Pitfalls when correlating TLP, HBM and MM testing

Abstract

Correlation between HBM, MM and TLP testing is still under discussion. In this paper it is shown, that lack of correlation is caused by misinterpretations in the test results, due to the fact that soft and hard failures are often confused. This is illustrated by ESD results of test structures with grounded-gate NMOSTs and Field Oxide devices, measured according to Human Body Model, Machine Model and by means of Transmission Line Pulse testing. It is shown, that for a valid comparison, it is essential to combine electrical measurements with a thorough physical failure analysis in order to establish the failure signature. Once the failure signature and the current path are taken into account, a good correlation is found.

Electrical characteristics of novel ESD protection devices for I/O clamp

“…This has been well established in recent reports [7][8]. However, a miscorrelation between the TLP and the HBM still exists because of the system's limitation and its testing environments [9][10]. Figure 6 shows the standard model for a HBM/MM ESD event.…”

Deep sub-micron ESD GGNMOS layout design and optimization

“…TLP [10][11][12][13][14] current pulse signal, which is 100ns pulse width, 10ns rising time, 10ns falling time and 40mA currents, is added to the drain of the GGNMOS device, at the same time the gate, source and substrate of it are grounded. As shown in Figure 5, the V D -I D characteristic is the result of the simulation of the GGNMOS device.…”

Design of Gate-Ground-NMOS-Based ESD Protection Circuits with Low Trigger Voltage, Low Leakage Current, and Fast Turn-On

“…The result from the TLP test with a 100 ns pulse width can be well correlated to the human body model (HBM) [8], [9]. However, a miscorrelation between TLP and HBM still exists because of the system's limitations and its testing environments [10], [11].…”