applied current. Likewise, the results of an NFPA test using 500 V of applied current will be much lower than the results of a test following guidelines of 7.1 applying 10 V. The point is that the test methods are not equivalent; therefore, measurements are not equivalent.

The Electrostatic Discharge Association (ESDA) and the electronics community have chosen an upper limit of less than 1,000,000 ohms for defining a conductive floor.² This conductive range is quite different from the range set by the NFPA. Yet many floorings suppliers state that their floors measure above 25k ohms per NFPA – but also market their floors as measuring between 25k and one million ohms per the current ANSI/ESD STM 7.1 10-volt test method.

This is not possible. A floor measuring 25,000 ohms at 500 volts will present as a much less conductive surface with 10-volt electrification. The chart in Table 1 shows measurements taken by an independent lab. As indicated in the chart, gray ESD carpet measuring 75,000 ohms with 10 volts of applied current measured only 16,000 ohms at 500 volts. While the floor tested per S7.1 measured slightly above the stated 25,000 ohms, when tested at 500 volts, it failed to meet the NFPA’s requirement for resistance.

Table 1 shows examples of the discrepancy between resistance test results performed per NFPA and ANSI/ESD test methods.

Carpet Tile Test Results for product marketed as measuring 2.5 x 10⁴ – 1.0 x 10⁸:
Color	ANSI/ESD STM 7.1 @10 volts	NFPA @500 volts
Grey	7.5 x 10⁴	1.6 x 10⁴
	7.2 X 10⁴	1.4 X 10⁴
Silver	7.5 x 10⁴	1.4 x 10⁴
	6.9 X 10⁴	1.3 X 10⁴
Dark grey pattern	5.0 x 10⁴	1.4 x 10⁴
	6.0 X 10⁴	1.0 X 10⁴
Carpet Tile Test Results for product marketed as measuring 1.0 X10⁶ – 1.0 X 10⁹:
Color	10 volts	500 volts
Patterned carpet	1.8 x 10⁶	1.1 x 10⁶
Blue Carpet	1.5 x 10⁶	8.0 x 10⁵

Table 1: Carpet tile resistance test results showing the discrepancy between NFPA and ANSI/ESD test methods

What Is a Static-Dissipative or Conductive Floor?

This history of conductive flooring and evolving resistance test methods brings us to the concerns we face today. What is a static-dissipative floor, what is a conductive floor, and which version should be referenced in a specification?

The first answer is actually a question. What are the test methods you’re using to measure resistance and what standards do you need to meet for compliance in your industry? One example is NFPA 99. Almost every flooring manufacturer mentions NFPA 99 compliance; NFPA 99 deleted any mention of floor testing years ago due to the elimination of flammable anesthesia. Unless the manufacturer specifications account for and incorporate test data obtained at 500 volts, they are misapplying a defunct test method.

The perhaps bigger problem is that different industries have different resistance standards. We often see ANSI/ESD S20.20 cited in specifications for ESD floors for 9-1-1 dispatch centers. ANSI/ESD 20.20 relates specifically to electronics manufacturing and handling environments and requires the use of ESD footwear in the qualification of ESD flooring. ESD footwear is never used in call centers and dispatch areas. In these applications, the mention of 20.20 is irrelevant and potentially misleading. Floors in these environments should reference either Motorola R56 or ATIS 0600321, both of which require floors to measure between 1.0 x 10⁶ and 1.0 X 10 ¹⁰. Many airport flight towers are also equipped with static-control floors. Like Motorola R56 and ATIS 0600321, FAA-STD-019f, Lightning and Surge Protection, Grounding, Bonding, and Shielding Requirements for Facilities and Electronic Equipment, prohibits the use of flooring measuring below 1.0 X 10⁶ due to concerns for the safety of people working near energized equipment.³

Unlike end-user spaces, there is no lower resistance limit for flooring used in an ANSI/ESD S20.20 ESD program. Conductive floors are an important element in an ANSI/ESD 20.20 program due to the need for worker mobility, rapid charge decay, prevention of tribocharging, effective grounding of mobile workstations, and the ability of personnel to handle highly sensitive products without the use of wrist straps. ANSI/ESD S20.20 states that the resistance measurements obtained through the use of ANSI test methods are not to be used to determine the relative safety of personnel exposed to high AC or DC voltages. Although most flooring manufacturers do not produce flooring measuring below 25,000 ohms it is imperative that the end-user understands that the burden of liability involving both safety compliance and product suitability of electrically grounded flooring rests on both the manufacturer’s and specifier’s shoulders.

It should not be implied that conductive flooring is unsafe when appropriately utilized in an ANSI/ESD S20.20 certified program. These programs require regular testing of both floor conductivity and footwear conductivity, these spaces are accessed only by trained personnel and conductive flooring should never be installed in areas where high potential testing or equipment is in operation. However, before any conductive floor is installed, buyers should understand that a conductive or static dissipative floor is a system that requires multiple installation materials, special footwear and specific steps during the qualification and verification processes. As further confirmation that flooring should not be viewed as a discreet component, we need to look no further than the newly proposed tile in the 2020 draft of test method ANSI/ESD STM 7.1., Flooring Systems – Resistive Characterization.

Test Methods Versus Performance Standards

Most ESD flooring specifications reference some type of resistance testing procedure, such as those found in ANSI/ESD STM7.1, ASTM F150, DOD 4145.26 or NFPA 99 (formerly NFPA pamphlet 56). Many buyers mistake these test methods as representing performance standards. Performance standards guide the specifier in determining what test results are acceptable. Test methods tell us how to determine if we have compliant products.

For example, FAA-STD-019f states that a floor must measure between 10⁶ and 10⁹ ohms. Motorola R56 states that the floor should measure between 10⁶ and 10¹⁰ ohms when tested per ANSI/ESD S7.1. ATIS 0600321 cites the same resistance requirements as Motorola R56. Although not an actual standard, IBM’s Physical Site Planning document states:

“For safety, the floor covering, and flooring system should provide a resistance of no less than 150 kilohms when measured between any two points on the floor space 1 m (3 ft.) apart. They require a test instrument similar to an AEMC-1000 megohmmeter for measuring floor conductivity.”⁴

Like the hand crank meggers and other instruments used to test insulation resistance, the AEMC-1000 does not offer a 10-volt output but it does allow testing up to 500 volts. Since IBM’s upper recommended resistance is 10¹⁰ and no test voltage is mentioned, one might believe that this test was intended to ensure a minimum amount of insulation resistance. By contrast, the ESD industry requires simply that conductive floors measure below 1.0 x 10⁶at 10 volts.

Again, resistance measurements alone should not be used to determine the safety of a particular floor. There are multiple reasons for this that are beyond the scope of this article. However, as an experiment, we solicited a third-party lab to apply both AC and DC voltages to various ESD floors and measure the resulting current at the floor-ground connection. The results of this testing are shown in Table 2.

Carpet Tiles with Black Backing – 2.5 x 10⁴ – 1.0 x 10⁸
AC Volts Volts ac	AC Amperes mili Amps ac
4	1
11.5	3
18	5
30.5	10
52.3	20
117	50
EC Rubber Tiles – 2.5 x 10⁴ – 1.0 x 10⁶
AC Volts Volts ac	AC Amperes mili Amps ac
31	0.1
40	0.4
66	2
80	4
93	5
120	7.6
Static Dissipative Carpet Tiles – 10⁶ – 10⁹
AC Volts Volts ac	AC Amperes mili Amps ac
5	<0.1
10	<0.1
25	<0.1
50	<0.1
100	<0.1
120	<0.1

Table 2: Results of testing applying AC and DC voltages to various floor types

As the chart illustrates, some conductive floors appear to enable significantly more electrical current than others. The amount of current is not accurately predicted mathematically by using electrical resistance measured with an ohm meter. In part this is due to the construction of conductive floors, whether they are comprised of composite layers, if they are fully conductive on the surface or constructed of the same material throughout the thickness of the material.

However, the experiment clearly illustrates what we already know: a floor with an inherent resistance over 1,000,000 ohms is less likely than a very conductive floor to enable a dangerous leakage current. This fact drives recommendations for using dissipative flooring in data centers, flight towers, dispatch operations, and areas where energized equipment is used. Whereas we need to control static generation and charge decay to an extremely low threshold in electronics manufacturing, we do not need the same level of performance in end-user spaces like data centers, etc. While the electronics in these end-user spaces can be damaged by electrostatic discharge, they’re less sensitive than components in manufacturing and handling facilities.

According to an ASHRAE white paper, the data center industry views 500 volts as an upper threshold compared with the 100 volt upper limit for meeting ANSI/ESD S20.20 in electronics manufacturing.

The Semantics Problem

The ESDA has produced a glossary of terms. Three newly proposed terms referencing flooring include flooring systems, conductive flooring systems, and dissipative flooring systems. But terms like dissipative and conductive are frequently misunderstood and misapplied. In some cases, the misapplication leads to problems in the field. In many cases, specifiers don’t know which electrical range is the correct one for their client’s specific industry. In other cases, specifications are copied from previous static-control projects even though the application may be entirely different.

For example, per DOD 4145-26-M, DOD explosives-handling applications require conductive floors as defined by resistance testing at 500 volts. Per ANSI/ESD STM 7.1, the same floor tested at 10 volts might actually measure in the very low part of the static-dissipative range. As previously noted, resistance is predicated by the applied voltage.

“To avoid any confusion and future liability due to misunderstandings about conductivity and test method, we recommend that explosives handling specifications always be cowritten by the end-user and the specifier.”

Let’s look at the definition of a dissipative flooring system. A static-dissipative flooring system, measured with a full combination of components, including surface material, adhesive, grounding mechanism, substrate and any other material in the system, is considered static dissipative as long as the system has a resistance greater than or equal to 1.0 x 10⁶ ohms and less than 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms.

This sounds like a comprehensive definition with no room for misunderstanding. However, if an installer laminated the highly conductive bronze tiles (mentioned in McKesson’s 1926 article) with a static-dissipative adhesive, it would appear in a typical ANSI/ESD STM 7.1 resistance to ground field test that the bronze floor was not conductive, but, in fact, static dissipative. How?

Because we would be grounding bronze through a series resistor network. The dissipative adhesive, not the bronze surface, would be the groundable point, and the adhesive would represent a false indication of the resistance to ground if the dissipative ground were bypassed due to an inadvertent connection to ground. Relying upon a less conductive surface as the groundable point below a more conductive surface is an imprudent concept for multiple reasons.

This may seem like a ridiculous example, except for the fact that many concrete on-grade substrates retain a high concentration of water due to the local water table. Water saturates adhesives, lowering the conductivity of the system, and changes the path to ground. This scenario occurs so often that flooring installers test concrete per ASTM 2170 for moisture, in part, to determine how vapor content and emissions in the substrate might negatively affect the adhesive.

What if this floor system were installed in a space where energized systems were resting on the floor while operating at 480 volts, three-phase. Obviously, any electro-mechanical system resting on the floor would become the groundable contact point and bypass the series resistor (dissipative adhesive) below the bronze tiles.

Figure 2: Large systems positioned on the surface of an ESD floor can inadvertently act as a surface ground connection.

Another misstatement is the claim that “Flooring meets or exceeds ANSI/ESD S20.20.” The first error is the failure to recognize that flooring is only one component of a system within a program that must comply with all aspects of a standard, which typically includes many items unrelated to the flooring itself. For example, ESD flooring, whether conductive or dissipative, is often mistaken as having only to ground people and prevent charge generation on people wearing ESD footwear.

This is not the case. Most users of ESD flooring rely on the floor to ground and prevent charges on people, carts, shelves, benches, and chairs. Due to surface hardness or spacing of conductive surface particles, a particular design conductive floor may do an excellent job of grounding and charge prevention on personnel but fail at grounding mobile carts and shelving. If a circuit board manufacturer expects the floor to provide a path to ground for workstations and carts and the floor fails in this task, it cannot be described as meeting S20.20, whether or not the root cause of failure is the drag chain on the cart, the contact area of the conductive casters, or the arrangement of conductive layers or conductive particles embedded into the flooring.

If we remove the question of which standards are better or more valid or more clear, we are left with the most important question: Why would one write a specification for a specific industry and fail to mention the standard for that industry? Now we are back to the beginning: semantics, incorrect standards cited for a specific industry, and a general lack of understanding about electricity and static-control flooring.

What happens when an industry or entity like the FAA publishes a frequently updated 500-page grounding standard and specifiers, installers or facilities managers neglect to follow the standard? This question may be one for the product liability attorneys, but over the course of several discussions, liability attorneys tell me that meeting standards is a “minimum expectation.” In the case of ESD flooring and electricity, this means privileging safety equal to or greater than potential performance enhancements from increased conductivity.

The bottom line? To be safe and to protect yourself or company from liability, be sure you know what the terms mean and follow the standards specific to the industry. If you’re not sure, do your homework, ask questions or enlist an expert to help.

Endnotes

“How Can We Eliminate Static From Operating Rooms to Avoid Accidents with Anaesthetics?,” E.I. McKesson, published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia, April 1926.
Available at https://academic.oup.com/bja/article/3/4/178/271645.
Note that proposed changes in ANSI/ESD STM7.1 would address the need to mitigate the hard line between the conductive and dissipative range.
According to FAA-STD-019f, “conductive ESD control materials shall not be used for ESD control work surfaces, tabletop mats, floor mats, flooring, or carpeting where the risk of personnel contact with energized electrical or electronic equipment exists.” FAA-STD-019f, Lightning and Surge Protection, Grounding, Bonding, and Shielding Requirements for Facilities and Electronic Equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, published October 18, 2017.
“Static electricity and floor resistance,” posting to the IBM Knowledge Center website, https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSWLYD/p7eek_staticelectricity_standard.html.

The post Why Resistance Requirements Differ by Industry and Why Standards Matter appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

Editor’s Note: The paper on which this article is based was originally presented at the 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Product Safety Engineering in San Jose, CA. It is reprinted here with the gracious permission of the IEEE. Copyright 2020 IEEE.

The ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation is essential to consumer product testing laboratories. According to the requirements of Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), consumer products shall be sent to third-party testing laboratories for testing before they can be put into the market. The certified third-party testing laboratories must already obtain the ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation in the specified test category [1]. The accreditation bodies require the ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratories to regularly join the proficiency testing (PT) scheme in appropriate testing areas.

The Hong Kong Accreditation Service (HKAS) provides ISO/IEC 17043 accreditation services to proficiency testing providers in Hong Kong [2]. Current proficiency testing providers are providing three different proficiency test areas: (1) calibration; (2) medical testing; and (3) chemical testing [3]. As the majority of testing and certification companies in Hong Kong are providing consumer product testing services, they can only join the proficiency testing organized by overseas services providers, such as LGC in UK, IQTC in China, ASTM in USA or IEC. In addition, the HKAS also irregularly organizes proficiency testing programmes to the accredited laboratories (e.g., acoustics testing carried out in 2015) [4]. However; they only invited the laboratories that are already accredited by HKAS to join the programme. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the competitive between HKAS accredited laboratories and other overseas laboratories.

In order to the fulfill the need of the industry, the Open University of Hong Kong (OUHK) is planning to develop a proficiency testing programme that is suitable for electrical and mechanical safety tests in Hong Kong. This article describes the development process of proficiency testing programme, frequency of testing, selection of test specimen and method of data analysis.

Purpose of Proficiency Testing

The ISO/IEC 17025 standard was developed to specify the general quality and technical requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratory. It specifies both the management and technical requirements. The management requirements require the laboratories to apply the proficiency testing and use the results to develop appropriate preventive actions. Meanwhile, top management shall review the result of interlaboratory comparisons or proficiency tests in the management review meeting.

In the technical requirements, on the other hand, the quality assurance system shall include: 1)the use of certified reference materials to valid the test; 2) participate the proficiency testing; 3) replicate tests or calibrations using the same or different methods; 4) retesting of retained samples; and 5) correlation results for difference characteristics of a specimen [5].

Some researchers described that proficiency testing is a good platform to supplement a laboratory’s internal quality control procedure and enables the comparability of measurement between laboratories. In other words, it can be considered as an external partial audit of laboratory quality management system [6].

International Standards for Proficiency Testing Programme

Several international standardization bodies have published guidelines and criteria for the development of proficiency testing programmes. ISO/IEC 17043 describes the general requirements for proficiency testing and is adopted by most of the accreditation bodies to offer accreditation services, such UKAS, NATA, A2LA, CNAS and HKAS. Table 1 shows other guidelines published by standardization bodies in describing essential criteria of a proficiency testing programme. Most of them are applicable to a specific product, such as fabric or water.

Standard Code	Standard Description
BS EN ISO/IEC 17043: 2010	Conformity assessment – General Requirements for proficiency testing
ASTM E1301-95	Standard Guide for Proficiency Testing by Interlaboratory Comparison
ASTM D6674-01	Standard Guide for Proficiency Test Program for Fabrics
ASTM E2027-17	Standard Practice for Conducting Proficiency Tests in Chemical Analysis of Metals, Ores, and Related Materials
BS ISO 13528: 2015	Statistical Methods for use in Proficiency Testing by Interlaboratory Comparison
PD 6644-1: 1999	Proficiency testing by Interlaboratory comparisons – Part 1: Development and Operation of Proficiency Testing Schemes
PD 6644-2: 1999	Proficiency testing by Interlaboratory comparisons – Part 2: Selection and use of Proficiency Testing Schemes by Laboratory Accreditation Bodies

Table 1: List of standards for developing the proficiency testing programme

The ASTM D6674 and ASTM E2027 are designed for chemical or fabric materials testing. The OUHK, on the other hand, addresses proficiency testing programmes for mechanical and electrical safety testing in accordance with ASTM E1301.

There are other PT programmes, such as medical testing, chemical or fabric testing, available in the market. They summarized the challenges of PT development, including: 1) selection of specimen; 2) homogeneity and stability validation of specimen; and 3) selection of statistical analysis method to test the differences between laboratories [8].

Development Process of Proficiency Testing Programme

The development of a proficiency testing programme includes several major steps: 1) develop a Quality Management System (QMS) and obtain the ISO/IEC 17025 laboratory accreditation; 2) develop the proficiency test scheme; 3) invite laboratories to join the trial run of proficiency testing scheme to valid the scheme; 4) modify the scheme; and 5) apply for the ISO/IEC 17043 proficiency testing provider accreditation.

Step 1: We will appoint a reference laboratory to conduct the preliminary measurement and find the assigned value for determining for interlaboratory differences. We will assign our own laboratory to be the reference laboratory and gain the ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation.

Step 2: All essential requirements of ISO/IEC 17043 must be met by the PT scheme. Table 2 shows the major essential requirements and explains how we proceed to meet the requirements.

Requirements	Standard Description
General requirements	Appoint well-experienced staffs to develop and maintain the PT scheme; Gain ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation to demonstrate the competence in the measurement of the properties being determined.
Personnel	Appoint qualified and well-experienced staffs to develop and maintain the PT scheme; Appoint expertise to form advisory group to provide the comments in order to continual improvement
Equipment, accommodation and environment	Make sure that all the facilities and equipment for the PT scheme are to be traceable and calibrated.
Design of PT schemes	The measurands shall be properly selected by consulting the advisory group and laboratories. The specimen shall be homogeneous or checked for stability. The assigned value shall be measured by the reference laboratories (either our own laboratory or subcontractors) Clear instruction shall be made to PT participants to pre-treat and operate the test specimen A laboratory ID will be randomly assigned to each PT participant. This ID will be used to represent the participant throughout the study to ensure the confidentiality of the participant’s identity.
Data analysis and evaluation of PT scheme results	A proper statistical analysis method shall be adopted to analyze the result provided by each PT participants.
Management requirement	The PT scheme provider shall design an appropriate quality management system (QMS) to meet the ISO QMS requirements.

Table 2: List of essential requirements of ISO/IEC 17043: 2010 [9]

The criteria of PT specimen homogeneity and stability shall be established and analyzed. ISO Guide 34, ISO Guide 35 and ISO 13528 can be referenced to develop the criteria. According to ISO/IEC 17043, it is acceptable to consider the effect of uncertainty if the specimens are not sufficiently homogeneous or stable. The ISO 13528:2015 Annex B suggested a four-step method to test for homogeneity. Table 3 shows the steps to test for homogeneity.

Step	Descriptions
1	Preparation and packaging of the samples
2	Random select at least ten samples per batch
3	Prepare two subsamples from each sample
4	Samples will be measured randomly under repeatability conditions. The samples will be considered to be sufficiently homogeneous if

Table 3: Method for testing homogeneity [10]

In one of our trial PT programmes, two measurands are selected to be measured, i.e., kinetic energy of projectile toys (Figure 1) and sound pressure level of sound-emitted products (Figure 2). We establish the procedure to test stability.

Figure 1: Projectile toy for proficiency testing

Figure 2: Sound emitting toy (rattles) for proficiency testing

All samples were brought from the same batch from the supplier such that they are considered to be homogeneous. Therefore any one of the samples is being representative to the batch and is sufficient for this analysis. In order to simulate the actual operations of PT items through the PT program, the reference laboratory will carry out the followings: 1) determine assigned value (KE) of the sample; 2) repeat operation of the sample as required for 20 times; 3) repeat operation of the sample as required for determining the travelling speed for 5 times; 4) determining the kinetic energy (KE) of the sample; and 5) apply the statistical method to determine the homogeneous.

The second trial of PT programme is on electrical safety testing. The measurement of creepage clearance is selected and sent the specimens to the interested laboratories. The creepage distance means the shortest distance along the surface of a solid insulating material between two conductive parts (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Measurement of creepage and clearance distance

IEC 60601, IEC 62115 or IEC 60335 specify the required values and the minimum creepage distance can avoid failure due to tracking. Failure in creepage distance may cause short circuit and fire hazard. It should be noted that larger clearances are required if the product is subjected to mechanical vibration. The degrees of pollution are other factor to affect the required creepage distance [11].

Although the measurement of creepage distance is critical to the safety of electrical products, the standards do not specify the resolution and accuracy of measurement instruments. Some laboratories are using the Vernier caliper and others may use measuring microscopes (Figure 4). ISO Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement (GUM) divides the uncertainty to Type A and B. Type A uncertainty can be evaluated by the statistical analysis of series of observations. Type B uncertainty can only be evaluated by means other than the statistical analysis of series of observations.

Figure 4: Measuring microscope

Some examples of sources of uncertainty that lead to Type B evaluations are: 1) reference instruments calibrated by laboratory; 2) physical constants used in the calculation of the reported value; 3) environmental effects that cannot be sampled; 4) possible configuration/geometry misalignment in the instrument; and 5) resolution of the instrument [12]. Due to different measurement instruments having different resolutions, the uncertainty of measurements may be different. The Programme aims to evaluate the competence of laboratories and the uncertainty of measurement due to the resolution effect of measurement instruments.

Evaluation of Proficiency Testing Results

The participated laboratories will submit the measurement results to the PT provider. Then the PT provider shall apply the pre-determined appropriate statistical method to analyze the difference between PT participants. The most common methods are z scores and En scores. The assumption of z scores are made with a hypothesized distribution of competent laboratories and not on any assumption about the distribution of the observed result. We can interpret the z scores by:

A result that gives |z| < 2.0 is considered to be acceptable;
A result that gives 2.0 < |z| < 3.0 is considered to be questionable;
A result that gives |z| > 3.0 is considered to be unacceptable.

En scores will be used if the PT participant’s ability having the result close to the assigned value within their claimed expanded uncertainty. The method is commonly used for PT in calibration.

For the PT programme used in this research, the z score method is found to be more suitable to evaluate the difference in the conducting the quantitative measurement, such as kinetic energy and creepage distance.

Conclusion

This article described the development process of a proficiency testing programme that is suitable for electrical and mechanical safety tests. The current HKAS accredited proficiency testing programme only covers chemical and medical tests and calibration. The new proficiency testing programme can fulfill the need of industry in order to meet the ISO/IEC 17025 requirements and help to industry to evaluate the differences between different laboratories or locations.

Acknowledgement

The work described in this paper was partially supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (UGC/IDS16/16).

References

Consumer Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008. Available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/cpsia.pdf. Accessed on January 9, 2018
HOKLAS 017: 2016 Technical Criteria for Accrediting Proficiency Testing Providers. Available at http://www.itc.gov.hk/en/quality/hkas/doc/hoklas/HOKLAS017-Abridged.pdf. Accessed on January 9, 2018
HOKLAS Index of Accredited Tests & Calibrations, Proficiency Testing Providers. Available at http://www.itc.gov.hk/en/quality/hkas/doc/common/directory/hoklas_p tp_en.pdf. Accessed on January 9, 2018
HKAS Proficiency Testing Programme, Report No. 105 “Toys Acoustics Test” (HTC/2016/01), August 2016
BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005, Incorporating Corrigendum No.1, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories
Juniper, Ian Robert. “Quality issues in proficiency testing.” Accreditation and quality assurance 4.8 (1999): P. 336-341.
CE mark. Available on https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ce-mark
Miller, W. Greg, et al. “Proficiency testing/external quality assessment: current challenges and future directions.” Clinical chemistry 57.12 (2011): 1670-1680.
BS EN ISO/IEC 17043:2010, Conformity assessment – General requirements for proficiency testing (ISO/CASCP 17043: 2010)
BS ISO 13528:2015, Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison
IEC 60601-1-11:2015, Medical electrical equipment – Part 1-11: General requirements for basic safety and essential performance – Collateral standard: Requirements for medical electrical equipment and medical electrical systems used in the home healthcare environment
BIPM, IEC, et al. “Evaluation of measurement data – guide for the expression of uncertainty in measurement. JCGM 100: 2008.” Citado en las (2008): 167

The post The Development of Proficiency Testing Programme for Electrical and Mechanical Safety Tests appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

Complying with ISO 17025 Edition 2017, Section 7

Software has assimilated itself into almost every aspect of our lives. It resides within our homes, vehicles, phones, workspaces and so on. We find it in our televisions, speakers, light switches and on and on and on. It is everywhere. Resistance to software’s assimilation is futile. It makes our lives easier.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the negative consequences of software-related incidents has drastically increased in past few years. One of the most recently publicized incidents of software “gone bad” is software’s contribution to the Boeing 737 Max malfunctions, which led to two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019. The Boeing 737 Max malfunction is a case where the software’s reported performance appears to have contributed directly to aircraft falling out of the sky. These and other incidents have not just gained the public’s attention. They have also served as a catalyst for changes within the industry, such as the use of quality management systems (QMS) to demonstrate that software does what it is designed to do.

But concerns about software performance pre-date the recent incidents. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a document nearly twenty years ago titled “The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Infrastructure for Software Testing.” According to Table ES-4 in the document, the economic impact in the U.S. economy at that time of an inadequate software testing infrastructure carried with it a cost of nearly $60 billion annually.

In fact, I found a number of companies that track the cost of software incidents and their economic impact. One such company is Tricentis, a software testing company (https://www.tricentis.com). In their most recently available “Software Fail Watch” report from 2018, the company estimates lost revenue related to software failures in 2017 at about $1.7 trillion, certainly not a trivial amount!

Relevance

Our increased awareness of unintended software issues and the consequences of bad software design has prompted efforts to clarify software validation requirements, such as those found in Section 7.11 of the 2017 edition of ISO 17025, Testing and Calibration Laboratories. However, in point of fact, the addition of Section 7. 11 to the standard does not represent a new requirement per se. There have always been requirements in ISO 17025 to validate test methods and procedures, as well as requirements to ensure that computer software meets testing requirements for accuracy, range, repeatability, etc. (Indeed, one would unable to validate anything without including the test software within the process validation!) The 2017 edition of ISO 17025 2017 simply increased the visibility of software validation requirements in the standard due to the growing problem related to poor software performance.

But all of this leads to a single question, that is, how do you know whether your test software is actually behaving the way you think it should. So the objective of this article is to aid the reader in better understanding how to develop evidence that test software is performing within its intended design.

Software Validation/Verification: Some Definitions

You prove your test software is performing within design parameters through the use of a validation/verification (V/V) process. A software V/V process is simply the gathering of data to build a reasonable body of evidence (confidence) that your test software is performing within expected parameters and documenting your results. This would typically include a manual calculation of the test software equations, recorded evidence that test parameters were set correctly, proven test cases, system checks, etc.

There is one caveat here. I’m making the assumption that your V/V process checks produced satisfactory results. If not, you’re responsible for documenting your process deficiencies, initiating corrective actions and following your established QMS procedures regarding noncompliance findings. The more robust your V/V process, the greater the degree of confidence you’ll have that your test software is behaving the way it should.

Software-based V/V processes can be as simple as a logbook recording a test case and its results, providing a source that you can reference during audits. The rigor of your V/V process could also be at the other end of the spectrum, in which you attempt to create every possible scenario and document the results. But, no matter how much you test your software, reaching 100% confidence is impractical, and may well be impossible to achieve.

My wife, Bobbi, is convinced there are people out there that will always find a way to break something. (Of course, she’s not referring to me!) It may be some folks just have a knack for finding errors, but where is the dividing line between too little and too much? That question is beyond the scope of this article, but is merely intended to show you where you can find the tools (sources) to create your own software V/V process. You get to decide where to draw the line.

Some V/V Process Resources

There is a host of material on the internet, commercial books and organizations that are readily available to help guide your V/V software validation process from concept through to final design. Much of the relevant material is outside the electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) field, but the sources really don’t matter that much since the V/V process is essentially the same.

If you’re thinking Deming Circle or Cycle Wheel, which championed the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” approach, you’re on the right path. However, I would add one more element to the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” approach. It would be “observe,” as in “Observe-Plan-Do-Check-Act” or OPDCA. You can find more information about the OPDCA model at Foresight University (http://www. foresightguide.com/
shewhart-and-deming).

If you’re comfortable checking out this and other resources and proceeding on your own, you can stop reading this article. But let me provide my own brief guide to the V/V process.

A Brief Guide to Applying V/V Processes

The first V/V process consideration is the type of software you use. Is it a commercially available off the shelf (COTS) product with limited or no ability to customize the test process, or is it modified off the shelf (MOTS) program in which the test process is more open for modification? (Two examples of MOTS products are National Instrument’s Labview and ETS-Lindgren’s TILE!.) Or is it custom-made software in which every aspect has been created to meet your exacting specifications? Your answer can directly affect the V/V process you want.

Evaluating COTS Software Using the Black Box V/V Method

We will start with the easiest approach. If you have COTS software, then I recommend using the “black box” V/V method. If performed correctly, this method allows you to use your test system’s standard checks that you are required to perform, and which will serve to validate both your hardware and setup system as well as your software processes. You generate known good inputs, measure with calibrated instruments, record your results, and then compare the recorded results with the expected standard requirements. And you apply the standard specified tolerances for frequency, amplitude, etc.

To illustrate, let’s use as an example MIL-STD-461G, radiated emissions RE102 greater than 30 MHz. First, you replace the receive antenna in the system setup with a calibrated signal source. The inputs are test conditions, test limits, transducer correction factors, receiver measured data over frequency and a known good signal from a calibrated source. RE102 requires the system check target amplitude to be the test limit minus six decibels (test limit – 6 dB). The actual calibrate signal source settings are a little different. The system check signal generator output target amplitude base equation is:

System Check Target Signal Generator Amplitude
= (Test Limit-6 dB)-Antenna Correction Factor

Your system variability (tolerance) is required to be within +/- 3 dB of the system check target. The test conditions are dependent on the frequency range you’re at, which is dependent on the antenna you are using. The base equation for the final or corrected level is:

Final (Corrected) Level
= Receiver Recorded Value + Antenna Correction Factor
+ Signal Path Insertion Loss – External Preamplifier gain (if required)

The amplitude results of the system check should be within +/- 3 dB from the system check target which, as I discussed earlier, is the test limit – 6dB. The antenna correction factor will effectively cancel since you will add the antenna correction back through your corrected (final) level equation, ideally using the same calculation that you used during the system check. It also applies to the ambient and equipment under test (EUT) frequency sweeps. This verifies not only the process but the test calculations and software control.

Unfortunately, we are not finished. We completed the system check’s target, frequency and amplitude V/V, but these did not cover test conditions. However, the test condition validation is much easier, and is simply the matter of recording the frequency sweep measurement test conditions versus the test standard. A simple photograph of the receiver during the sweep can be used to record start frequency, stop frequency, resolution bandwidth, frequency step size, frequency dwell, sweep time and the detector used. The photograph can be reviewed with the standard’s test conditions, and you have now completed a black box V/V process for MIL-STD-461G, RE102.

Evaluating MOTS Software Using the White Box V/V Method

The white box V/V method is best suited for MOTS and custom created software. Although you could use the black box V/V method with custom software, I don’t recommend it. Using the black box V/V method for MOTS and custom created software could save time if everything goes according to plan (green light schedule). And using the black box method for MOTS and custom software has the same disadvantages as the waterfall software design method. The feedback (test results) are delivered well down stream, and any necessary design modifications end up costing you more time and more money.

I highly recommend using a “check early and check often” philosophy for MOTS and custom software. The difference between the black box and white box methods is accessibility. With the black box method, you do not have control (access) of the inner workings of the software, but simply monitor the results of the operation and report your findings. With the white box methodology, you have access to virtually all aspects of the software, and can test the test software’s inner operation and verify its performance.

MOTS V/V requirements pertain to functions or routines you’ve created or modified. There will be a point at which you won’t be able to modify the software, since the software manufacturer is responsible for ensuring proper software operation and likely limits access to the software’s basic functions. Typically, this would include instrument drivers, basic EMC/EMI functions and maintenance actions.

You could use the black box V/V method for any of MOTS functions you cannot change. Changes you make to the software should be verified and validated prior to release, remembering always that validation and verification is simply creating evidence that the software is adhering to your process and the applicable standard. The basic differences between the black box and white box methods include the level at which you are testing and the functions/routines you modified or created. You control the lower level software functions and verify their performance. The software V/V is a process and given it’s a process.

Let me offer an example in which you create a limited selection routine within a MOTS software. You would open the routine, operate the function and verify the results. It takes no more effort. It sounds simple until you have a few hundred or more modifications to observe and validate. The complexity is within the sheer volume of the items you may need to verify.

You could take it one step further by creating different test cases where the user intentional enters incorrect information to see how the software responds. Good software should provide error handling routines and don’t forget that you have some of the same tools available to you that you do when applying the black box method. The standard required system checks are useful tools to prove that the software is doing what it is supposed to do.

Ideally, the person that created or modified the software should not be the individual tasked with validating it. You are best served by having someone with a different perspective to test the MOTS software, since the person that created or modified the software knows the software’s intricacies and their approach will likely result in a lower level of rigor in detecting errors. The goal is to “bullet proof” the product before it is released.

Evaluating Custom Software Using the White Box V/V Method

You can apply the same white box method to evaluate a V/V process described previously to custom created software. I recommend that development testing be part of your design process, and that you test and record routines as you build them. There are differences between software design development testing and software V/V. The biggest question is when within the custom software design process to apply the V/V method. The V/V process typically takes places after the custom software design freeze and before product release. Although the software should be tested as the design process moves forward, remember the “test early and test often” philosophy.

I must reiterate that testing within the design development is not part of the V/V process. It is part of maturing the product which is part of design process. The development test results should also be documented for future prosperity. It could be stored and used within the “lessons learned” database, which may help you meet other QMS standard requirements.

I recommend performing a risk analysis and creating a test case table for custom software based from the results of the risk analysis then V/V testing each test case. Seed the test cases with intentional errors as well as known good variables. Remember that the goal to

ensure the product is performing within expectations and that some people are geniuses when it comes to breaking things. Conduct the test cases and record the results while keeping in mind any noncompliance results require a failure analysis and corrective actions.

Conclusion

Software verification/validation importance has increased with the software infiltration into almost every aspect of our lives. QMS standards and processes are responding to the software intrusion with heightened scrutiny, and ISO-17025 2017 has devoted an entire section regarding software verification/validation. Further expanding the need to provide evidence the software is performing within its expected behavior. Meeting the software V/V process requirements is not extremely painful with the proper awareness. It is simply a matter of recording evidence the software is functioning within its design.

The post A Guide to EMC Test Software Validation appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

Assessing Hazards and Testing to Global Standards

Robotics is a rapidly growing field with applications in multiple industries and taking many shapes and forms in today’s world. Examples include collaborative robots (cobots), industrial mobile robots (IMRs), automatic guided vehicles (AGVs), automated mobile platforms (AMPs), smart mining, autonomous mobile storage for the retail industry, medical robots, and robotic personal assistants.

As these devices become more prevalent, it is important to understand the hazards and testing options for these innovative devices, as well as the various global standards and requirements with which manufacturers and developers will need to comply.

Hazards

There are several hazards that need to be assessed and addressed for robots and robotic devices. The main hazards to consider for robotics are:

Mechanical: Hazards originating from moving, overspeed, falling, sharp edges, etc., that are caused by the design and function of the system itself must be considered and assessed.
Electrical: The overall safety and performance of electrical components including insulation, thermal effect, and shock hazard within the device and its peripherals should be considered, particularly in regard to electrical safety standards.
Ergonomic: These are potential ergonomic concerns related to the design and comfort of the device or system.
Thermal: Products must be assessed for the potential to overheat, which could result in fire/explosion, burns, or other damage.
Acoustical/Noise: Operational issues resulting in unwanted or loud noises could arise as a product performs its intended task or function.
Vibration: Mechanical issues that lead to unwanted or excessive vibration during use. This, in turn, can produce noise and potential damage to the product.
Radiation: Electromagnetic emissions from the system and its components must fall within a range that is considered safe and acceptable.
Material/substance: Hazards related to the components within the robot, such as wiring, metals, liquid, etc. must be considered and assessed.
Environmental: Hazards associated with the specific environment related to the machine’s intended use. For example, in a healthcare environment, potential interference hazards associated with other medical devices and their critical functions.

In addition to individual hazards, it is common to see combinations of hazards, such as vibration and noise (vibration issues will create concerns around noise), electrical and thermal (poor electrical quality leading to overheating), or chemical and radiation. It is important to keep these potential combinations in mind when developing products, so you can mitigate risk in the product design and test appropriately when assessing the device.

Testing Options

To assess the hazards associated with robotics, there are several testing areas that may apply. Depending on the hazard(s), you will need to consider:

Hazardous locations assessments: Products used in hazardous locations or explosive atmospheres must be assessed to specific, stringent requirements in place for these environments.
Functional safety evaluation: To ensure a device’s fail‑safe mechanisms are operating correctly and risks are reduced to as low as reasonably predictable, these assessments are vital to qualify or quantify the safety integrity level of safety functions.
Process evaluations: This may include things like risk management, programmable electrical medical systems, and usability. Process assessments will depend on the individual products, their intended use, and potential environments.
Mechanical safety testing: These are evaluations that assess machinery and mechanics for performance and safety. These tests should assess potential risks and may also identify some that must be prevented and/or corrected.
Electrical safety testing: These assessments will help to ensure safe operating standards in relation to the product’s use of electricity. They also illustrate compliance with electrical safety standards required in a given market.
Performance testing: Assesses attachments like manipulators, visual detection, and acoustical devices for overall performance and endurance to ensure consistency with use.
Environmental testing: Assessing hazards related to the intended environment to ensure product performance and safety is important. Products used outdoors, for example, will need to be evaluated for components like weather and climate concerns. Products used in industrial settings will need higher endurance factors than those used in homes.
Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) & electromagnetic interference (EMI): These tests help to ensure a product continues to function when in use around other devices emitting electromagnetic energy, as well as making sure that a device does not interfere with the operations and function of other nearby products. As more products in use emit EMI, these assessments are increasingly important.
Wireless and cybersecurity testing: Ensure wireless products meet requirements for connectivity, function and data protection. As the world becomes more connected, it is more important than ever to ensure the security of any product.

Global Standards

In addition to understanding potential hazards and testing options, it is critical to know the standards for robots applicable in the region or market in which a device will be marketed or sold. Often these standards address all or some of the hazards identified and outline testing requirements as well. What is required does vary by market, however, so it’s important to know which standards apply to a given project.

A global standard, ISO 10218‑1: Robots and robotic devices, addresses the safety requirements for industrial robots, systems and integration. This ISO standard has been harmonized and adopted by many countries and regions; however, there are other standards that may apply to robotics in a given area.

European Union

Robots in the European Union (EU) are regulated based on their application. Industrial robots fall into the scope of the Machinery and EMC Directives. Manufacturers should follow existing EN and ISO standards on robotic devices. Several of these standards are harmonized under the Machinery Directive, and include the following:

EN 12100: Safety of machinery – General principles for design – Risk assessment and risk reduction
ISO 13849‑1: Safety of machinery – Safety related parts of control systems Part 1: General principles for design
EN ISO 10218‑1: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots
EN ISO 10218‑2: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots; robot systems and integration
EN ISO 13482: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for personal care robots
ISO/TS 15066: Robots and robotic devices – Collaborative robots
EN 61000‑6‑2: Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) Part 6‑2: Generic standards – Immunity standard for industrial environments
EN 61000‑6‑4: Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) Part 6‑4: Generic standards – Emission standard for industrial environments
ISO 9283:1998: Manipulating industrial robots – Performance criteria and related test methods
ISO 13850: Safety of machinery – Emergency stop – Principles for design
IEC 60204‑1: Safety of machinery – Electrical equipment of machines – Part 1: General requirements
IEC 62061:2005: Safety of machinery – Functional safety of safety‑related electrical, electronic and programmable electronic control systems
EN 1525: Safety of industrial trucks. Driverless trucks and their systems
EN1526: Safety of industrial trucks. Additional requirements for automated functions on trucks
ISO 3691‑4: Driverless industrial trucks and their systems

In the EU, medical robots must adhere to IEC 60601‑1 ED3+AMD1. This general standard must be applied in conjunction with new standards in development, such as:

IEC 80601‑2‑77: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of robotically assisted surgical equipment
IEC 80601‑2‑78: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of medical robots for rehabilitation, assessment, compensation or alleviation

For robots used in hazardous locations or potentially explosive environments, the ATEX Directive, 2014/34/EU must be considered. If the safety of machinery is governed by safety distance, then EN 13857 applies. Other machinery standards may also be applicable. Finally, some robots will need to comply with the EU’s Radio Equipment Directive (RED), 2014/53/EU, which establishes safety and EMC requirements for equipment using the radio spectrum.

North America

A series of standards have been developed for the North American market which, together with existing international standards, ensure a high degree of safety evaluation.

ANSI/RIA R15.06: American national standard for industrial robots and robot systems safety requirements (originated from ISO 10218 series)
ANSI/RIA R15.08: Mobile Robot Safety (in development)
ANSI/UL 1740: Standard for robots and robotic equipment
CAN/CSA Z434: Industrial robots and robot systems (originated from ISO 10218 series)
ISO 10218‑1: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots
ISO 10218‑2: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots; robot systems and integration
ISO 13849‑1: Safety of machinery – Safety related parts of control systems Part 1: General principles for design
ISO 13482: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for personal care robots
IEC 61508‑1: Functional safety of electrical/ electronic/ programmable electronic safety‑related systems; Part 1: General requirements
IEC 61508‑2: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety‑related systems. Part 2: Requirements for electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety‑related systems
IEC 61508‑3: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety‑related systems. Part 3: Requirements for software.
IEC 62061: Safety of machinery – Functional safety of safety‑related electrical, electronic and programmable electronic control systems
UL 3100: Outline of Investigation for Automated Mobile Platforms (AMPs)

Asia

In Asia, many countries have standards for robots that are harmonized with ISO 10218‑1. There are also some standards to address risk management, in addition to standards for general electrical safety. Here are some examples of Asian robotics standards:

China

GB 11291: Robots and robotic devices. Safety requirements for industrial robots
GB 11291.2‑2013: Robots and robotic devices. Safety requirements for industrial robots. Part 2: Robot systems and integration
GB/T 15706‑2012: Safety of machinery. General principles for design. Risk assessment and risk reduction

Japan

JIS B9700:2013: Safety of Machinery – General Principles for Design – Risk assessment and risk reduction
JIS 8433‑1: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots Part 1
JIS TS B0033: Robots and robotic devices – Collaborative robots

South Korea

KS B ISO 10218‑1: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots
KS B ISO 10218‑2: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots – Part 2: Robot systems and integration

Taiwan

CNS 14490‑1 B8013‑1: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots – Part 1: Robots and robotic devices
CNS 14490‑2 B8013‑2 Robots and Robotics – Safety Requirements for Industrial Robots – Part 2: Robot Systems and Whole Combined

Singapore

SS ISO 10218‑1:2016: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots
SS ISO 10218‑2:2016: Robots and robotic devices – Safety requirements for industrial robots – Part 2: Robot systems and integration

Best Practices

As the use and prevalence of robots continues to evolve, manufacturers and developers can prepare their products for various markets in several ways. First, it is important to know the standards and requirements for the market you are looking to enter. Along these lines, stay informed on updates and changes in each market, which are inevitable in a rapidly changing field. Additionally, keep up‑to‑date on changes in technology and its applications, as they may impact standards and requirements.

Identify any overlaps in the testing and assessment requirements of the market(s) you wish to enter. This may help streamline your approach, which, in turn, can get products to market more quickly and at a reduced cost.

Work with a trusted and knowledgeable partner who knows the standards and the best ways to illustrate compliance. Such a partner can help to build a comprehensive test plan to get products to market, one that includes assessments for quality and safety to help ensure a product’s success.

Robots and robotics offer many possibilities to so many different industries, and many manufacturers wish to explore the opportunities with these products. Knowledge of the standards and requirements can not only ensure a safer, better performing product, it can allow you to get your products to market quickly and efficiently.

The post Robots and Robotics appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

Why standards-based conformity assessment is critical and how companies can get involved

Innovative new technologies typically come from individual companies rather than from standards bodies. Even so, standards play a critical role in making those brand-new technologies something that enterprises and other end-users feel comfortable buying. Put simply, standards enable new technologies to go mainstream and allow customers to choose best-of-breed solutions from multiple vendors.

Vendors often start selling a new technology years before relevant standards are published. They know that consumers and businesses want the latest and greatest technologies, so they frequently ship pre-standard versions to meet that demand. If they don’t, they could be at a competitive disadvantage.

This practice raises a host of questions – some philosophical, some practical – about the role that standards play for vendors, their customers, and the challenges they face when trying to get the latest technology implemented to gain competitive advantage. Some of these questions include:

Should early adopters delay the launch of pre-standard products or accept the associated risk? Analysts often advise enterprises to wait until a standard has been ratified.
Vendors typically layer on additional, proprietary features to help differentiate their products. However, if these features are not based on an approved standard, there is a possibility that the features may not be interoperable with systems built on the approved standard.
Standards can be interpreted in different ways. Vendors need documentation of what requirements must be met to claim conformance so that differences in interpretations are minimized. So how much can enterprises and other end-users rely on standards for enabling multi-vendor environments?

Vendors have a vested interest in helping the industry as a whole address these challenges. For example, some enterprises might be reluctant to buy new gear –
pre-standard or not – because they don’t want the expense of resolving interoperability issues. That means lost or delayed revenue for vendors.

Some enterprises are willing to buy pre-standard solutions, but only on the condition that their vendors provide warranties and other assurances that they will bear responsibility for resolving any interoperability issues. Vendors also have costs associated with helping customers resolve interoperability issues, such as staffing up to field those inquiries, investigating them, and offering solutions. Those support costs may significantly increase.

Testing for the Common Good

Now for some good news. The same organization behind most major technology standards – the IEEE – also provides multiple opportunities for vendors to overcome these challenges. In the process, vendors also can play a key role in ensuring that standards anticipate their needs and the needs of their customers. That involvement keeps standards ahead of the curve, not behind it.

To understand how to consider the example of synchrophasors. They’re a key part of the power grid and provide utility operators with time-synchronized data about the current, voltage, and frequency at each location.¹ That information helps operators avoid blackouts and brownouts by pinpointing where to upgrade infrastructure to maximize capacity and reliability. In fact, synchrophasors are so important for smart grids that the U.S. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 helped fund more than 1000 of them, worth over $328 million.

Synchrophasors also provide a cautionary tale that highlights the importance of independent technology certification—not only for utilities but for just about every other industry, too. In 2014, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tested a variety of phasor measurement units (PMUs)² using the IEEE C37.118.1-2011 Standard for Synchrophasors for Power Systems³ and found that 80 percent of the units tested weren’t compliant. Many of the vendors whose PMUs failed subsequently made changes, resubmitted them, and then passed.

The moral of this story is that vendors—in any industry—can avoid the time, expense, and negative PR of re-engineering their products by participating in independent certification before bringing them to market. This also helps them avoid developing a reputation for recalling products due to non-compliance, as well as the expense of reimbursing customers whose operations are disrupted.

It’s important to note that a standard outlining requirements for a new technology may not address all aspects of implementation for that technology. Some of those aspects aren’t immediately obvious to vendors and end-users. Hence, the importance of testing and certification, which can help identify those shortcomings, misunderstandings, and other gaps, thus contributing to improvements in the standard’s quality and value. In the process, testing/certification can accelerate the adoption of new technologies by helping to validate interoperability. In the case of the synchrophasor testing performed by NIST, for example, the lessons learned from the testing subsequently led IEEE SA to publish a revision in 2014 to address some ambiguities in the standard and to adjust some performance limits.

How IEEE Conformity Assessment Programs Work

Numerous vendors, consultants, and other companies worldwide participate in IEEE Conformity Assessment Programs (ICAP),⁴ which use a steering committee format to holistically develop conformity assessment programs around specific standards. ICAP helps IEEE working groups navigate through the conformity assessment ecosystem, which may encompass conformance testing, commissioning, interoperability, inspection, and laboratory recognition, as well as the development of test suite specifications or plans.

ICAP partners with expert test labs around the world to provide the right level of testing and field evaluation support. One example is the University of New Hampshire InterOperability Lab (UNH-IOL),⁵ whose capabilities include testing to the IEEE 1588^TM Precision Time Protocol for Power Applications. Consumers Energy Laboratory Services⁶ became the first lab recognized by ICAP to perform testing of the phasor measurement units based on the IEEE C37.118 standard. ICAP worked collaboratively with NIST and other key players to ensure the right test tools and methodologies were utilized in the testing process.

Figure 1 illustrates how the conformity assessment process works, using synchrophasor PMUs as an example.

Figure 1: How the conformity assessment process works

ICAP provides the marketplace with several benefits:

Manufacturers get a proven method of demonstrating compliance with requirements.
A trustworthy public registry of certified products gives enterprises and other end-users a convenient, credible way to verify which products have successfully completed conformity testing and certification, including addressing software/firmware modifications and product changes.
As an independent resource, ICAP empowers end-users to reduce risk by making more informed purchasing decisions. For example, the IEEE certification mark gives them peace of mind that their new products will be more likely to interoperate with other certified products.
New technologies establish themselves in the market with stable and robust products. This also helps the market grow quickly because customers don’t postpone purchases for fear of being de facto beta testers.
Manufacturers, systems integrators, and the rest of a technology’s ecosystem have a shared resource for testing and certification. That cooperation significantly reduces their individual costs and upkeep compared to doing testing entirely on their own.

ICAP Portfolio Spans Multiple Industries

In addition to synchrophasors, the ICAP portfolio⁷ spans a wide variety of verticals and technologies, including drones/UAVs, time-sensitive networking for industrial automation, cybersecurity, blockchain, federated learning, autonomous vehicles, medical devices, sensors, and the Internet of Things:

Smartphone Cameras

IEEE 1858^TM⁸ provides image-quality standards for mobile camera videos and images, including those used in smartphones. Participants such as mobile operators, operating system vendors, handset manufacturers, chipset vendors, software providers, and test labs use these standards to enable “apples-to-apples” comparisons between different products. This overcomes the challenges that occur when everyone uses their own methodology for spatial frequency response, chroma level, color uniformity, texture blur, and other key metrics.

Electric Vehicles

Over 3.7 million electric vehicles (EVs) were sold worldwide over the past two years. That’s an impressive number, considering that consumers and businesses are concerned about running out of power before they can get to a charging station, how long charging takes, and whether a public charging station will be compatible with their EV model. Meanwhile, electric utilities are concerned about the grid’s ability to support the exponential increase in EVs each year.

To help the EV ecosystem address these and other market-limiting concerns, the IEEE 2030.1.1^TM DC Quick Charging Test Suite Specification provides a wide variety of test cases, which each participating lab uses to ensure that its methodology is consistent. For example, one test case checks whether a charger meets the standard’s voltage resistance properties. Another assesses whether a charging panel designed for indoor use has a minimum rating of IP 41, which protects against water intrusion.

IEEE is currently revising the IEEE 2030.1.1 standard to include bi-directional charging and ultra-rapid charging up to 400 kW. The existing certification program will also be updated to ensure testability and certification of those chargers. These super-fast chargers are key for addressing EV buyers’ concerns about being able to charge quickly. Fast charging also enables each station to support more EVs because they’re in and out in less time.

Precision Timing for Energy Infrastructure

Electrical utilities and other members of the energy industry rely on the IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol (PTP) standard to ensure that their infrastructure is tightly synchronized down to the sub-microsecond range. ICAP worked with NIST and other industry stakeholders to create a test suite specification (TSS) that provides a common approach to verifying a clock’s performance with the requirements of IEEE 1588.

The IEEE 1588 Power Profile Certification program was critical for addressing challenges that many utilities encountered. For example, one said, “We crudely simulated a time spoofing incident and found devices did not follow the time when step changes were introduced.” According to another, “We’ve seen devices update the timestamp/correction-field in the incorrect location.”

Figure 2 summarizes the key benefits that ICAP provides for vendors and end-users.

Figure 2: How ICAP benefits vendors and end-users

How to Get Involved

Beyond conformity assessment activities, there is a benefit for vendors, end-users, and others in participating in IEEE working groups so they can be involved in the standards-development process. This is an opportunity to influence new standards and get a valuable insider’s perspective into the future. IEEE working groups also provide a convenient, invaluable opportunity to network with other industry leaders. Even if a vendor or end-user doesn’t have the time or the resources to participate in working groups, another option is to share their expertise about what an ICAP program should assess for new standards. Some vendors, end-users, test laboratories, and others choose to participate in both working groups and ICAP programs.

The IEEE recently initiated the development of a credentialing program for the IEEE 1547 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems, which is key for supporting and enabling the rapidly growing use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and energy storage. In fact, some states have adopted it as a standard in their statewide interconnection regulations.

When launched, the new credentialing program is expected to address the impending need for a trained and knowledgeable workforce, who may be part of engineering and consulting firms, electrical contractors, and other implementers of IEEE 1547. The expectation is that this new program will help expand the use of renewable energy worldwide.

Conclusion

Vendors and everyone else in a particular ecosystem – whether it’s wireless technology, drones, or EVs – benefits when conformity-assessment work is done in parallel with standards development because both can be available simultaneously. Otherwise, implementation of a new technology could be delayed until after the conformity-assessment work is done. That delay doesn’t benefit vendors that are eager to provide customers with cutting-edge technology solutions.

But by working together, vendors can implement their new, standards-based technologies successfully. That’s a future we all can look forward to.

Endnotes

P. Hoffman, “How Synchrophasors are Bringing the Grid into the 21st Century,” April 16, 2014, https://www.energy.gov/articles/how-synchrophasors-are-bringing-grid-21st-century
A. Goldstein, “2014 NIST Assessment of Phasor Measurement Unit Performance,” February 2016, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2016/NIST.IR.8106.pdf
IEEE Standard for Synchrophasor Measurements for Power Systems, C37.118.1-2011, December 28, 2011, https://standards.ieee.org/standard/C37_118-2005.html
https://standards.ieee.org/products-services/icap/index.html
https://www.iol.unh.edu
https://www.consumersenergy.com/business/products-and-services/lab-services
https://standards.ieee.org/products-services/icap/index.html
IEEE Standard for Camera Phone Image Quality, 1858-2016, May 5, 2017, https://standards.ieee.org/standard/1858-2016.html

The post Standards Play A Key Role In Enabling Innovation appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

Over the last 10-15 years, supply chain management has increasingly entailed addressing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues alongside the likes of quality, cost, service, and delivery. This has been experienced in the electronics industry, but equally the likes of the textiles and apparel, jewelry, automotive, and aerospace and defense sectors. Corporate practices have changed in light of campaigning by political activists and non-governmental organizations, as has legislation and/or government-backed voluntary initiatives.

For those involved in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of electrical and electronic equipment, understanding “conflict minerals” – metals and minerals derived under duress and traded to keep armed groups funded – is likely best cast in terms of the wider identification, assessment, and management of ESG risks in supply chains (other risks might include, for example, child and forced labor, corruption and bribery, environmental pollution, etc.). While existing legislation may not apply to your business today, it might tomorrow.

Moreover, customers may have their own expectations and pressures can come from other actors like campaign groups and investors. This is emphasized early on in this article, specifically as the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation does not presently apply to electrical equipment manufacturers although they are a target of an EU effort to encourage voluntary disclosure on conflict mineral uses (on which, more below).

Background

Human history is littered with conflicts arising from natural resource access, so in one sense the concept of a “conflict resource” or “conflict mineral” is nothing new. However, at any given time, some natural resources will likely prove more valuable than others. Over the last 30 years or so, demand for tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold (the so-called “3TG” and what are presently considered “conflict minerals”) has made controlling their extraction and processing lucrative. Table 1 lists 3TG uses in a variety of products, electrical and electronic equipment included.

Tin	Used in alloys, tin plating, and solders for electronic circuits. Used in car parts ranging from engine components through to gears, pumps, joints, and windshields. Used as solder in buttons, zippers, and other fasteners as well as in jewelry. Composite material in rivets and eyes.
Tantalum	Used mainly to produce tantalum capacitors, particularly for applications requiring high performance, small format and high reliability, such as hearing aids, pacemakers, global positioning systems (GPS), laptops, mobile phones, and games consoles.
Tungsten	Used in metal wires, electrodes, contacts in lighting, and electronic, electrical and heating applications. Tools may incorporate tungsten, often when alloyed with steel.
Gold	Present in some chemical compounds used in semiconductor and manufacturing processes. Used as plating to produce the shine on zippers, fasteners, and other metal components. Composite metal in or on jewelry and watches.

Table 1: 3TG uses

In turn, control of these resources and trade in them can become a political flashpoint, and something fought over in civil wars. This was the case in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (D.R.C.) in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the First and Second Congo Wars entailed both the Congolese national army and rebel groups seeking control over 3TG mining, which encompasses many artisanal and small-scale mines.

Conditions in such mines are tough. Miners are known to work up to 48 hours at a time and risk life and limb in an environment of mudslides and tunnel collapses. As well as the human cost associated with this type of mining, the wars in the D.R.C. region have caused the deaths of more than five million people, many due to disease and starvation. Although progress has been made towards a lasting peace since the wars ended, armed groups retain control over some mines, and the trade in conflict minerals persists.

U.S. and EU Regulatory Responses

The last decade has been marked by governments, specifically in the developed world, increasingly recognizing and highlighting concerns to industry over the use of conflict minerals in the manufacture of products. This has led to legislation, with the earliest adopter being the U.S. with the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. Section 1502 of this particular law sets requirements for companies whose products incorporate 3TGs derived from the D.R.C. and neighboring countries.

Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act were implemented through inclusion within the general rules and regulations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, specifically Section 240.13p-1. This requires “issuers” –
major stock market-listed companies required to make regular Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings – to report on efforts to eliminate conflict-implicated 3TGs from supply chains if they are used in their products. Companies covered by Section 240.13p-1 must take the following steps:

Determine applicability;
Conduct country of origin inquiry;
Establish a due diligence process;
Determine status; and
File a report.

The Dodd-Frank Act does not prescribe a due diligence process, but the Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas,¹ published by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), is cited as a suitable reference. At the core of the OECD’s Due Diligence Guidance is a five-step framework, as summarized in Table 2.

	Step	Practice
1	Establish strong management systems	Adopt and commit to a supply chain policy for conflict minerals. Establish a system that allows the identification of the smelters in the company’s mineral supply chain. Maintain records (preferably electronic) for at least five years. Incorporate policies and traceability into supplier agreements and contracts. Establish mechanisms for grievances and whistle-blowers.
2	Identify and assess risks	Identify smelters/refiners in supply chain. Assess due diligence practice of smelters.
3	Respond to risks	Report findings to senior management. Exercise leverage over suppliers that can work most effectively to mitigate risks further back in the chain. Monitor, track, adapt, and adjust risk mitigation efforts.
4	Audit	Carry out an independent third-party audit of smelter’s/refiner’s due diligence program.
5	Publicly report	Report – preferably in annual sustainability or corporate social responsibility reports – on the due diligence program, such as: the company policy, responsible management, steps taken to identify and assess smelters/refiners.

Table 2: The five-step framework of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance

In 2017, the EU adopted its own law concerning conflict minerals, Regulation (EU) 2017/821.

Regulation (EU) 2017/821 applies to EU-based importers of 3T ores and concentrates as well as gold above certain defined thresholds, as are detailed in the Regulation’s Annex I. For in-scope importers, obligations span establishing suitable management systems, assessing and managing relevant supply chain risks, conducting third party audits, and information disclosure.

It is worth highlighting that the EU law is quite different from the Dodd-Frank Act, with the following summarizing specific points of difference:

The EU Regulation does not impose any obligations upon “downstream users” of 3TGs, i.e., manufacturers of components or finished products, unless they also happen to be importing 3TGs into the EU. By comparison, U.S. legislation does apply in the downstream, with publicly listed companies that manufacture or contract to manufacture products that contain 3TG falling within the scope of the legislation.
Unlike Dodd-Frank, the EU Regulation exempts small volume importers of 3TG. No such exemption exists under the U.S. legislation.
The EU Regulation is more specific in defining what 3TG ores, concentrates and metals come within its scope. The Regulation’s Annex I gives a lot of detail, including combined nomenclature codes.
Geographically, the EU Regulation is non-specific. Rather, the law concerns itself with 3TG sourced from conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRAs) that might exist in the world. The U.S. legislation is specific though, applying only to conflict minerals sourced from the D.R.C. and its nine neighboring states.

As such, electrical equipment manufacturers are not directly affected by the EU Regulation in the way that they otherwise might fall within the scope of the Dodd-Frank Act if publicly listed in the U.S. (e.g., as the likes of many of the largest consumer electronics companies are). However, this is not to say that EU policy-makers had not given thought to the EU Regulation applying to downstream users of 3TGs, including businesses in the electronics sector. They had, and for those interested in the discussions that took place and what compromise was reached before the Regulation was adopted, a partial record exists within minutes of the European Commission’s “Member State Expert Group on responsible sourcing of tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold” that are available online.²

Minutes from the 9 March 2018 meeting of this Group reveals that the compromise which saw Regulation (EU) 2017/821 “based on only importers of metals and minerals being covered by the legal requirements of the Regulation” entailed an expectation that “a series of measures also should be taken to retain the focus on and validity of efforts taken by downstream companies.” What, then, of these measures?

The EU’s “Transparency Platform for Downstream Companies”

At the time of writing, the measure of most prominence and greatest significance for manufacturers, importers and distributors of components and finished products (including but not limited to items of electrical and electronic equipment) is the proposed transparency platform. Detail related to this can be found within minutes of the above-mentioned Member State Expert Group, but the author was fortunate enough to get an insight from a European Commission policy officer first-hand when she presented on conflict minerals at the RINA Electrical and Electronic Equipment and the Environment Conference in November 2019. This presentation revealed that the platform is to take the name of “ReMIS”, the Responsible Minerals Information System.

ReMIS: What We Know So Far

The European Commission describes³ it as an “information system that aims to support downstream companies, in particular, to share and publish – on a voluntary basis – information regarding their due diligence practices and exchange best practices in this regard.” The European Commission has also outlined how the system will likely work, with company-submitted registration information initially being reviewed and “validated” by the Competent Authority appointed under Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the EU Member State in which the company is legally based.

To register, business information including name and address, supply chain position (upstream/downstream), industry sector(s) in which the business is active, metals and minerals handled, and a summary account of due diligence practice appears to be anticipated. It would then seem that any more detailed information a company wished to share for online publication on ReMIS would be reviewed by a designated European Commission service desk. What this review would entail is, however, currently unclear.

A prototype version of ReMIS has been tested, with at least some industry stakeholders involved in this testing. This is reported upon in the 5 June 2019 minutes of the responsible sourcing Member State Expert Group, which notes that “the Commission received positive feedback on the usability and functionalities of the system.” However, it seems that safeguarding personal data is a concern, as is managing both European Commission and Member State Competent Authority compliance with requirements under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Concerning this, the Commission has prepared an initial draft of a GDPR-required “joint controllership agreement,” but it is not known whether this has been accepted at the time of writing.

Implications for Electrical Equipment Manufacturers

It is likely that, in the years ahead, the European Commission’s ReMIS platform will result in various businesses that use 3TGs in their components and products publicly reporting upon this as well as the efforts they are taking to assure themselves that 3TGs are responsibly sourced. Demand for information may come from the investment community, particularly to help the community become better informed – and so able to assess – ESG risks within business supply chains.

How, then, to prepare for this?

Many large, consumer-facing electronics companies whose products incorporate 3TGs have already taken significant strides in their management practices. Among them are Apple, Dell, HP Inc., and Intel. The way these companies have responded provides insight into how to manage and report upon conflict mineral uses in electronics supply chains.

There is overlap in practice, which includes policy- and goal-setting, surveying suppliers, determining smelters in use, comparing smelters with those on approved lists (e.g., as published by the U.S.-based Responsible Minerals Initiative, “RMI”⁴), arranging smelter audits, and running awareness-raising training events. It is worth explaining the emphasis placed upon smelters here, this is simply because they are perceived to constitute the “pinch point” in minerals supply chains (see Figure 1⁵).

Figure 1: Actors in a minerals supply chain

For practitioners, the following steps are advisable:

Understand and scale the challenge facing your company. This is likely to include determining possible 3TG uses in products, then determining which suppliers you are going to engage with and how you are going to do this (e.g., by working up your own survey or making use of, say, the RMI Conflict Minerals Reporting Template⁶).
Frame the company response, either with a new program of work or by expanding existing ones (e.g., programs for managing substance restrictions found in, for example, the EU RoHS Directive and/or EU REACH Regulation). Initially, this will be a top-level exercise anticipated to entail achieving senior management buy-in, securing a budget, documenting key policies and procedures, and determining roles and responsibilities for the likes of contacting suppliers and the collection, collation, and analysis of data. Cross-functional work is expected, so even if the program is owned and led by an Environmental or Corporate Responsibility Manager, the support of personnel from, for example, Procurement, Finance, and IT, should be considered, approved, and documented early on.
Consider the optimal IT solution. This will depend on how many products and suppliers you are dealing with. If a large number, this will result in a lot of data, making a more automated (and sophisticated) solution desirable.
Document as you go, including scoping decisions and other such judgements. This is good practice with regards due diligence, constituting a record of key decision-making and reasoning deployed.
Phase the program in, monitoring as you proceed. This provides scope for identifying problems and making corrections for better implementation overall.

Fostering a perspective that goes “beyond compliance” will be beneficial. To see conflict minerals as something to be complied with is to miss potential opportunities like reducing supply-side ESG risk and enhancing relationships with preferred suppliers and customers. It is something the investment world is also likely to use to assess company performance in the future, so getting ahead with respect to practice and disclosure may offer a competitive advantage.

Endnotes

http://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/mining.htm
Accessible through the “Meetings” tab on the webpage of https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3256
Information comes from the presentation “The EU Regulation on responsible sourcing of minerals (“Conflict Minerals”): progress on implementation” given by Zora Mincheva, DG TRADE Policy Officer, to the RINA EEE & the Environment Conference on 14 November 2019.
http://www.responsiblemineralsinitiative.org/smelters-refiners-lists
Adapted from ChainLink Research, “Turning conflict minerals law compliance into a competitive advantage,” September 2013.
https://www.conflict-minerals.com/solution/cmrt-512

The post The EU Conflict Minerals Regulation appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

Understanding the Tools and Methods Used to Develop Functionally Safe Power Systems for ADAS Applications

Over the last decade, automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) like Ford, GM, and Tesla have been at the forefront of mobility and advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), jockeying for a leadership position in this hotly contested, quickly developing field. As these systems advance, with them comes an increase in the number of semiconductor components in the vehicle to support devices like cameras, radars, and modules used to make decisions based on their information.

This has provided an opportunity for semiconductor manufacturers to increase their market share, allowing them to pivot from their traditional base microcontroller (MCU) offerings to highly integrated system on chip (SoC) processors, memory, and power devices. However, as the industry evolves, the question remains for both consumers and OEMs alike: ”How can we standardize the development and design of these components across the industry, such that we can satisfy the risk that comes along with these components, while confidently claiming the part functionally safe?”

Enter the first edition of ISO 26262, Road vehicles—Functional Safety, which was the industry’s attempt at standardizing the development of the components of these large systems to minimize both:

Systematic risk, errors generated in the design process through a missed requirement cascade or an incomplete analysis; and
Random hardware faults specific to the malfunction of the device in question.

For roughly the last decade, automotive OEMs have been relying on part 5 of this standard to help them address hardware malfunction at the component level and to establish what the industry considers “safe” design practices. The result of this analysis has led the industry to focus mostly on the core of each electronic module, the microcontroller, in addition to adopting the failure mode effects and diagnostic analysis report, dependent failure analysis, and their peer reviews.

And this is how engine, gateway, and body controllers coalesced around what is considered mostly common for functionally safe electronic control units (ECUs). They employ things like dual core lockstep processors, double stored variables, and other safety mechanisms that enhance their coverage metrics to achieve the all-important Automotive Safety Integration Level (ASIL) rating. Building upon part 5 of the standard, and the level of complexity to which automotive systems have ascended, ISO 26262 has expanded its coverage to include part 11, which focuses on semiconductor components, with the goal of simplifying the automotive system by both:

Combining multiple functions into one large system on chip, thereby creating large SoC devices with multiple power domains, and
Wanting to simplify wiring such that only one low voltage bus runs throughout the vehicle.

An example of this integration is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Integrating individual regulators into a PMIC

Figure 2: Integrating discrete HW components into a SoC

This leads automotive system designers to adopt multi-rail, high power, power management devices (PMICs) that have traditionally been reserved for high-end server systems and other highly integrated consumer devices. These devices are capable of splitting one voltage rail into multiple lower voltage rails via integrated switching and linear regulators, in addition to being able to monitor each output. But semiconductor manufacturers who’ve normally prioritized speed in development to get into a next-generation server socket and are now tasked with applying part 11 to their products, with customers left to determine how to implement them.

Figure 3: Basic PMIC with 3 outputs

To help automotive designers understand what to look for when shopping for PMICs and other power devices, we’ll use an analysis containing a hypothetical situation that starts with a simple quality managed (QM) switching architecture for a basic DC/DC converter, then apply the tools ISO 26262 gives us to analyze the possible failures and, finally, present an architecture that attempts to address dependent and random hardware failures. It’s important to note that many solutions to the “what makes this device safe?” question exist, so the analysis and mechanisms discussed here are common.

This article isn’t meant to be conclusive, and a lot depends on what extra functions are required of the device by the system integrator. But this article will allow you, the automotive module designer or safety manager, to recognize what to look for when shopping for your next power device for your module.

ISO 26262 Analysis Tools

In reading through ISO 26262, the standard suggests three widely accepted analysis tools that help the safety manager lead the design team to an understanding of how to create a functionally safe product. These tools are:

The block diagram;
The dependent failure analysis (DFA); and
The failure mode effects and diagnostic analysis (FMEDA).

These tools are suggested for their ability to reduce complexity and allow the team performing the analysis to confidently arrive at a functionally safe design. In this article, we’ll review each technique, give examples of how they’re used, and then apply them in the safety analysis.

The Block Diagram

Reading through ISO 26262’s specification, it’s very clear that the authors valued one thing: avoid needless complexity in the design process. And, if you notice, you’ll see that the standard identifies a standard design practice of creating a block diagram to help:

Abstract the design to ensure that each block has a dedicated function, eliminating the need for needless (and often confusing) mixing of functions, and forcing the designer to plan their design prior to implementing it; and
Allow the conceptual safety analysis to easily understand information flow and determine where mechanisms need to be implemented, and the design decisions that need to be made in order to create a design free from dependency.

A simple example of such a diagram is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Example system diagram

When establishing a hierarchy, it’s important to remember. Abstraction! Without it, the diagram loses context and becomes a burden to maintain and develop. A recommended rule of thumb is to create a hierarchy not more than three to four sublevels deep, with the goal being to be able to have enough detail such that the box being described becomes self-describing.

Failure Analysis

Before we start performing the analysis that will lead to a summary of commonly implemented safety mechanisms, we first need to review the tools that the specification expects us to employ in the analysis. These tools help the design team identify dependencies between safety mechanisms and the sections each safety mechanism protects, and how to apply commonly accepted failure modes in order to come up with a robust design.

The dependent failure analysis: This analysis tool is designed to help identify dependent failures between safety mechanisms and the components they’re meant to protect.
The failure mode effects and diagnostic analysis: This analysis tool takes into account commonly accepted failure modes such as broken resistor strings and component drift and determines the impact on function of the device. It is also used as a calculator, justifying your safety coverage for an ASIL rating.

These dependencies and failure modes are analyzed within the context of the stated safety goal of the device. The safety goal is the primary high-level safety-related function that the device is designed to support. In most power management devices, this goal relates to output power monitoring; in other more complex devices, you may see this expanded to include other functions.

In this article, our example safety goal is to monitor the output for any voltage irregularities and provide a means to notify the system when we’re unable to provide this support properly such that they can suspend any safety-related decisions that might be impacted by an output failure.

For the safety manager evaluating devices for potential use in their module, they’re mostly concerned with voltage drift, spikes, and oscillations of the output rail, while maintaining the ability to warn the system if any of these occur.

Dependent Failure Analysis

The DFA is an analysis tool that examines the relationship between a safety mechanism and the circuit it is assigned to protect. The analysis starts out by identifying failures that are commonly known to impact more than one system. These include:

VCC and ground circuits: Where drifts, noise, or failures of circuits powering the safety mechanism and the device it powers could adversely impact both.
Temperature: Where an increase or decrease in temperature could impact a mechanism’s monitoring accuracy while at the same time decreasing its ability to control something.
Shared components: Where the failure of components like memory buses and other shared devices could impact both a monitor and regulator function.

The DFA helps a design to become free from interference by obtaining dependence, as shown in Figure 5, by addressing cascading faults and common cause faults (CCF).

Figure 5: Types of dependent failures

Companies who have implemented a culture of safety in their design process have defined initiators that that are meant to help guide the design and safety teams in their analysis.

Failure Mode Effects and (Diagnostic) Analysis

While the DFA is used to determine independence to help create a design that is free from CCF and cascading failures, the FMEDA is implemented as a straightforward approach meant to analyze the failures of each component in the design. The goal of the FMEDA is to systematically go through the hierarchy of the design and apply ISO 26262-recognized failure modes to each component to determine the output. Failures covered here were initially introduced in part 5 of ISO 26262 and then expanded in Part 11 in the Second Edition. They include, but are not limited to:

Resistor failures and component drift
Soft error rate in memory, and stuck at faults in digital logic circuits
Data transmission failures, including loss of message, corrupted messages, and unintended message

In the conceptual phase, these faults are applied to the design, mechanisms are created to address the failure modes, and then a quantitative analysis is conducted to determine exactly how well the mechanism addresses the failure mode. The DFA is conducted to ensure that the device addresses dependencies.

The FMEDA considers faults into multiple classes, two of which include:

Single point failure mode (SPFM), where the failure of the circuit or device directly impacts the ability for the device to perform a task related to the stated safety goals. An example would be a feedback control loop opening leading to oscillatory behavior.
Latent fault (LF) failure mode, where the failure of the circuit or device indirectly impacts the ability for the device to perform a task related to the stated safety goal. An example would be a monitor that only outputs “no fault” due to a short circuit failure; it requires a fault to be impactful to the system.

Latent faults are more nuanced, as their failures require the presence of more than one fault to exist at the same time to impact the design, versus a single point fault which will directly impact the device. A more complete fault classification is contained in Table 1/Figure 6.

Type of Fault	Description
Safe Fault	Not in safety relevant parts of the logic, or In safety relevant logic but unable to impact the design function
Single Point Fault	Dangerous, failure can result in the violation of the safety goal of the device; no safety mechanism to detect this fault.
Residual Fault	Dangerous, can violate the safety goal of the system. They are single point faults partially detected by a safety mechanism.
Multipoint Fault (Latent)	Faults that do not directly violate the safety goal, but only do so if another fault occurs; for example, in a safety mechanism.
Perceived Multipoint Fault (Latent)	Multipoint faults detected by a safety mechanism.

Table 1: Types of faults

Figure 6: Types of faults

The challenges of a FMEDA stem from the fact that it’s meant to be an exhaustive analysis. In devices that implement a large number of discrete components (e.g., millions of transistors) it can be a daunting task, which is why it’s often paired with a DFA for an exhaustive analysis. The effectiveness of the DFA and FEMDA all depend on how well the design is understood at the time of analysis, which is even more reason for a disciplined design group to have a well thought out design.

Next, we’ll use these three tools in analyzing, and creating a functionally safe power management device.

Introducing the Basic DC/DC Converter Architecture

To design and analyze our conceptual DC/DC converter, we first create a block diagram to set an architecture and establish a hierarchy. By understanding how information flows between major blocks, it will help to dissect the design. A typical power management devices’ circuit architecture includes:

Voltage reference generation: This normally includes the bandgap, and a digital to analog converter that provides references to switching converter, monitors, and any other devices that need a bias current or voltage.
Internal rail generation: The internal power domain that provides power to the internal components of the device and sets the voltage input/output (VIO) level.
The switches: These devices span the range of implementation, but in general, this includes the pre-driver and driver circuitry that provide the switching from the input voltage.
The PWM control circuitry: This comprises the entirety of the control loop, which is generally made up of an error amplifier, compensation, and the feedback (either internal or external)
Regulator enabling: In general, these are things that enable or disable regulation such as a power on reset device, over current, over voltage, or over temperature setting, and an external enable.
Digital core: The glue that ties the above together, allowing the flexibility to the marketing manager to option the part out such that it can be programmed to fit multiple different applications.

Together, these systems work to form the basics of a power management device, which is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Basic regulation architecture

The full design and implementation of each of these circuits depends upon a wide variety of factors specific to the application. In the following sections, we’ll discuss some high-level circuits that make up these blocks, which will allow us to facilitate the completion of our conceptual analysis.

The Safety Analysis

Combining the dependent and failure mode analysis, we can conceptually analyze our architecture and come up with mechanisms and additional architecture enhancements to improve our robustness to hardware failures. While this analysis is not considered to be exhaustive, it will provide some context for a safety manager or product designer evaluating datasheets to compare capabilities.

Internal Rail and Bias Generation

In our hierarchy, we start by creating a powertrain used to help generate bias voltages, currents, and an internal rail to power all of our onboard devices. Part of this powertrain will be a voltage DAC that will provide tap voltages for various references around the device.

We define the fault models from the DFA, and come up with the following.

Common cause faults: Where a singular fault leads to two faults in two separate elements (Figure 8).
Cascading faults: Where a fault in one element, leads to the fault in another element (Figure 9).

Figure 8: Common cause failure model

Figure 9: Cascading failure model

Taking these two fault models into context against Figure 7 (the basic regulation architecture), we see that there is only one source of bias and VCC for the entire chip, if that source were to experience a failure mode of either:

Drift, due to either component failure or temperature; or
Oscillation, due to loss of feedback in the voltage generation circuit.

Then that common cause fault would impact both the voltage monitor accuracy as well as regulation targets. To address this, the original architecture is modified to be more independent.

Figure 10 illustrates just one way to address this dependency, in which there are separate bias circuits (bandgaps) and voltage DACs to create separate bias points. This reduces the dependency between circuits and is often why datasheets feature a separate “safety” bandgap or a different voltage domain for their safety devices. Other examples include:

Distinctly designed bandgaps to prevent both from experiencing the same failure.
In addition to architectural changes, it is not uncommon to monitor each bandgap against one another, as well as to monitor the source of VCC against a reference over which it has no influence.

Figure 10: An improved biasing structure, with separate power delivery

The more rigid the safety requirements, the more complex the solution becomes. Now that we’ve addressed dependencies and discussed the implementation of safety mechanisms in the internal bias and power generation section, we turn our attention to the voltage control loop and output switches.

PWM Control Circuit & Output Switches and Drivers

Arguably the most important part of a power management device, the feedback loop design is critical since the choice in architecture denotes what type of safety mechanisms are necessary as well as performance. There are a wide variety of control architectures, but in this conceptual design, we’ll be employing:

A voltage control outer loop that utilizes an error amplifier, compensation, reference, and feedback to control the output to a setpoint. In our conceptual architecture, we’ll be utilizing external feedback.
An inner current loop controller that acts as a quick modifier to the setpoint to compensate for load changes. In our conceptual architecture, we’ll be sensing current through the (integrated) output switches in terms of high and low side current sensing.

The basic architecture is found in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Basic DC/DC modulator, with dependencies in the monitor

While the fully exhaustive analysis would take quite some time, some pronounced examples include the compensation circuit, output switches, and references. The failure modes analyzed are shown below:

Failure of the output switches by being stuck high or low: This would lead to an irregularity in switching and would cause either an output overvoltage, under voltage, over current, and/or over temperature event due to shoot through or directly connecting the output to either ground or VIN.
Compensation, which damps the response of the control loop to prevent excessive deviations from the setpoint during a load change, and oscillatory behavior: A potential failure here would be an overvoltage event or oscillatory behavior if the bandwidth of the controller drastically changes.

First, taking these three failure modes into consideration, we can easily develop two different failure mode protection mechanisms:

A window comparator which measures for over and under voltage on the output; or
An over current monitor which senses the current through either the high side or low side switch.

For this reason, the hallmarks of most power management devices are output current and voltage monitoring, and are often done via comparators instead of an onboard analog to digital (A/D) converter. And, taking lessons from our previous section, these output monitors will be referenced with a uniquely powered and referenced bandgap.

Next, we continue with the DFA and automatically clue into the feedback node, which is shared between the regulation and output monitor. If we lose the resistor due to a failure in the resistor divider or if the pin shorts, the device’s regulation will malfunction as the target becomes incorrect, and the monitor runs the risk of not catching it. A DFA leads to the following two criteria:

The device needs to implement two independent sources of feedback to address the dependent failure of the feedback node shorting to another pin or another voltage on the board; and
This independent source of feedback needs a redundant resistor divider to address the failure mode of any part of the resistor feedback network shorting.

Again, for this reason, it is not uncommon to see a feedback pin and another pin that is used for monitoring. If the feedback resistor is instead internal, then that is redundant and often through a different path. With these additions, we can expand our definition to include an example of what a safety manager or module engineer might see when shopping power parts.

For the last two sections, the design turns its focus to things that are often under the category as monitors instead of the control loop.

Figure 12: Basic DC/DC modulator, without dependencies in the monitor

Monitors and Controls

The monitors and enabling controls are arguably some of the most important circuits in the device. They are comprised of a series of comparators and measurement circuits that make up:

Over current monitors.
Power on reset detectors.
Output voltage (over and under voltage) monitoring.
Internal clock monitoring

Each of these monitors often have the ability to reset/alert downstream components when an irregularity has occurred. Applying our DFA theory again, we notice that the same situation continues to come up, that is, dependencies in the feedback loop and in how we reference the thresholds for the monitors.

Next, conducting the FMEDA, we apply ISO 26262-recognized failure modes only to the comparator. The faults models here are comparator output stuck at faults (stuck high and low). Of these two faults, stuck low is the more impactful of the two when it comes to monitoring, as the fault occurrence would be missed. In order to increase the device’s ability to detect these stuck low faults, which would cause the device to miss a fault in the event of one occurring, you will often see a term ABIST, an acronym for analog built-in self-test.

The process outlined in Figure 13 allows a brief moment in time for the digital part of the device to take control of the comparator input and force the input above or below the trigger voltage in order to see if the comparator circuit works.

Figure 13: Comparator BIST architecture example

After successful determination, the input control is given back, and it becomes a nominal sensing circuit again. This process takes a moment during startup and is why many datasheets mention some sort of ABIST in their feature section as it is a low impact way of checking for stuck faults.

Lastly, we’ll examine the brains, the digital core of a mixed-signal regulator.

Digital Core

The digital core is most likely the closest thing power management devices have to flash memory in terms of implementing configurability. Power management devices often contain the following elements as part of the digital core:

A wide variety of configurations held in fuses and registers;
A main high-speed oscillator; and
A serial communications interface- usually I2C or SPI.

The digital core sits next to the analog parts, as shown in Figure 14, and is often broken up between a section of digital logic that makes functionally safe decisions and a section responsible for startup and control of the regulator.

Figure 14: Analog and digital partitioning

This architecture is often preferred to mitigate the possibility of dependencies found through a DFA analysis. In order to better understand the breakup of the digital core, see Figure 14, where the main functions consist of:

Configuration, often in the terms of runtime configuration registers and one time programmable (OTP) fuses;
Functional safety decision making, often realized as a state machine; and
Communication, either implemented as a I2C or SPI controller.

Here, the fault modes defined by ISO 26262 are more aligned to what you would see in a microcontroller setting. We first realize this by applying our FMEDA criteria in terms of bit corruption at the one-time programmable (OTP) fuse array and configuration registers. A failure here could misconfigure the chip, either at startup and during runtime. In order to protect against this issue, an n-bit cyclic redundancy calculation (CRC) is often executed both at startup and periodically on the configuration of the device to ensure integrity. This is also extended to the communication interface, where a CRC is performed on each communication transaction.

While the list of digital safety mechanisms and design options is vast, it is normal to see the following among the top listed as safety mechanisms in addition to the CRC:

Redundant logic where necessary;
Clock monitoring; and
Logic BISTing (LBIST) which, like the ABIST, checks the digital logic for critical stuck faults.

After addressing each main function of our basic DC/DC buck converter and the random hardware failures associated with these sections, our focus turns on how to evaluate metrics and grade the effectiveness.

ASIL Fault Metrics

The analysis done was qualitative. The process starts with a diagram of interconnections for our power converter and continues by applying industry standard failure modes to each block and reviewing their effects. It continues with the DFA that allows the design team to address dependencies in the architecture, and also allow the device to showcase various safety mechanisms and architectural enhancements that allow for a certain ASIL.

We define the coverage metric as a means for standardizing analysis in a quantitative way across the industry from part to part and manufacturer to manufacturer. This means that if the target for our power converter is an ASIL B system, that would require a specific level of coverage, as opposed to an ASIL D system which requires a higher single point, and latent fault detection coverage. The summary is shown below in Table 2.

Metric	ASIL B	ASIL C	ASIL D
Single Point Fault Metric	≥ 90%	≥ 97%	≥ 99%
Latent Fault Metric	≥ 60%	≥ 80%	≥ 90%
Probabilistic Metric for Random Hardware Faults (in FIT)	100 FIT	100 FIT	10 FIT

Table 2: ASIL metrics

And often, you will see comments in the datasheet like “supports applications up to,” which often means that during the analysis, certain assumptions were made that, if followed, would allow for the system to make up for the lack of detection.

Before you begin reviewing your supplier datasheets or before you begin designing, I recommend that you review ISO 26262 as the specification provides an overview of common ways of dealing with faults and provides strategies for low, medium, and high coverage which the industry recognizes. An example is shown in Table 3, but as always, refer to your copy of ISO 26262 for a comprehensive list.

Safety Mechanism	What the safety mechanism protects	Typical Diagnostic Coverage Considered Achievable	Note
Ram Pattern Test	Volatile Memory	Medium	High Coverage for stuck
Voltage Monitoring	Power Supply	High	Depends upon the quality of monitor
Majority Voter	General System Measure	High	Depends upon the quality of voting
Comparators	General System Measure	High	Depends upon the quality of comparison

Table 3: Safety mechanism and coverage

Conclusion

Functional safety is an evolving area of automotive and industrial design, and the right device can be difficult to find since each semiconductor manufacturer presents their product in the best possible way. With each new design comes a new set of safety mechanisms implemented by the design and safety teams, which the marketing team then uses as saleable features. But, without some basic background, this can lead to confusion.

The conceptual analysis presented in this article is meant to give you, the reader, some tools to understanding why ASIL-rated power management devices have the “safety” features listed in their hardware datasheet. And, in preparing for your next ADAS design, remember that ISO 26262 outlines the tools needed to address both random hardware and systematic design faults, not just high-level digital components but of standard mixed-signal analog/digital designs as well!

The post Applying ISO 26262 to Power Management in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

A five-year review of ANSI/ESD S20.20 was recently completed and the 2014 version of the standard was published in September 2014. The technical revisions in the 2014 version of the standard are highlighted in this article. A complimentary PDF copy of the new standard, and a table comparing the requirements of the 2014 version with those of the 2007 version is available at www.esda.org.

Standard Scope

The 2014 document scope now includes devices with withstand voltages greater than 100 volts HBM (no change), 200 volts charge device model (CDM), and 35 volts on isolated conductors. Changes in the standard were made to support these additions to the scope. The 200 volts for CDM is for the induced CDM event by insulators.

While some CDM control has always been implied in ANSI/ESD S20.20, the standard now explicitly states it in the scope. Changes in insulator control support the scope with the addition of controls within one inch of an ESD sensitive item. The 35 volts on isolated conductors acknowledges that all conductors may not be able to be grounded. There is a section added in ANSI/ESD S20.20 on the requirements for isolated conductors and what needs to be evaluated.

Tailoring Statements

The tailoring section of the document, Section 6.3, has been clarified to address misconceptions that tailoring is required if anything changes from the requirements of ANSI/ESD S20.20. This was not the intention. The section now clearly states that tailoring is needed only if the requirements are deleted or revised to exceed the limits in ANSI/ESD S20.20.

For example, the worksurface requirement of 0 to 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms for point-to-point resistance does not need a tailoring statement if a company’s internal control program document requires a point-to-point resistance between 1.0 x 10⁵ to 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms; these stated limits are within the ANSI/ESD S20.20 limits. However, if the point-to-point resistance in a company’s internal control program document is between 1.0 x 10⁵ and 1.0 x 10¹⁰ ohms, a tailoring statement is required because 1.0 x 10¹⁰ ohms is beyond the limit in ANSI/ESD S20.20.

Product Qualification

A new section on product qualification, Section 7.3, was added ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014 to emphasize the product qualification of ESD control items. The requirement to have ESD control items qualified was in the 2007 version but it was only in Tables 2 and 3 of the standard. Product qualification is an important part of ANSI/ESD S20.20 because all ESD control items need to be qualified to the ESD standards that are listed in Tables 2 and 3 of the standard. Typically, product qualification requires ESD control items to work in low humidity conditions. All qualification testing or testing done at environmental conditions that do not meet the referenced standards must be technically justified with a tailoring statement.

Flooring and Footwear Systems

The 2014 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20 includes a change to the qualification of flooring/footwear systems for grounding personnel. The 2007 version allowed for qualification based only on resistance if the total resistance was less than 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms from a person’s hand to ground. A walking test was required for resistance greater than 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms and less than 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms.

In the 2014 version, the resistance method (Method 1) has been eliminated and the requirement is now both a resistance and walking test. There has been data presented at various symposia that, even with a total system resistance of 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms, a person walking on the floor can generate sufficient voltage to exceed the 100 volt requirement. For comparison, the 2007 and 2014 tables for personnel grounding requirements are shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

Personnel Grounding Technical Requirement	Product Qualification1		Compliance Verification
Personnel Grounding Technical Requirement	Test Method	Required Limit(s)	Test Method	Required Limit(s)
Wrist Strap System	ANSI/ESD S1.1 (Section 5.11)	< 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms	ESD TR53 Wrist Strap Section	< 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms
Flooring/Footwear System – Method 1	ANSI/ESD STM97.1	< 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms	ESD TR53 Flooring Section	< 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms
Flooring/Footwear System – Method 1	ANSI/ESD STM97.1	< 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms	ESD TR53 Footwear Section	< 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms
Flooring/Footwear System – Method 2 (both required)	ANSI/ESD STM97.1	< 109 ohms	ESD TR53 Flooring Section	< 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms
Flooring/Footwear System – Method 2 (both required)	ANSI/ESD STM97.2	< 100 ohms	ESD TR53 Footwear Section	< 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms

Table 1: 2007 Personal Grounding Requirements

Technical Requirements	Product Qualification (4)		Compliance Verification
Technical Requirements	Test Method(s)	Required Limit(s)	Test Method(s)	Required Limit(s)
Wrist Strap System	ANSI/ESD S1.1 (Section 6.11)	< 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms	ESD TR53 Wrist Strap Section	< 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms
Flooring/Footwear System (Both limits must be met)	ANSI/ESD STM97.1	< 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms	ESD TR53 Footwear Section	< 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms(6)
Flooring/Footwear System (Both limits must be met)	ANSI/ESD STM97.2	< 100 volts Peak	ESD TR53 Flooring Section	< 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms(6)

Table 2: 2014 Personal Grounding Requirements

Process-Required Insulators

In the 2007 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20, the requirement for process-required insulators within 30 cm (12 in) of an ESD sensitive device is a field of no more than 2000 volts/in. In the 2014 version of the standard, there is a new requirement that process-required insulators within 2.5 cm (1 in) of an ESD sensitive device have a field of not more than 125 volts/in. The change supports the addition of 200 volts CDM in the scope.

Isolated Conductors

The 2007 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20 did not allow for any isolated conductors in an ESD control program. Therefore, no requirements on isolated conductors were included in the document. However, there are situations where an isolated conductor must be in the ESD protected area (EPA). Accordingly, in the 2014 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20, isolated conductors in the EPA cannot have more than 35 volts on the conductor. The measurement of isolated conductors requires either an electrostatic non-contacting voltmeter or a high impedance contacting voltmeter. A field meter alone cannot make this measurement on very small conductors. This requirement applies only to isolated conductors that are in the EPA, and is only a qualification requirement.

Table 3 Changes

Changes to Table 3 in the 2014 version include the following:

Ionization

Ionization now has one offset limit instead of the two requirements in the 2007 version. The 2007 version has separate limits for room ionization and local ionization. The 2014 version now has only one limit. The intent of room ionization is mainly for cleanliness rather than ESD control. As such, it is not necessary to include room ionization in the ESD control plan unless it is expressly configured for ESD mitigation.

Tool Additions

Electrical soldering/desoldering hand tools were also added as a requirement to Table 3. This is new to the 2014 version and was not in the 2007 version. Revisions have also been included in ANSI/ESD S13.1 and ESD TR53 to support the additions to the Table.

Wrist Strap Changes

Another addition to Table 3 is the requirement to check the wrist strap connection for non-continuous monitored wrist straps. This is the connection from where the wrist strap is plugged in to ground.

Packaging Materials

The requirements on packaging materials has not changed but there have been accounts of packaging materials used as worksurfaces, such as placing ESD sensitive parts on top of static shielding bags or static dissipative pink foams. A note has been added to the packaging section which says, “When ESDS items are placed on packaging materials and the ESDS items have work being performed on them, then the packaging materials become worksurfaces. The worksurface requirements for resistance to ground apply.” This allows the use of packaging materials as long as they meet the requirements for worksurfaces and are tested as part of compliance verification.

The updates in the 2014 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20 will be reflected in the requirements for facility certification. There is a transition period to give process owners time to understand the new requirements and to update internal ESD control processes. For 2015, facilities may be certified to either the 2007 version or the 2014 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20. For this reason, both standards will remain on the ESD Association web site for 2015. Beginning in 2016, facilities will only be certified to the 2014 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20.

The EOS/ESD Association is the largest industry group dedicated to advancing the theory and the practice of ESD avoidance, with more than 2000 members worldwide. Readers can learn more about the Association and its work at www.esda.org.

The post ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014: A Review of the Technical Revisions to the 2014 Edition appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

In the construction trade, there is an old saying, “electricity always follows the path of least resistance.” The saying is only partially true. Electricity flows through all paths – intended and unintended. We must keep this in mind when we verify the resistance of installed ESD vinyl or carpet tiles.

If we only follow test method ANSI/ESD STM 7.1, we might overlook an unintended path to ground. STM 7.1 only requires testing the resistance of floor tiles to the ground connection specified by the manufacturer. But what if that ground connection relies on resistors or high resistance adhesive as part of its path to ground, even though the equipment racks on top of certain floor tiles are also grounding the floor?

For this reason, always test the resistance connections between the surface of tiles directly under equipment, and the connection to either the equipment racks or the pedestals of the equipment sitting on the surface. This is a case of prudently exceeding standards and test methods when those standards emphatically warn that they are not intended for evaluating safety.

This creates multiple problems encompassing product liability, economic loss, failure to perform and in compliance with industry standards.

Confusing Conductivity and Specifications

To investigate this dilemma, we need to explore the history of floors used to prevent static-discharge problems.

In an article published in 1926, titled “How Can We Eliminate Static from Operating Rooms,” Dr. E. McKesson writes:

McKesson recognized the need for a passive grounding system that does not rely solely on a series of connections that may not always occur. McKesson writes:

Resistance Tests Per NFPA Guidelines Are Not Equivalent to ESD/STM 7.1 Tests

Why does this matter? Ohm’s Law: the higher the applied voltage, the lower the resistance. Likewise, the lower the applied voltage, the higher the resistance.

Figure 1: How voltage affects the resistance of an ESD flooring material

Table 1 shows examples of the discrepancy between resistance test results performed per NFPA and ANSI/ESD test methods.

Carpet Tile Test Results for product marketed as measuring 2.5 x 10⁴ – 1.0 x 10⁸:
Color	ANSI/ESD STM 7.1 @10 volts	NFPA @500 volts
Grey	7.5 x 10⁴	1.6 x 10⁴
	7.2 X 10⁴	1.4 X 10⁴
Silver	7.5 x 10⁴	1.4 x 10⁴
	6.9 X 10⁴	1.3 X 10⁴
Dark grey pattern	5.0 x 10⁴	1.4 x 10⁴
	6.0 X 10⁴	1.0 X 10⁴
Carpet Tile Test Results for product marketed as measuring 1.0 X10⁶ – 1.0 X 10⁹:
Color	10 volts	500 volts
Patterned carpet	1.8 x 10⁶	1.1 x 10⁶
Blue Carpet	1.5 x 10⁶	8.0 x 10⁵

Table 1: Carpet tile resistance test results showing the discrepancy between NFPA and ANSI/ESD test methods

What Is a Static-Dissipative or Conductive Floor?

Test Methods Versus Performance Standards

Carpet Tiles with Black Backing – 2.5 x 10⁴ – 1.0 x 10⁸
AC Volts Volts ac	AC Amperes mili Amps ac
4	1
11.5	3
18	5
30.5	10
52.3	20
117	50
EC Rubber Tiles – 2.5 x 10⁴ – 1.0 x 10⁶
AC Volts Volts ac	AC Amperes mili Amps ac
31	0.1
40	0.4
66	2
80	4
93	5
120	7.6
Static Dissipative Carpet Tiles – 10⁶ – 10⁹
AC Volts Volts ac	AC Amperes mili Amps ac
5	<0.1
10	<0.1
25	<0.1
50	<0.1
100	<0.1
120	<0.1

Table 2: Results of testing applying AC and DC voltages to various floor types

According to an ASHRAE white paper, the data center industry views 500 volts as an upper threshold compared with the 100 volt upper limit for meeting ANSI/ESD S20.20 in electronics manufacturing.

The Semantics Problem

Figure 2: Large systems positioned on the surface of an ESD floor can inadvertently act as a surface ground connection.

Endnotes

“How Can We Eliminate Static From Operating Rooms to Avoid Accidents with Anaesthetics?,” E.I. McKesson, published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia, April 1926.
Available at https://academic.oup.com/bja/article/3/4/178/271645.
Note that proposed changes in ANSI/ESD STM7.1 would address the need to mitigate the hard line between the conductive and dissipative range.
According to FAA-STD-019f, “conductive ESD control materials shall not be used for ESD control work surfaces, tabletop mats, floor mats, flooring, or carpeting where the risk of personnel contact with energized electrical or electronic equipment exists.” FAA-STD-019f, Lightning and Surge Protection, Grounding, Bonding, and Shielding Requirements for Facilities and Electronic Equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, published October 18, 2017.
“Static electricity and floor resistance,” posting to the IBM Knowledge Center website, https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSWLYD/p7eek_staticelectricity_standard.html.

The post Why Resistance Requirements Differ by Industry and Why Standards Matter appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

A Long-Awaited Update to an Essential Standard for Military Procurement

MIL‑STD‑464D was released on December 24, 2020. This revision is in keeping with the routine five-year revision cycle applicable to many such standards, and MIL‑STD‑464 must keep in sync with MIL‑HDBK‑235, from which the electromagnetic field intensity tables are drawn. In this case, the routine five-year cycle took ten years to complete.

MIL‑STD‑464 is the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) top-level E3 requirement set for the procurement of complete or modified systems. In this context, “systems” means an integrated platform of one type or another, such as a ground or air vehicle, a ship or submarine, a spacecraft, or launch vehicle. Note that some systems can be parts of other systems, such as an F-18 fighter aircraft that operates from an aircraft carrier.

The original release of MIL‑STD‑464 was in 1997. MIL‑STD‑464A (2002) and MIL‑STD‑464C (2010) provided minor, evolutionary changes to the original release.¹

Compared to MIL‑STD‑464C, the changes in MIL‑STD‑464D are very minor. This article serves as a laundry list of the substantive changes, including the EME tables, and indications of what values changed in the EME tables, so that the reader may see at a glance where the changes are, rather than checking each table row-by-row and cell-by-cell.

The purpose of this article is to inform and save the reader the time the author spent combing through MIL‑STD‑464D vs. MIL‑STD‑464C (referenced as “D” and “C” throughout the rest of this article). Entertaining the reader was not a practical goal.

New Definitions

3.1 All-up-round (AUR)

“The completely assembled munition as intended for delivery to a target or configured to accomplish its intended mission. This term is identical to the term all-up-weapon.”

3.2 Bare devices

“Bare electrically initiated devices (EIDs) such as electrical initiators, exploding foil initiators, detonators, etc., in an all-up round that have either one or both pins accessible on an external connector.”

3.3 Below deck

Extended to include the pressure hull of a submarine.

3.7 Energetics

“A substance or mixture of substances that, through chemical reaction, is capable of rapidly releasing energy. A few examples of energetics are: liquid and solid propellants such as in rockets and air bags, gun propellants, polymer bonded explosives (PBX) for warheads, pyrotechnics for flares and ignition systems.”

3.8 Flight deck

“The upper deck of an aircraft carrier that serves as a runway. The deck of an air-capable ship, amphibious aviation assault ship, or aviation ship used to launch and recover aircraft.”

3.12 Helicopter-borne electrostatic discharge (HESD)

“The sudden flow of electric charge between a helicopter or rotary winged aircraft and an object of different electrical potential. A buildup of static electricity can be caused by triboelectric charging or electrostatic induction generated from operating rotary wings.”

3.13 High power microwave (HPM)

Deletes the frequency range.

3.18 Maximum no-fire stimulus

MIL‑STD‑464D	MIL‑STD‑464C
“The greatest firing stimulus that will not cause initiation or degrade an EID of more than 0.1 % of all electric initiators of a given design at a confidence level of 95%. Stimulus refers to electrical parameters such as current, rate of change of current (di/dt), power, voltage, or energy, which are most critical in defining the no-fire performance of the EID.”	“The greatest firing stimulus which does not cause initiation within five minutes of more than 0.1% of all electric initiators of a given design at a confidence level of 95%. When determining maximum no-fire stimulus for electric initiators with a delay element or with a response time of more than five minutes, the firing stimulus will be applied for the time normally required for actuation.”

3.22 Ordnance (fewer words than “C”)

“Explosives, chemicals, pyrotechnics, and similar stores (e.g., bombs, guns, and ammunition, flares, smoke,
or napalm).”

3.23 Personnel-borne electrostatic discharge (PESD)

“The sudden flow of electric charge between personnel and an object of different electrical potential. A buildup of static electricity can be caused by triboelectric charging or electrostatic induction generated by the movement of the person’s body.”

3.27 Spectrum-dependent systems

Adds this statement at the end:

“This includes transmitters, transceivers, and receive-only systems.“

3.34 Vertical replenishment (VERTREP)

“The transfer of ordnance and cargo using rotary winged aircraft.”

3.35 Weather deck

“The topside of the ship that is exposed to the weather. The weather deck does not include the flight deck, hangar, well deck, man-aloft areas, or the ship’s mast.”

Main Body Requirements

5.1 Margins (MIL‑STD‑464D)²

“Margins shall be established for safety and mission critical subsystems/equipment within the system. Margins shall be no less than 6 dB for safety critical subsystems/equipment, unless otherwise stated in the detailed requirements of this standard. Compliance shall be verified by test, analysis, or a combination thereof.”

Compare this with the text in “C,” as follows:

“Margins shall be provided based on system operational performance requirements, tolerances in system hardware, and uncertainties involved in verification of system-level design requirements. Safety critical and mission critical system functions shall have a margin of at least 6 dB. EIDs shall have a margin of at least 16.5 dB of maximum no-fire stimulus (MNFS) for safety assurances and 6 dB of MNFS for other applications. Compliance shall be verified by test, analysis, or a combination thereof. Instrumentation installed in system components during testing for margins shall capture the maximum system response and shall not adversely affect the normal response characteristics of the component. When environment simulations below specified levels are used, instrumentation responses may be extrapolated to the full environment for components with linear responses (such as hot bridgewire EIDs). When the response is below instrumentation sensitivity, the instrumentation sensitivity shall be used as the basis for extrapolation. For components with non-linear responses (such as semiconductor bridge EIDs), no extrapolation is permitted.”

5.2 Intra-system electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)

MIL‑STD‑464D

MIL‑STD‑464C

“The system shall be electromagnetically compatible within itself such that system operational performance requirements are met. Compliance shall be verified by system-level test, analysis, or a combination thereof. For surface ships, MIL‑STD‑1605(SH) provides test methods used to verify compliance with the requirements of this standard for intra- and inter-system EMC, hull generated intermodulation interference, and electrical bonding.”

5.2.2 Shipboard internal electromagnetic environment (EME)

The very last sentence in “C” section 5.2.2.b after the listing of the individual device and total EIRP is not found in “D.” This sentence in “C” that is not in “D” reads:

“Additionally, no device shall be permanently installed within 1 meter of safety or mission critical electronic equipment.”

Also, whereas verification in “C” is by test in all cases, in “D,” for submarines an analysis consisting of a summation of all individual device EIRP into total radiated power (TRP) is allowed.

(See Tables I – VI)

-464D values first, -464C values second, where different. Red fill means level has increased. Yellow fill means change is less than 3 dB, either higher or lower, and blue fill means -464D level is lower than for -464C. * means no emitters in that frequency range.

Frequency Range		Shipboard Flight Decks		Shipboard Weather Decks
Frequency Range		Electric Field (V/m-rms)		Electric Field (V/m-rms)
(MHz)	(MHz)	Peak	Avg	Peak	Avg
0.01	2	*	*	*	*
2	30	164	164	189/169	189/169
30	150	61	61	61	61
150	225	61	61	61	61
225	400	61	61	61	61
400	700	196	71	445	71
700	790	94	94	94	94
790	1000	491/246	100	744/1307	141/244
1000	2000	212	112	212/112	112
2000	2700	159	159	159	159
2700	3600	4700/2027	595/200	4700/897	595/200
3600	4000	1225/298	200	1859	200
4000	5400	200	200	200	200
5400	5900	361	213	711	235
5900	6000	213	213	235	235
6000	7900	213	213	235	235
7900	8000	200	200	200	200
8000	8400	200	200	200	200
8400	8500	200	200	200	200
8500	11000	913/200	200	913	200
11000	14000	745/744	200	833	200
14000	18000	745/744	200	833	200
18000	50000	200	200	267	200

TABLE I: Maximum external EME for deck operations on Navy ships vs. -464C Table 1. Maximum external EME for deck operations on Navy ships

Frequency Range (MHz)		Main Beam (distances vary with ship class and antenna configuration)
		Electric Field (V/m –rms)
		Peak	Avg
0.01	2	*	*
2	30	200	200
30	150	15/10	15/10
150	225	17/10	17/10
225	400	43	43
400	700	2036	268
700	790	20/10	20/10
790	1000	2615/2528	489/485
1000	2000	930	156
2000	2700	21/10	21/10
2700	3600	27460	7500/2620
3600	4000	8553	272
4000	5400	1357/139	198/139
5400	5900	3234	637/267
5900	6000	637/267	637/267
6000	7900	667/400	667/400
7900	8000	667/400	667/400
8000	8400	449/400	449/400
8400	8500	400	400
8500	11000	6900/4173	6900/907
11000	14000	3329	642
14000	18000	3329/3529	642/680
18000	50000	2862	576

‡ The EME levels in the table apply to shipboard operations in the main beam of systems in the 2700 to 3600 MHz frequency range on surface combatants. For all other operations, the unrestricted peak EME level is 12667 V/m and the unrestricted average level is 1533 V/m.

TABLE II: Maximum external EME for ship operations in the main beam of transmitters vs. -464C TABLE 2. External EME for shipboard operations in the main beam of transmitters

Frequency Range (MHz)		Electric Field (V/m-rms)
Frequency Range (MHz)		Peak	Avg
0.01	2	1	1
2	30	73	73
30	150	17	17
150	225	4	1
225	400	*	*
400	700	47	6
700	790	1	1
790	1000	7	7
1000	2000	63	63
2000	2700	187	187
2700	3600	23	8
3600	4000	2	2
4000	5400	3	3
5400	5900	164	164
5900	6000	164	164
6000	7900	6	6
7900	8000	3	1
8000	8400	1	1
8400	8500	3	1
8500	11000	140	116
11000	14000	114	114
14000	18000	16	9
18000	50000	23	23

NOTE: *denotes no emitters in that frequency range.

TABLE III: Maximum external EME for space and launch vehicle systems vs. -464C TABLE 3. External EME for space and launch vehicle systems

Frequency Range (MHz)		Electric Field (V/m-rms)
Frequency Range (MHz)		Peak	Avg
0.01	2	54/73	54/73
2	30	103	103
30	150	74	74
150	225	41	41
225	400	92	92
400	700	98	98
700	790	58/267	58/267
790	1000	58/284	58/267
1000	2000	232/2452	94/155
2000	2700	638/489	42/155
2700	3600	1148/2450	219
3600	4000	320/489	25/49
4000	5400	645	173/183
5400	5900	5183/6146	129/155
5900	6000	40/549	40/55
6000	7900	3190/4081	292/119
7900	8000	2471/549	296/97
8000	8400	2471/1095	296/110
8400	8500	82/1095	82/110
8500	11000	810/1943	139
11000	14000	3454	102/110
14000	18000	7897/8671	243
18000	50000	2793	48/76

TABLE IV Maximum external EME for ground systems vs. -464c TABLE 4. External EME for ground systems

Frequency Range (MHz)		Electric Field (V/m – rms)
Frequency Range (MHz)		Peak	Avg
0.01	2	200	200
2	30	200	200
30	150	200	200
150	225	200	200
225	400	200	200
400	700	1311	402
700	790	700	183/402
790	1000	700	215/402
1000	2000	6057	232
2000	2700	3351	200
2700	3600	4220	455
3600	4000	3351	657/200
4000	5400	9179	657
5400	5900	9179	657
5900	6000	9179	200
6000	7900	400	200
7900	8000	400	200
8000	8400	7430	266
8400	8500	7430	266
8500	11000	7430	266
11000	14000	7430	558
14000	18000	730	558
18000	50000	1008	200

TABLE V: Maximum external EME for rotary-wing aircraft, excluding shipboard operations vs. -464C Maximum external EME for rotary-wing aircraft, including UAVs, excluding shipboard operations

Frequency Range (MHz)		Electric Field (V/m-rms)
Frequency Range (MHz)		Peak	Avg
0.01	2	88	27
2	30	64	64
30	150	67	13
150	225	67	36
225	400	58	3
400	700	2143	159
700	790	554/80	81/80
790	1000	289	105
1000	2000	3363	420
2000	2700	957	209
2700	3600	4220	455
3600	4000	148	11
4000	5400	3551	657
5400	5900	3551	657
5900	6000	148	4
6000	7900	344	14
7900	8000	148	4
8000	8400	187	70
8400	8500	187	70
8500	11000	6299	238
11000	14000	2211	94
14000	18000	1796	655
18000	50000	533	38

TABLE VI: Maximum external EME for fixed-wing aircraft, excluding shipboard operations vs. -464C TABLE 6. External EME for fixed wing aircraft, including UAVs, excluding shipboard operations

5.5 Lightning
Has some expanded wording about near strikes and slightly different wording describing Figure 2 and Table VII.

5.7 Subsystems and equipment electromagnetic interference (EMI)
Now includes new wording (in non-italicized in the excerpt that follows):

“Individual subsystems and equipment shall meet interference control requirements (such as the conducted emissions, radiated emissions, conducted susceptibility, and radiated susceptibility requirements of MIL‑STD‑461) so that the overall system complies with all applicable requirements of this standard. This includes permanent, temporary, and portable electronic equipment. Compliance shall be verified by tests that are consistent with the individual requirement (such as testing in accordance with MIL‑STD‑461).”

5.7.1 Portable electronic devices and carry-on equipment requirements
Newly added in “D,” as follows:

“Portable electronic devices and carry-on equipment containing electronics which are not permanently installed or integrated into platforms and require airworthiness certification shall meet, as a minimum, the following EMI interface control requirements:

- Safety Critical: All platform emissions and susceptibility requirements (such as those defined in MIL‑STD‑461) that are defined for safety critical equipment.
- Non-Safety Critical: All platform emissions requirements (such as those defined in MIL‑STD‑461).

“If any part of the portable electronic device/carry-on equipment contains radio frequency transmission capability, then transmitter emissions characteristics shall be measured (such as in MIL‑STD‑461 Test Method CE106), in addition to the applicable requirements stated above. An aircraft EMC evaluation per 5.2 shall also be required to demonstrate platform compatibility of the portable electronic devices/carry-on equipment which have radio frequency transmitting capability.

“If any part of the portable electronic device/carry-on equipment contains ordnance or is integrated into an ordnance system, then the HERO requirements stated within this standard shall also be met. Compliance shall be verified by test per the applicable requirements.”

5.7.3 Shipboard DC magnetic field environment. (5.7.2 in “C”)
In the “C” revision, this requirement could only be verified by test. In the “D” revision, the ubiquitous phrase, “Compliance shall be verified by test, analysis, or a combination thereof,” is used.

5.8.1 Vertical lift and in-flight refueling
Slightly reworded, but the same overall requirement with one significant deletion. The “C” applicability to “any man portable items that are carried internal to the aircraft” has been deleted.

5.8.3 Ordnance subsystems
Rewritten with two brand new sub-paragraphs that break out separately the pre-existing “C” requirement to withstand a 25 kV personnel ESD and adds a separate new requirement to withstand helicopter ESD (300 kV).

5.8.4 Electrical and electronic subsystems
Rewritten to refer to MIL‑STD‑461G (CS118) for test, whereas previously they had to point elsewhere.

5.9.3 Hazards of electromagnetic radiation to ordnance (HERO)
Rewritten to include ordnance safety margins that were struck from general margin paragraph 5.1.

Frequency Range		Field Intensity (V/m – rms)
(MHz)	(MHz)	Unrestricted*		Restricted **
(MHz)	(MHz)	Peak	Avg	Peak	Avg
0.01	2	200	200	80	80
2	30	200	200	100	100
30	150	200	200	80	80
150	225	200	200	70	70
225	400	200	200	100	100
400	700	2200	410	450	100
700	790	700	190	270	270
790	1000	2600	490	1400	270
1000	2000	6100	420	2500	160
2000	2700	6000	500	490	160
2700	3600	27460	5350/2620	2500	220
3600	4000	8600	280	1900	200
4000	5400	9200	660	650	200
5400	5900	9200	660	6200	240
5900	6000	9200	640/270	550	240
6000	7900	3190/4100	670/400	3190/4100	240
7900	8000	2500/550	670/400	550	240/200
8000	8400	7500	450/400	1100	200
8400	8500	7500	400	1100	200
8500	11000	7500	3450/910	2000	300
11000	14000	7500	650/680	3500	220
14000	18000	7900/8700	650/680	7900/8700	250
18000	50000	2900	580	2800	200

NOTES:

*It must be noted that on certain naval platforms, there are radar systems (and unique modes of operation) that may produce fields in excess of those in Table IX, and MIL-HDBK-235 must be consulted to identify specific EME test requirements.

** In some of the frequency ranges for the “Restricted Average” column, limiting the exposure of personnel through time averaging will be required to meet the requirements of 5.9.1 for personnel safety.

TABLE IX: Maximum external EME levels for ordnance vs. -464C TABLE 9. Maximum external EME levels for ordnance.

5.14.2 Platform radiated emissions

Renamed from the same paragraph in “C” labeled 5.14.2 Inter-system EMC. The requirement has both greater generality and is more specific about what parameters need to be controlled. New sub-paragraph in “D.”

6.2 Acquisition requirements

Acquisition documents should specify the following: a. Title, number, and date of this standard.

6.3 DIDs

Not updated.

6.5 Key Words

Adds two new terms, electrostatic and HESD.

6.6 International standardization agreement implementation.

Rewritten slightly in “D” from the previous similar section 6.5 in “C.”

6.7 Acronyms

Replaces “EMRADHAZ” with “RADHAZ.” Also, PESD and HESD are added.

6.8 Technical points of contact

Air Force and Army points-of-contact have been updated.

Appendices and Guidances

A.1.1 Scope

Includes extra language emphasizing that appendix is guidance only, not mandatory.

A.2.1.1 Specifications, standards, and handbooks

Slightly different wording. Also, the following additions, changes, and deletions:

MIL‑STD‑1576, Electroexplosive Subsystem Safety Requirements and Test Methods for Space Systems—removed from applicable documents
MIL‑STD‑3023 HEMP Protection for Military Aircraft—added
MIL‑STD‑4023 HEMP Protection for Maritime Assets—added
MIL‑HDBK‑83578 Criteria for Explosive Systems and Devices Used on Space Vehicles—deleted

A.2.1.2 Other Government documents, drawings, and publications

Army, ATPD-2407 Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) for U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Vehicle Systems Tailored from MIL‑STD‑464C—added
TOP 01-2-511A US Army Test and Evaluation Command Test Operations Procedure—added

A.2.2 Non-Government Publications

Institute of Electrical and Electronics (IEEE) Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility
DOI:10.1109/TEMC.2016.2575842 Effect of Human Activities and Environmental Conditions on Electrostatic Charging—added
Franklin Applied Physics
F-C2560 RF Evaluation of the Single Bridgewire Apollo Standard Initiator—deleted

A.3 Acronyms

AMITS air management information tracking system—deleted
EMRADHAZ—deleted
HESD helicopter-borne electrostatic discharge—added
PESD personnel-borne electrostatic discharge—added
RADHAZ Radiation hazards—added

A.4.1 Requirement Guidance

Adds Army ATPD-2407 and TOP 01-2-511A is EMC guidance and test procedures.

A.4.1.e Requirement Guidance

Includes additional guidance and a slightly different approach than “C.” Margin Requirement Guidance A.5.1 adds the non-italicized statement in the following excerpt:

“Margins need to be viewed from the proper perspective. The use of margins simply recognizes that there is variability in manufacturing and that requirement verification has uncertainties. The margin ensures that every produced system will meet requirements, not just the particular one undergoing a selected verification technique. Smaller margins are appropriate for situations where production processes are under tighter controls or more accurate and thorough verification techniques are used. Smaller margins are also appropriate if many production systems undergo the same verification process, since the production variability issue is being addressed. Margins are not an increase in the basic defined levels for the various electromagnetic environments. The most common technique is to verify that electromagnetic and electrical stresses induced internal to the system by external environments are below equipment strength by at least the margin. This approach is similar to the test methodology described in A.4.1 (e). While margins can sometimes be demonstrated by performing verification at a level in excess of the defined requirement, the intent of the margin is not to increase the requirement.”

This paragraph is deleted from this section in “D” (look for it in the EID section):

“MNFS values for EIDs are normally specified by manufacturers in terms such as DC currents or energy. Margins are often demonstrated by observing an effect during the application of an electromagnetic environment that is the same effect observed when applying a stimulus level in the form under which the MNFS is defined. For example, the temperature rise of a bridgewire can be monitored in the presence of an EME relative to the temperature rise produced by a DC current level that is 16.5 dB below MNFS. The space community has elected to use MNFS levels determined using RF rather than DC. This approach is based on Franklin Institute studies, such as report F-C2560. Outside of the space community, the use of DC levels has provided successful results.”

A.5.2 Intra-system EMC

Under Requirements Rationale, the final sentence in “C”:

“To ensure EMC is achieved in Navy ships, a MIL‑STD‑1605(SH) survey should be performed.”

is replaced by a more descriptive version in “D”:

“For surface ships, MIL‑STD‑1605(SH) provides test methods used to verify compliance with the requirements of this standard for intra- and inter-system EMC, hull generated intermodulation interference, and electrical bonding.”

A.5.2 Verification Guidance

The following and final line item is modified in “D” to read:

“For portable electronic devices and carry-on equipment, EMI requirements are defined in 5.7.1.”

In “C,” line item h reads:

“TABLE A- 1 identifies what kind of EMI/EMC testing is required when new, modified, or carry-on equipment will be used on military aircraft.”

Table A-1 Type of EMI/EMC testing doesn’t exist in “D.”

A.5.3 Requirement Guidance

These words added to the very end of this section:

“A platform design, while descriptively fitting the title of an external EME table (e.g., Fixed Wing or Rotary Wing), may not coincide with the platform’s operational EME definition. Strict attention must be paid to the assumptions used in deriving the tables to ensure appropriate EMC compliance.”

A.5.4 Requirement Guidance (HPM)

Eliminates Tables A-4 – A-10 from “C” and also calculation of some example problems using these tables.

A.5.4 Requirement Rationale (HPM)

Eliminates some wording questioning the effectiveness of HPM.

A.5.4 Verification Guidance (HPM)

Eliminates reference to these deleted examples in “D.”

A.5.6 Requirement Guidance (EMP)

Contains some extra description of HEMP composite environment. It also adds descriptions of EMP-related military standards for dealing with EMP, including effects on spacecraft.

A.5.6 Requirement Lessons Learned

Has this sentence in common with “C”:

“Hardening against ground-burst nuclear radiation environments is often not cost effective because a burst near enough to produce a radiation and electromagnetic threat is also close enough for the blast to disable the facility.”

But “D” adds this last sentence not in “C”:

“Buried facilities such as ICBM launch sites are an exception.”

A.5.6 Verification Rationale (EMP)

“D” replaces this “C” paragraph:

“For many systems, the cost of EMP verification is a major driver. Therefore, the procuring activity should decide what level of verification is consistent with the risk that they are willing to take.”

with this paragraph:

“High-altitude EMP protection standards have been developed for fixed ground-based facilities, transportable ground-based systems, aircraft and ships. Each of these standards contains detailed verification testing protocols and pass/fail criteria. Use of these standards is mandatory for DoD military system procurements that have a HEMP requirement.”

Note the emphasis on the cost of EMP design has been replaced with wording more conducive to getting EMP designs installed.

In the same section, this new “D” wording:

“MIL‑STD‑3023 and MIL‑STD‑4023 for HEMP protection of military aircraft and ships, respectively provide a similar verification test approach except that these standards require illuminating the aircraft and ships with a simulated plane wave HEMP threat environment and measuring the induced stresses at each MCS equipment interface. Each MCS must be tested to MIL‑STD‑461 CS116 to establish its immunity before being installed into the platform. A user selectable margin is then applied to the measured current stress which is then pulse current injected (PCI) at the same interface used in the MIL‑STD‑461 CS116 testing. This enables direct stress to immunity comparisons at common interfaces for each mission critical equipment throughout the system. Monitoring for upset and damage is also performed at this time.”

has been appended to this existing “C” wording:

“MIL‑STD‑188-125-1 and MIL‑STD‑188-125-2 contain verification test methods for demonstrating that C⁴I fixed ground-based facilities and transportable ground-based systems meet HEMP requirements. The test methods describe coupling of threat-relatable transients using pulse current injection to penetrating conductors at injection points outside of the facility shield.”

A.5.7 Requirement Guidance (Subsystem & Equipment EMI)

Eliminates wording about DO-160 section 22 now that CS117 is available.

A.5.7.1 Portable Electronic Devices and Carry-On Equipment Requirements

All new appendix material. Basically refers to A.5.2. Intra-system EMC.

A.5.8.1 Vertical lift and in-flight refueling

Slightly rewritten, no changes.

A.5.8.3 Ordnance Subsystems

Greatly expanded and also includes the following new sections:

A.5.8.3.1 Personnel-borne ESD (PESD) for ordnance and ordnance systems
A.5.8.3.2 Helicopter-borne ESD (HESD) for ordnance and ordnance systems

A.5.9.3 Requirement Rationale (Ordnance RADHAZ (HERO)).

This section is rewritten with substantive changes.

A.5.9.3 Requirement Guidance (Ordnance RADHAZ (HERO))

This section is rewritten with substantive changes. MIL-STD-464C was:

“OD 30393 provides design principles and practices for controlling electromagnetic hazards to ordnance. MIL‑STD‑1576 and MIL‑HDBK‑83578 (USAF) provide guidance on the use of ordnance devices in space and launch vehicles. For space applications using ordnance devices, an analysis of margins based on the RF threshold determination of the MNFS should be performed.”

The last sentence refers to measuring the rf TOS of bridgewires, and that has been completely debunked. This section now reads:

“NASA document TP2361 provides design guidelines for space and launch vehicle charging issues. Subsystems and equipment installed aboard space systems should be able to meet operational performance requirements during and/or after being subjected to representative discharges simulating those due to spacecraft charging.”

A.5.14.2 Requirement Rationale (Platform Radiated Emission)

Rewritten with added information.

A.5.15 Requirement Guidance (EM Spectrum Compatibility)

Completely rewritten.

A.5.15 Verification Rationale (EM Spectrum Compatibility)

Completely rewritten.

A.5.15 Verification Guidance (EM Spectrum Compatibility)

Added information.

Endnotes

MIL-STD-464C is really MIL-STD-464B, but there was a release cycle error, and MIL-STD-464B was replaced after just a few months. The content didn’t change.
Author’s note: The significant truncation is due to moving ordnance-related margins to their own separate section. The ordnance margins haven’t changed – this just represents a reorganization of the standard.

The post MIL-STD-464D: A Review of Recent Changes appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.

Industry standards play a major role in providing meaningful metrics and common procedures that allow various manufacturers, customers, and suppliers to communicate from facility to facility around the world. Standards are increasingly important in our global economy. In manufacturing, uniform quality requirements and testing procedures are necessary to make sure that all involved parties are speaking the same language. In electrostatic discharge (ESD) device protection, standard methods have been developed for component ESD stress models to measure a component’s sensitivity to electrostatic discharge from various sources. In ESD control programs, standard test methods for product qualification and periodic evaluation of wrist straps, garments, ionizers, worksurfaces, grounding, flooring, shoes, static dissipative planar materials, shielding bags, packaging, electrical soldering/desoldering hand tools, and flooring/footwear systems have been developed to ensure uniformity around the world.

The EOS/ESD Association, Inc. (ESDA) is dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of ESD protection and avoidance. ESDA is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards developer. The Association’s consensus body is called the standards committee (STDCOM), which has responsibility for the overall development of documents. Volunteers from the industry participate in working groups to develop new and to update current ESDA documents.

ESDA’s standards business unit is charged with keeping pace with the industry demands for increased device and product performance and more effective control programs. The existing standards, standard test methods, standard practices, and technical reports assist in the design and monitoring of the electrostatic protected area (EPA), and also assist in the stress testing of ESD sensitive electronic components. Many of the existing documents relate to controlling electrostatic charge on personnel and stationary work areas. However, with the ever increasing emphasis on automated handling, the need to evaluate and monitor what is occurring inside of process equipment is growing daily. Since automation has become more dominant, the charged device model (CDM) has become the primary cause of ESD failures and, thus, the more urgent concern. Together, the human body model (HBM) and CDM cover the vast majority of ESD events that might occur in a typical factory.

ESDA’s document categories are:

Standard (S): A precise statement of a set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, system or process that also specifies the procedures for determining whether each of the requirements is satisfied.
Standard Test Method (STM): A definitive procedure for the identification, measurement and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics or properties of a material, product, system or process that yield a reproducible test result.
Standard Practice (SP): A procedure for performing one or more operations or functions that may or may not yield a test result. Note: if a test result is obtained it may not be reproducible.
Technical Report (TR): A collection of technical data or test results published as an informational reference on a specific material, product, system or process.

ESDA’s technology roadmap is compiled by industry experts in IC protection design and test to provide a look into future ESD design and manufacturing challenges. Earlier roadmaps had pointed out that numerous mainstream electronic parts and components would reach assembly factories with a lower level of ESD protection than could have been expected just a few years earlier. Those predictions have proven to be rather accurate. As with any roadmap, the view of the future is constantly changing and requires updating on the basis of technology trend updates, market forces, supply chain evolution, and field return data. An updated roadmap will be published in 2016 looking out to the year 2020. A key prediction from this new roadmap is that while the ESD protection level range may not change dramatically, the distribution of products within this range may change with a change in the mix of companies remaining on today’s traditional technologies while other companies continue to push for technology advancements through the need for higher performance devices.

EOS is an area that has long been overlooked by the industry, not because of any limited importance but rather because of its complex definition and multiple root causes. Indeed, it has proven difficult to find complete agreement among experts on even the fundamental definitions. Thus the language of EOS, EOS threats, and responsibility remains open for discussion. However, a working group is currently completing a TR that focuses on “best practices”, outlining ways to mitigate EOS threats in manufacturing, with an anticipated release in early 2017.

An area of concern that has been growing is the need to define upgraded control processes and tighter limits for high-reliability parts as well as devices that have ESD withstand voltages lower than those specified in the scope of ANSI/ESD S20.20. WG 19 initially was targeting process controls for aerospace only but this has been redirected to consider all high-reliability ESD process control. A document development effort has been initiated to specify “best practices” for high-reliability ESD control processes.

ESDA’s standards committee is continuing several joint document development activities with the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association. Under the memorandum of understanding agreement, the ESDA and JEDEC formed a joint working group for the standardization work in which volunteers from the ESDA and JEDEC member companies can participate. This collaboration between the two organizations has paved the way for the development of harmonized device test methods for both HBM and CDM ESD, which will ultimately reduce uncertainty about test standards among manufacturers and suppliers in the solid state industry. ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2014, a fourth revision of the joint HBM document, was published in September 2014. An update to ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2014 is currently in the works with an anticipated release in late 2016. This new release will introduce a new 50 volt classification level. A second joint working group has completed a joint charged device model (CDM) document. ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-002-2014, the first revision of the joint CDM document, was approved and published in early 2015. These efforts assist manufacturers of devices by providing one test method and specification for each model. These joint documents are aligning the entire ESD community on standardized test methods. In addition, a new joint WG has been formed with a focus on aligning ANSI/ESD S20.20 and JEDEC JESD625B. While in this case not focusing on creating a single joint document, the intent will be to create technically equivalent documents for industry use.

The ESDA is also working in the area of process assessment. ESD TR17.0-01-14 was published in 2016. The TR is a compilation of recent publications by members of the WG. The TR gives the reader examples of “best practices” of process assessment methodologies and test methods. The WG is currently working on a Standard Practice on “Process Assessment Techniques”. The goal of the SP is to provide a set of methodologies, techniques, and tools that can be used by experienced users to characterize the ability of a process to safely handle ESD sensitive items with a given ESD robustness.

The 2014 updates to ANSI/ESD S20.20 include changes in scope to address CDM and isolated conductors, changes to the qualification of footwear/flooring systems, process required insulators within 1 inch of ESD sensitive devices and requirements on isolated conductors. A section was added on product qualification for clarification. In table 3, there were updates to ionization and the inclusion of wrist strap ground connection requirements and the addition of soldering irons. Formatting of table 3 was updated for clarity. For more information, please go to https://www.esda.org/standards/factory/esd-control-program.

An update to ESD TR20.20 has been completed and was published in April 2016. ESD TR20.20 is a handbook providing significant detailed guidance that can be used for developing, implementing, and monitoring an electrostatic discharge control program in accordance with ANSI/ESD S20.20. Additionally, ESD TR53, Compliance Verification, was updated and published in spring 2015. ESD TR53 provides compliance verification test procedures and troubleshooting guidance for ESD protective equipment and materials. Test results may be used for the Compliance Verification Plan Requirements of ANSI/ESD S20.20 or those of the user if more restrictive. Changes to ESD TR53 reflect updates made to the compliance verification plan requirements of ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014.

To better serve the industry world-wide, the ESDA has begun the process of translating documents into other languages, including Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Korean, Thai, Polish, French, Spanish, and Japanese. ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014 is currently available in all eight languages. Other documents have also been translated or are in various stages of translation. The ESDA has formed a relationship with the China National Institute of Standardization (CNIS) for the translation and marketing of all of the ESDA documents in China. A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between the two organizations and CNIS is currently working on translation.

In order to meet the global need in the electronics industry for technically sound ESD control programs, the ESDA has established an independent third party certification program. The program is administered by EOS/ESD Association, Inc. through country-accredited ISO9000 certification bodies that have met the requirements of this program. The facility certification program evaluates a facility’s ESD program to ensure that the basic requirements from industry standards ANSI/ESD S20.20 or IEC 61340-5-1 are being followed. More than 777 facilities have been certified worldwide since inception of the program. The factory certification bodies report strong interest in certification to ANSI/ESD S20.20, and consultants in this area report that inquiries for assistance remain at a very high level. Individual education also seems of interest once again as 95 professionals have obtained certified ESD program manager status and many more are attempting to qualify for this certification. A large percentage of the certification program requirements are based on standards and the other related documents produced by the ESD Association standards committee.

Current ESD Association Standards Committee Documents

Charged Device Model (CDM)

ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-002 – ESDA/JEDEC Joint Standard for Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Charged Device Model (CDM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined CDM.

Cleanrooms

ESD TR55.0-01-04 – Electrostatic Guidelines and Considerations for Cleanrooms and Clean Manufacturing
Identifies considerations and provides guidelines for the selection and implementation of materials and processes for electrostatic control in cleanroom and clean manufacturing environments.

Compliance Verification

ESD TR53-01-15 – Compliance Verification of ESD Protective Equipment and Materials
Describes the test methods and instrumentation that can be used to periodically verify the performance of ESD protective equipment and materials.

Electronic Design Automation (EDA)

ESD TR18.0.01-14 – ESD Electronic Design Automation Checks
Provides guidance for both the EDA industry and the ESD design community for establishing a comprehensive ESD electronic design automation (EDA) verification flow satisfying the ESD design challenges of modern ICs.

ESD Control Program

ANSI/ESD S20.20 – Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)
This standard provides administrative and technical requirements for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an ESD Control Program to protect electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to damage by electrostatic discharges greater than or equal to 100 volts HBM, 200 volts CDM, and 35 volts on isolated conductors.

ESD TR20.20 – ESD Handbook (Companion to ANSI/ESD S20.20)
Produced specifically to support ANSI/ESD S20.20 ESD Control Program standard. The document focuses on providing guidance that can be used for developing, implementing, and monitoring an ESD control program in accordance with the S20.20 standard.

ESD Foundry Parameters

ESD TR22.0.01-14 – Relevant ESD Foundry Parameters for Seamless ESD Design and Verification Flow
In this report the essential requirements on ESD-related technology data will be described which need to be delivered to design customers by a foundry vendor. Design customers can be design houses, IDMs following a foundry strategy or IP vendors. The purpose is to ensure seamless design integration and ESD EDA verification of IC level ESD concepts.

Flooring

ANSI/ESD STM7.1 – Resistive Characterization of Materials – Floor Materials
Covers measurement of the electrical resistance of various floor materials, such as floor coverings, mats, and floor finishes. It provides test methods for qualifying floor materials before installation or application, and for evaluating and monitoring materials after installation or application.

ESD TR7.0-01-11 – Static Protective Floor Materials
This technical report reviews the use of floor materials to dissipate electrostatic charge. It provides an overview on floor coverings, floor finishes, topical antistats, floor mats, paints and coatings. It also covers a variety of other issues related to floor material selection, installation and maintenance.

Flooring and Footwear Systems

ANSI/ESD STM97.1 – Floor Materials and Footwear – Resistance Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical system resistance of floor materials in combination with person wearing static control footwear.

ANSI/ESD STM97.2 – Floor Materials and Footwear – Voltage Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides for measuring the electrostatic voltage on a person in combination with floor materials and footwear, as a system.

Footwear

ANSI/ESD STM9.1 – Footwear – Resistive Characterization
Defines a test method for measuring the electrical resistance of shoes used for ESD control in the electronics environment (not to include heel straps and toe grounders).

ESD SP9.2 – Footwear – Foot Grounders Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for evaluating foot grounders and foot grounder systems used to electrically bond or ground personnel as part of an ESD Control Program. Static Control Shoes are tested using ANSI/ESD STM9.1.

Garments

ANSI/ESD STM2.1 – Garments – Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of garments. It covers procedures for measuring sleeve-to-sleeve resistance and point-to-point resistance.

ESD TR2.0-01-00 – Consideration for Developing ESD Garment Specifications
Addresses concerns about effective ESD garments by starting with an understanding of electrostatic measurements and how they relate to ESD protection.

ESD TR2.0-02-00 – Static Electricity Hazards of Triboelectrically Charged Garments
Intended to provide some insight to the electrostatic hazards present when a garment is worn in a flammable or explosive environment.

Glossary

ESD ADV1.0 – Glossary of Terms
Definitions and explanations of various terms used in Association Standards and documents are covered in this advisory. It also includes other terms commonly used in the electronics industry.

Gloves and Finger Cots

ANSI/ESD SP15.1 – In-Use Resistance Testing of Gloves and Finger Cots
Provides test procedures for measuring the intrinsic electrical resistance of gloves and finger cots.

ESD TR15.0-01-99 – ESD Glove and Finger Cots
Reviews the existing known industry test methods for the qualification of ESD protective gloves and finger cots. (Formerly TR03-99)

Grounding

ANSI/ESD S6.1 – Grounding
Specifies the parameters, materials, equipment, and test procedures necessary to choose, establish, vary, and maintain an Electrostatic Discharge Control grounding system for use within an ESD Protected Area for protection of ESD susceptible items, and specifies the criteria for establishing ESD Bonding.

Handlers

ANSI/ESD SP10.1 – Automated Handling Equipment (AHE)
Provides procedures for evaluating the electrostatic environment associated with automated handling equipment.

ESD TR10.0-01-02 – Measurement and ESD Control Issues for Automated Equipment Handling of ESD Sensitive Devices below 100 Volts
Provides guidance and considerations that an equipment manufacturer should use when designing automated handling equipment for these low voltage sensitive devices. (Formerly TR14-02)

Hand Tools

ANSI/ESD S13.1 – Electrical Soldering/Desoldering Hand Tools
Provides electric soldering/desoldering hand tool test methods for measuring the electrical leakage and tip to ground reference point resistance, and provides parameters for EOS safe soldering operation.

ESD TR13.0-01-99 – EOS Safe Soldering Iron Requirements
Discusses soldering iron requirements that must be based on the sensitivity of the most susceptible devices that are to be soldered. (Formerly TR04-99)

Human Body Model (HBM)

ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 – ESDA/JEDEC Joint Standard for Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Body Model (HBM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the electrostatic discharge sensitivity of components to the defined human body model (HBM).

ESD JTR001-01-12 – ESD Association Technical Report User Guide of ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 Human Body Model Testing of Integrated Circuits
Describes the technical changes made in ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 and explains how to use those changes apply human body model tests to IC components.

Human Metal Model (HMM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.6 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Metal Model (HMM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined HMM.

ESD TR5.6-01-09 – Human Metal Model (HMM)
Addresses the need for a standard method of applying the IEC contact discharge waveform to devices and components.

Ionization

ANSI/ESD STM3.1 – Ionization
Test methods and procedures for evaluating and selecting air ionization equipment and systems are covered in this standard test method. The document establishes measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers.

ANSI/ESD SP3.3 – Periodic Verification of Air Ionizers
Provides test methods and procedures for periodic verification of the performance of air ionization equipment and systems (ionizers).

ANSI/ESD SP3.4 – Periodic Verification of Air Ionizer Performance Using a Small Test Fixture
Provides a test fixture example and procedures for performance verification of air ionization used in confined spaces where it may not be possible to use the test fixtures defined in ANSI/ESD STM3.1 or ANSI/ESD SP3.3.

ESD TR3.0-01-02 – Alternate Techniques for Measuring Ionizer Offset Voltage and Discharge Time
Investigates measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers.

ESD TR3.0-02-05 – Selection and Acceptance of Air Ionizers
Reviews and provides a guideline for creating a performance specification for the four ionizer types contained in ANSI/ESD STM3.1: room (systems), laminar flow hood, worksurface (e.g., blowers), and compressed gas (nozzles & guns).

Machine Model (MM)

ANSI/ESD STM5.2 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Machine Model (MM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing and evaluating the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined machine model.

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.1 – Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Supply Pin Ganging – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels.

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.2 – Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Split Signal Pin – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels.

ESD TR5.2-01-01 – Machine Model (MM) Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Investigation – Reduction in Pulse Number and Delay Time
Provides the procedures, results, and conclusions of evaluating a proposed change from 3 pulses (present requirement) to 1 pulse while using a delay time of both 1 second (present requirement) and 0.5 second.

Ohmmeters

ESD TR50.0-02-99 – High Resistance Ohmmeters–Voltage Measurements
Discusses a number of parameters that can cause different readings from high resistance meters when improper instrumentation and techniques are used and the techniques and precautions to be used in order to ensure the measurement will be as accurate and repeatable as possible for high resistance measurement of materials.

Packaging

ANSI/ESD STM11.11 – Surface Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Defines a direct current test method for measuring electrical resistance, replacing ASTM D257-78. This test method is designed specifically for static dissipative planar materials used in packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.12 – Volume Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Provides test methods for measuring the volume resistance of static dissipative planar materials used in the packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.13 – Two-Point Resistance Measurement
Measures the resistance between two points on a material’s surface without consideration of the material’s means of achieving conductivity. This test method was established for measuring resistance where the concentric ring electrodes of ANSI/ESD STM11.11 cannot be used.

ANSI/ESD STM11.31 – Bags
Provides a method for testing and determining the shielding capabilities of electrostatic shielding bags.

ANSI/ESD S11.4 – Static Control Bags
Establishes performance limits for bags that are intended to protect electronic parts and products from damage due to static electricity and moisture during common electronic manufacturing industry transport and storage applications.

ANSI/ESD S541 – Packaging Materials for ESD Sensitive Items
Describes the packaging material properties needed to protect electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitive electronic items, and references the testing methods for evaluating packaging and packaging materials for those properties. Where possible, performance limits are provided. Guidance for selecting the types of packaging with protective properties appropriate for specific applications is provided. Other considerations for protective packaging are also provided.

ESD ADV11.2 – Triboelectric Charge Accumulation Testing
Provides guidance in understanding the triboelectric phenomenon and relates current information and experience regarding tribocharge testing as used in static control for electronics.

Process Assessment

ESD TR17.0-01-15 – ESD Process Assessment Methodologies in Electronic Production Lines – Best Practices used in Industry
Gives the reader examples of “best practices” of process assessment methodologies and test methods.

Seating

ANSI/ESD STM12.1 – Seating – Resistive Measurement
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of seating used for the control of electrostatic charge or discharge. It contains test methods for the qualification of seating prior to installation or application, as well as test methods for evaluating and monitoring seating after installation or application.

Socketed Device Model (SDM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.3.2 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Socketed Device (SDM) – Component Level
Provides a test method for generating a Socketed Device Model (SDM) test on a component integrated circuit (IC) device.

ESD TR5.3.2-01-00 – Socket Device Model (SDM) Tester
Helps the user understand how existing SDM testers function, offers help with the interpretation of ESD data generated by SDM test systems, and defines the important properties of an “ideal” socketed-CDM test system.

Static Electricity

ESD TR50.0-01-99 – Can Static Electricity Be Measured?
Gives an overview of fundamental electrostatic concepts, electrostatic effects, and most importantly of electrostatic metrology, especially what can and what cannot be measured.

Susceptible Device Concepts

ESD TR50.0-03-03 – Voltage and Energy Susceptible Device Concepts, Including Latency Considerations
Contains information to promote an understanding of the differences between energy and voltage susceptible types of devices and their sensitivity levels.

Symbols

ANSI/ESD S8.1 – Symbols – ESD Awareness
Three types of ESD awareness symbols are established by this document. The first one is to be used on a device or assembly to indicate that it is susceptible to electrostatic charge. The second is to be used on items and materials intended to provide electrostatic protection. The third symbol indicates the common point ground.

System Level ESD

ESD TR14.0-01-00 – Calculation of Uncertainty Associated with Measurement of Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Current
Provides guidance on measuring uncertainty based on an uncertainty budget.

ESD TR14.0-02-13 – System Level Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Simulator Verification
Developed to provide guidance to designers, manufacturers, and calibration facilities for verification and specification of the systems and fixtures used to measure simulator discharge currents.

ANSI/ESD SP14.5 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Near Field Immunity Scanning – Component/Module/PCB Level
Establishes a test method for immunity scanning of ICs, modules and PCB’s. Results from scanning relate to the system level performance but cannot be used to predict system level performance using the IEC 61000-4-2 test method.

Transient Latch-up

ESD TR5.4-01-00 – Transient Induced Latch-Up (TLU)
Provides a brief background on early latch-up work, reviews the issues surrounding the power supply response requirements, and discusses the efforts on RLC TLU testing, transmission line pulse (TLP) stressing, and the bi-polar stress TLU methodology.

ESD TR5.4-02-08 – Determination of CMOS Latch-up Susceptibility – Transient Latch-up
Intended to provide background information pertaining to the development of the transient latch-up standard practice originally published in 2004 and additional data presented to the group since publication.

ESD TR5.4-03-11 – Latch-up Sensitivity Testing of CMOS/Bi CMOS Integrated Circuits – Transient Latch-up Testing – Component Level Supply Transient Stimulation
Developed to instruct the reader on the methods and materials needed to perform transient latch-up Testing.

ESD TR5.4-04-13 – Transient Latch-up Testing
Defines transient latch-up (TLU) as a state in which a low-impedance path, resulting from a transient overstress that triggers a parasitic thyristor structure or bipolar structure or combinations of both, persists at least temporarily after removal or cessation of the triggering condition. The rise time of the transient overstress causing TLU is shorter than five ns. TLU as defined in this document does not cover changes of functional states, even if those changes would result in a low-impedance path and increased power supply consumption.

Transmission Line Pulse

ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. The purpose of this document is to establish a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with TLP testing.

ANSI/ESD SP5.5.2 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to very fast transmission line pulse (VF-TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. It establishes guidelines and standard practices presently used by development, research, and reliability engineers in both universities and industry for VF-TLP testing.

ESD TR5.5-01-08 – Transmission Line Pulse (TLP)
A compilation of the information gathered during the writing of ANSI/ESD SP5.5.1 and the information gathered in support of moving the standard practice toward re-designation as a standard test method.

ESD TR5.5-02-08 – Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Intended to provide data on the repeatability and reproducibility limits of the methods of ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1.

ESD TR5.5-03-14 – Very-Fast Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Reviews the RR measurements and analysis used to support the re-designation of the VF-TLP document from SP to STM. It also discusses some of the lessons learned about VF-TLP and the performing of a RR experiment.

Workstations

ESD ADV53.1 – ESD Protective Workstations
Defines the minimum requirements for a basic ESD protective workstation used in ESD sensitive areas. It provides a test method for evaluating and monitoring workstations. It defines workstations as having the following components: support structure, static dissipative worksurface, a means of grounding personnel, and any attached shelving or drawers.

Worksurfaces

ANSI/ESD S4.1 – Worksurface – Resistance Measurements
Provides test methods for evaluating and selecting worksurface materials, testing of new worksurface installations, and the testing of previously installed worksurfaces.

ANSI/ESD STM4.2 – ESD Protective Worksurfaces – Charge Dissipation Characteristics
Aids in determining the ability of ESD protective worksurfaces to dissipate charge from a conductive test object placed on them.

ESD TR4.0-01-02 – Survey of Worksurfaces and Grounding Mechanisms
Provides guidance for understanding the attributes of worksurface materials and their grounding mechanisms.

Wrist Straps

ANSI/ESD S1.1 – Wrist Straps
Establishes test methods for evaluating the electrical and mechanical characteristics of wrist straps. It includes improved test methods and performance limits for evaluation, acceptance, and functional testing of wrist straps.

ESD TR1.0-01-01 – Survey of Constant (Continuous) Monitors for Wrist Straps
Provides guidance to ensure that wrist straps are functional and are connected to people and ground.

Founded in 1982, the EOS/ESD Association, Inc. is a professional voluntary association dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) avoidance. From fewer than 100 members, the Association has grown to more than 2,000 throughout the world. From an initial emphasis on the effects of ESD on electronic components, the Association has broadened its horizons to include areas such as textiles, plastics, web processing, cleanrooms, and graphic arts. To meet the needs of a continually changing environment, the Association is chartered to expand ESD awareness through standards development, educational programs, local chapters, publications, tutorials, certification, and symposia.

The post ESD Standards: An Annual Progress Report appeared first on In Compliance Magazine.