ITRS 2003 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup Section Details and Assumptions for Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions 09/04/03 1
AMHS Backup Outline 1. Contributors Page 3 2. How Metrics were Selected Page 4 3. Material Handling Technology Requirements Table 5 4. Translating Material Handling Technology Reqs to Reality 6 5. Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Reqs 27 1. 2. 3. 4. System Throughput Requirements Reliability pages 18 -19 Hot Lot Delivery Time Pages 20 -22 Delivery Time Pages 23 -27 6. Potential Solution Options 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 09/04/03 Page Pg 7 - pages 7 -17 Pg 28 -67 Direct Transport (Includes capabilities needed from FICS) Pages 28 -42 Direct Transport/Delivery Time: 3 rd Party LP/Buffer Pages 43 -46 Integrated Flow and Control Pages 47 -54 Delivery Time & Storage Density: Under Track Storage Pages 55 -59 Inert Gas Purging of FOUPs Pages 60 -61 Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced Constraints Pages 62 -67 2
AMHS Contributors § § § 09/04/03 Will Perakis, Asyst Joe Reiss, Asyst Thomas Mariano, Brooks Neil Fisher, SK Daifuku Dan Stevens, Hirata Doug Oler, Hirata Scott Pugh, Hirata Larry Hennessy, IDC Adrian Pyke, Middlesex Ron Denison, Murata Chung Soo Han, AMD Detlev Glueer, AMD § § § Marlin Shopbell, Sema. Tech Dave Miller, IBM Melvin Jung, Intel Steve Seall, Intel Len Foster, TI Roy Hunter, TI Sven Hahn, Infineon Harald Heinrich, Infineon Mikio Otani, ASI Makoto Yamamoto, Murata Junji Iwaskai, Renasas Seiichi Nakazawa, F-RIC 3
How Metrics were selected § Almost every metric is a best in class or close to best in class l Sources are: Individual IC maker and AMHS Supplier feedback. § It is likely a factory will not achieve all the metrics outlined in the roadmap concurrently l l Individual business models will dictate which metric is more important than others It is likely certain metrics may be sacrificed (periodically) for attaining other metrics. § The Factory Integration metrics are not really tied to the technology nodes as in other chapters such as Lithography l However, nodes offer convenient interception points to bring in new capability, tools, software and other operational potential solutions § Inclusion of each metric is dependent on consensus agreement We think the metrics provide a good summary of stretch goals for most companies in today’s challenging environment. 09/04/03 4
Material Handling Technical Requirements Year of Production 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009/ 2010 2012 / 2013 2015 / 2016 2018 Wafer Diameter 300 mm 300 mm 300 mm 450 mm 15 12 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 6 30 25 25 25 20 20 15 10 Transport E-MTTR (min) per SEMI E 10 Storage E-MTTR (min) per SEMI E 10 Transport MMBF (Mean move between failure) 5, 000 7, 000 8, 000 11, 000 15, 000 25, 000 35, 000 45, 000 55, 000 65, 000 Storage MCBF (Mean cycle between failure) 22, 000 25, 000 30, 000 35, 000 45, 000 55, 000 60, 000 70, 000 80, 000 100, 000 Peak System throughput (40 K WSPM) § Interbay Transport (moves/hour) 2075 2150 2250 2500 § Intrabay transport (moves/hour) – High Throughput Bay 190 200 210 230 4100 4240 4740 4900 5000 5000 § Transport (moves/hour) - unified system Stocker cycle time (seconds) (100 bin capacity) 14 12 12 10 10 Average delivery time (minutes) 8 6 6 5 5 5 5 Peak delivery time (minutes) 15 12 12 10 10 Hot Lot Avg. delivery time (minutes) 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 AMHS lead time (weeks) <12 <11 <10 <9 <8 <8 <8 AMHS install time (weeks) <16 <14 <12 <10 <10 Downtime to extend system capacity when previously planned (minutes) <90 <60 <30 <15 <0 <0 09/04/03 5
Translating Material Handling metrics to Reality Metric Potential Solution it is driving Wafer Transport System Capability Transport MMBF, Storage MCBF, Transport E-MTTR, Storage E-MTTR Storage and transport redundancy schemes; fault tolerant MCS; e-Diagnostics, EES, APC for AMHS Stocker cycle time per system Fundamental capability that permits the AMH system to successfully transport hot lots, gating send-aheads and hand-carries Stocker storage density New storage ideas which significantly reduce stocker footprint in the fab cleanroom (Under Track Storage, Conveyors) Downtime required for adding increased system capacity when previously planned 09/04/03 Direct transport (or integrated interbay & intrabay). Needed for hot lot, gating sendahead, & hand-carry TPT targets New track and stocker extension designs that permit AMHS retrofit/expansion in a working factory with minimum downtime 6
2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements AMHS System Throughput 09/04/03 7
2003 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Numbers used in 2003 AMHS Requirements Table) M. Jung Intel 09/04/03 8
Peak AMHS MPH – Sample Calculation § System Throughput Requirements for 2004 -2005 transition to direct transport: Sample Calculation for 2005: 40 K WSPM Process Steps = 25 layers X 29 steps/layer X 40 k wspm (725 steps X 40 k wspm) = (727 Hrs/month X 25 wafers /lot) = 1593 process steps per hour Direct Transport Average MPH = ((%Tool to Tool moves x 1 Move)+((1 -%Tool to Tool moves) x 2 Moves)) x Process Steps per Hour = ((10% x 1) + ((1 – 10%) x 2)) x 1593 = 3027 MPH Direct Transport Peak MPH = Average AMHS MPH x (1+2 std dev) = 3027 x (1 + 2 x. 20) = ~4240 MPH 09/04/03 9
2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Reference) M. Jung Intel 09/04/03 10
2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Reference) § System Throughput Requirements for Intrabay (2004/2005): Sample Calculation: High throughput = Intrabay MPH 20 tools/bay X 125 wafers/hour 25 wafers/carrier = = 09/04/03 100 Moves / Hr Average ~200 Moves / Hr Peak ( i. e. , Avg+ 2 x. Std Dev) 11
2003 Inputs, Assumptions, Outputs & Description (Additional AMHS Configurations) M. Jung Intel 09/04/03 12
Transport Move Definition/Details (AMHS Configuration & Move Type Definitions) M. Jung Intel 09/04/03 13
Separate Interbay & Intrabay Between Tools in same bay Between Tools in different bays Between Tool and Storage Between two Storage devices 1. 2. 3. 4. T 1 -> L 1 -> T 2 T 1 -> L 1 -> S 1 -> L 5 -> S 3 -> L 2 -> T 3 T 1 -> L 1 -> S 1 -> L 5 -> S 3 L 5 S 1 S 2 T 1 M. Jung Intel 09/04/03 T 2 L 1 S 3 S 4 T 3 T 4 L 2 S 5 S 6 T 5 T 6 L 3 S 7 S 8 T 7 T 8 L 4 14
Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays Connected Between Tools in same bay Between Tools in different bays Between Tool and Storage Between two Storage devices 1. 2. 3. 4. T 1 -> L 1 -> T 2 T 1 -> L 1 -> T 3 T 1 -> L 1 -> S 3 OR T 1 -> L 1 -> S 1 -> L 3 -> S 5 -> L 2 -> T 5 OR S 1 -> L 3 -> S 3 L 3 S 1 T 1 M. Jung Intel 09/04/03 S 2 T 2 S 3 S 4 T 3 T 4 L 1 S 5 S 6 T 5 T 6 S 7 T 7 S 8 T 8 L 2 15
Unified Transport System – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool 1. 2. 3. 4. Between Tools in same bay Between Tools in different bays Between Tool and Storage Between two Storage devices T 1 -> L 1 -> T 2 T 1 -> L 1 -> T 3 T 1 -> L 1 -> S 3 L 1 S 1 T 1 S 2 T 2 S 3 T 3 S 4 T 4 S 5 T 5 S 6 T 6 S 7 T 7 S 8 T 8 M. Jung Intel 09/04/03 16
Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff Between Transport Systems – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool T 1 -> L 1 -> T 2 2. Between Tools in different bays T 1 -> L 1 -> S 1 -> L 5 -> S 3 -> L 2 -> T 3 OR T 1 -> L 1 -> X 1 -> L 5 -> X 2 -> L 2 -> T 3 3. Between Tool and Storage T 1 -> L 1 -> S 1 4. Between two Storage devices S 1 -> L 5 -> S 3 L 5 1. Between Tools in same bay X 1 S 2 T 1 M. Jung Intel 09/04/03 T 2 L 1 S 3 S 4 T 3 T 4 L 2 X 4 X 3 X 2 S 5 S 6 T 5 T 6 L 3 S 7 S 8 T 7 T 8 L 4 17
2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements AMHS Reliability Metrics 09/04/03 18
AMHS MCBF – Translated into Failures/Day § Inputs § Outputs 09/04/03 19
2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements Hot Lot Delivery Time 09/04/03 20
AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time Goal: Determine Regular AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time to meet Cycle Time. 1) 2) M. Jung Intel 09/04/03 Factory Operations and process step assumptions are listed below. If a Queue time of ~2 days is acceptable for Hot Lots then AMHS Delivery Times meet Cycle Time Requirements. 21
AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time Cycle / Processing / Transport / Queue Time Output and Assumptions: 1) 2) 3) M. Jung Intel 09/04/03 The following table outlines the Required Cycle Time and the expected processing time. The transport time is directly dependent on the AMHS Delivery Time. The Queue Time is determined by subtracting the Transport Time and Processing Time from the Cycle Time. 22
2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements Delivery Time 09/04/03 23
Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #1 Timestamp Description Carrier is handed over to hoist, vehicle or conveyor (“real transport media”) ƒ Hoist, vehicle or conveyor arriving at (final) destination „ Carrier is handed over from AMHS to equipment (e. g. at loadport, I/O, …) … Operator, Host or Equipment requesting carrier Example 09: 13: 12 Carrier is handed over to AMHS (e. g. at loadport, shuttle-I/O, nest) ‚ Comment may be = 09: 13: 50 9: 20: 02 may be = ƒ 11: 05: 07 11: 04: 11 D. Glueer AMD 09/04/03 24
Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #2 Description Interval Example Travel Time carrier spends on vehicle, hoist or conveyor ƒ-‚ 5 min Delivery Time required to transport a carrier from one production equipment to any other production equipment in the factory. ƒ- 7 min Lateness Time operator or equipment needs to wait for carrier, excluding minimum robot handling time at destination … „ - t. Retrieve - 2 min D. Glueer AMD 09/04/03 25
AMHS Updates for 2003 – ITRS & ISMT Metric Definitions § Definitions: l l Transport move definition: A transport move is defined as a carrier move between loadports (stocker to stocker, stocker to production equipment, production equipment to stocker or production equipment to production equipment). Avg. Factory wide carrier delivery time: the time begins at the request for carrier movement from the host and ends when the carrier arrives at the load port of the receiving equipment. Maximum delivery time is considered the peak performance capability defined as the average plus two standard deviations. Handling time at destination t. Retrieve: the (minimum) robot handling time required to move the carrier from the last storage location to the operator or the processing tool. Combined AMHS: delivery time and lateness are aggregated times, including optional changes of transportation media along the path to the destination. D. Glueer AMD 09/04/03 26
Strategic Goals for Delivery Time 5% p. a. Delivery Time decrease p. a. due to advances in AMHS technology 10% p. a. Lateness decrease due to Delivery Time, MES and dispatching improvements D. Glueer AMD 09/04/03 27
ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Direct Transport: Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions 09/04/03 28
AMHS is Changing to an On-Time Delivery System Inter-Bay AMHS Intra and Inter Separate System Intra-Bay H/W Efforts Key Indicator Intra-Bay Equipment View Reduce WIP Unified System (Dispatcher Base) Push Transfer Time (Ave & Max) Lot View Punctuality (On-Time) On-Time Delivery Capacity Planning 09/04/03 Ave & Max Time Schedule WIP Unified System (Scheduler Base) J. Iwasaki Renasas Pull Re-Route S/W Efforts Transfer Throughput Wafer Level Tracking 29
The Next Generation Factory Concept Planning System …. . Agile -Mfg. System …. . EES …. . Supporting System …. . User’s SCM Supply Chain Management Direct Transport Wafer Level Control EDiagnostic Supplier’s SCM E-Mfg. Direct Transport - Plays key role in next generation factories 09/04/03 30
Direct Tool to Tool Transport Is Needed by 2005 § Objectives: l l Reduce product processing cycle time Increase productivity of process tools Reduced storage requirements (# of stocker) Reduced total movement requirements § Priorities for Direct Delivery: l l l Super Hot Lots (< 1% of WIP) & Other Hot Lots (~5% of WIP) Ensure bottleneck equipment is always busy Gating metro and send ahead. Other lot movements opportunistically Several AMHS Mechanical & Layout Design Concept Options being considered S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 5 S 6 S 7 S 8 T 1 T 2 T 4 T 5 T 6 T 8 T 3 T 7 Fully Connected OHV S 1 S 2 S 3 T 1 T 2 S 4 T 3 T 4 S 5 S 6 S 7 T 5 T 6 S 8 T 7 T 8 § Capability Needs l l l Tools indicate that WIP is needed ahead of time Event driven dispatching Transition to a delivery time based AMHS Integrated factory scheduling capabilities ID Read at Tools OHV with Interbay Transport § Timing l l l 09/04/03 Research Required 2001 -2003 Development Underway 2003 -2005 Qualification/Pre-Production 2004 -2006 Partially Connected OHV With Conveyor Interbay 31
Material Handling: Vehicle Based Direct Transport System Concept Central Stocker (Large Capacity) (High Throughput) Upper Ceiling OHT Note: Current OHT systems cannot meet the longer-term throughput Branch Under Floor 09/04/03 Full Direct Transport 32
Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor Based Direct Transport Concept Conveyor Type Transport 09/04/03 33
Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor / Hoist Hybrid Based Direct Transport Concept Interbay Conveyor <-> Intrabay hoist Interbay/Intrabay Conveyor <-> Tool Delivery Hoist A. Pyke Middlesex 09/04/03 34
Material Handling: Alternate Interbay Vehicle <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station. Interbay Conveyor <-> Intrabay RGV/AGV Concepts for achieving Direct Transport w/ multiple transport systems Interbay Vehicle <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station with height translation Interbay vehicle <-> Intrabay RGV/AGV handoff station Interbay Vehicle (passive) <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station A. Pyke Middlesex 09/04/03 35
Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor Direct Transport Concept (Stocker to Stocker Moves) X Stocker Section X-X Stocker Subway Transport system 12’ceiling Conveyor Maintenance: Via the top for Subway system Via the bottom for Overhead system Raised metal floor 600 mm max D. Pillai Intel Corp 09/04/03 Transparent cover Stocker robot 2 nd transport loop (if needed) Conveyor installed on waffle slab Waffle slab 36
Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor Direct Transport Concept (Tool Moves) Loadport with Safety cover and Elevator Tool ME ME EB Tool Mini Environment D+D 1 = 450 mm Tool ME X ME Tool X Simple Gantry robot Tool body (side view) Tool ME ME Safety Cover Tool PGV Dock flange Tool ME ME Tool Raised Metal Floor D. Pillai Intel Corp 600 mm Stocker FOUP gripper Conveyor on waffle slab door opener zone 900 mm Tool Pedestal envelope Waffle slab 09/04/03 37
Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor Direct Transport Concept (Plan View w/ Gantry) EB D+D 1 = 450 mm Safety cover Door opener Gantry Rails Tool body Door opener Mini Environment D. Pillai Intel Corp 09/04/03 38
Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor Direct Transport Concept (Elevation View w/ Gantry) Gantry robot takes FOUP to Loadport and places on KC Tool front face Door opener flange Loadport 1 FOUP lifting Exclusion zones Empty loadport 2 900 mm Raised Metal Floor Outline of pedestal ΠGantry robot picks up FOUP from Conveyor and raised to the top Subway conveyor D. Pillai Intel Corp 09/04/03 Waffle slab 39
Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor Direct Transport Concept (Layout) D. Pillai Intel Corp 09/04/03 40
Factors that affect opportunity for direct transport - AMHS § Interbay and Intrabay Track Layout l l l Unified track supporting interbay and intrabay systems “Crossovers” to reduce AMHS cycle time – increase empty vehicle availability Bypass capability for traffic jams Parking area for empty vehicles Advantage: Increased possibility for direct delivery. Reduced AMHS cycle time Disadvantage: Might increase complexity for MCS to manage overall AMHS system complexity increases w/ integrated system w/ multiple tracks & add’l complexity in layouts (bypasses, shortcuts) § # of vehicles l l High: Traffic jams may occur Low: FOUP will wait to be picked up § AMHS Controller/MCS Functionality l l Support MES and Dispatching systems Balance empty vehicles throughout the fab Ø Currently in AMHS control, this is ok for today. In future, need further integrated system to provide add’l MES data (tools, WIP) to proactively optimize management of empty vehicles (stage vehicles). l l Integrate third party buffers Redirect vehicle route/destinations while on route C. Han AMD 09/04/03 41
§ Intrabay Side l SEMI Standards Assessment Hoist type vehicle interface: ü Pickup: Carrier located by conveyor rails, pickup by top flange. ü Drop-off: Carrier lead-in by conveyor rails (similar to KC pins). ü Handoff by E 84 l RGV/AGV type vehicle interface (AGV/RGV uses KC pins or option fork lift flanges): ü Pickup: Carrier located by conveyor rails, KC pins available for robot. ü Drop-off: Carrier lead-in by conveyor rails (similar to KC pins). ü Handoff by E 84 l RGV/AGV type vehicle interface (AGV/RGV uses conveyor rails): ü Pickup: Carrier located by KC pin lifter, conveyor rails available for robot. ü Drop-off: Carrier placed on KC pins, robot uses conveyor rails ü Handoff by E 84 § Interbay Side l Most “active vehicle” type vehicles should work without issue: ü E 85 Option A – “Active Transport Delivers Carrier to Internal Stocker location” – “Internal Stocker location” replaced by Conveyor Buffer. ü E 85 Option B - “Active Transport Delivers Carrier to External Stocker location” – “External Stocker location” replaced by Conveyor Buffer. l Passive Vehicle Interface will require secondary active component: ü Dedicated pick and place unit or robot. § Software ü ü l A. Pyke Middlesex 09/04/03 IBSEM will work as-is for Interbay, Intrabay and Hybrid systems. E 84 good handoff protocol for all low level handoffs. Also, IBSEM possible for interbay vehicle to intrabay vehicle handoff but may be overkill. STKSEM also possible for interbay vehicle to intrabay vehicle handoff but extreme overkill. Minor modifications in IBSEM (E 82) may allow easier vehicle-vehicle handoff, through intermediate device. Could be investigated. Further work needed. 42
ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Direct Tool-to-Tool Delivery 3 rd Party Loadport / Buffer. C. Han AMD 09/04/03 43
Key Factors - # of LP (FOUP Buffers) § Three loadports (for normal process tool) can increase the direct tool-to-tool delivery possibility l l l LP #1: Processing LP #2: Non-production wafer FOUP for Send Ahead or Test LP #3: To be processed § Advantage l l Can deliver at any time (unless next FOUP to be processed is already on the non-processing LP) Tool dedicated Non-production FOUP reside on the process tool (instead of delivery back and forth from stocker) Reduced # of delivery cycles § Disadvantage l l Tools usually have only two load ports, this approach requires an additional LP Tools may not support installation of additional LP due to their design § Third party buffer is possible solution instead of additional LP l l Need to have “internal” transfer between buffer and LPs AMHS(OHT) to deliver FOUP to buffer C. Han AMD 09/04/03 44
Key Factors – Operation Scenario for Non. Production Wafer FOUP for two LP § Non-production wafer (i. e. Send Ahead and test) FOUP resides on process tool only for the time required l l Transfer from stocker to process tool (not required for the 3 LP scenario) Transfer from process tool to metrology tool Transfer from metrology tool to sorter for Send Ahead merge (may not be required for 3 LP scenario) Transfer from sorter to Stocker (in 3 LP case, transfer to process tool) § Advantage l Can be done with two LP in the process tool § Disadvantage l l Next lot can not be delivered until non-production wafers processed, and FOUP removed from the tool Increase deliveries C. Han AMD 09/04/03 45
Key Factors – Operation Scenario for Non. Production Wafer FOUP Non-Production Wafers Time Production Wafers LP #1 Three LP LP #2 LP #3 • Next lot can be delivered at any time • Non-production FOUP can be delivered back to LP #2 at any time Two LP LP #1 LP #2 • Next can be delivered after finishing non-production lot • Non-production FOUP need to be delivered to stocker C. Han AMD 09/04/03 46
ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Integrated Flow and Control: Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions 09/04/03 47
Material Handling Potential Solutions Backup Section Content § Potential Solutions for Integrated Flow and Control l l Assumptions Carrier Level Solution with Concept Drawing Ø Type 1: Sorter and Metrology Equipment Integration with Stockers l Wafer level Solutions with Concept Drawings Ø Type 2 -1: Connected EFEMs (Equipment Front-end Modules) Ø Type 2 -2: Expanded EFEM Ø Type 2 -3: Continuous EFEM (Revolving “Sushi Bar”) 09/04/03 48
Material Handling Potential Solutions – Integrated Flow and Control § Potential Solutions for Integrated Flow and Control - See concept diagrams on following pages § Assumptions: l Carrier Level integrated Flow and Control Type 1: Sorter and Metrology with Stockers Ø Compatible with existing standard carrier Ø Must be collaboration between sorter, metrology and AMHS suppliers to integrate stockers with other equipment Ø Hardware integration primarily owned by stocker supplier Ø Equipment integration work primarily controls interface Ø Requires a carrier 180º rotation during hand-off from stocker robot to tool load port(s) l Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2 -1: Connected EFEMs Ø Transition from lot handling to single wafer handling systems may require new sorting equipment Ø Contamination control must be addressed by way of a tunnel or mini-environment expansion Ø Bypass required for individual equipment downtimes to prevent cluster shutdown Ø Requires standardized EFEM interfaces (at the interface between the tunnel and EFEM) are recommended for ease of wafer transport "tunnel" integration. 09/04/03 49
Material Handling Potential Solutions – Integrated Flow and Control (continued) § Assumptions (continued): l Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2 -2: Expanded EFEM Ø Ø Transition from carrier handling to single wafer handling systems will require new sorting equipment There must be collaboration between equipment suppliers for EFEMs development Requires new standard physical interface between process/metrology equipment and EFEMs High throughput robot required – Concern about material handling robot downtime impact – Preventative maintenance and unscheduled downtime impact are not clear Ø Required equipment to load port matching and lot integrity are key challenges l Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2 -3: Continuous EFEM (Revolving “Sushi Bar”) Ø Transition from lot handling to single wafer handling systems will require ultra high speed wafer handling equipment – Lot integrity a key issue Ø Equipment interface robot required to replace current EFEMs wafer handling robot Ø Targeted for 450 mm transition § 09/04/03 All configurations above are valid, however it is important to select appropriate solution for each factory situation 50
Type 1: Carrier Level integrated Flow and Control - Sorter and Metrology with Stockers OHT Loop Metro Tools OHT Loop Stockers Process Tools Stocker Sorter Metro Tools Sorter Metro Process Tools Stocker robot interfaces directly with Sorters and Metro equip Stocker robot loads Sorters and Metro equipment Loadports End View Potential Solutions Require: l. Standardized Intrabay Operation l. Integrated Software 09/04/03 When Solutions Are Needed: • Development Underway in 2002 • Qualification/Production by 2003 • (Complete for Sorter) 51
Type 2 -1 ：Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control (Connected EFEM） Equipment Supplier A Equipment Supplier B Equipment Supplier C Wafer Staging Carrier Staging Potential Solutions Require: l. I/F Standard (H/W, S/W) n. Standardized EFEM l. Software n. Integrated n. Wafer level APC l. Standardized Intrabay Operation 09/04/03 When Solutions Are Needed: • Research Required by TBD • Development Underway by TBD • Qualification/Production by TBD Conceptual Only 52
Type 2 -2 ：Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control (Expanded EFEM） Standard Tool Widths Potential Solutions Require: l. System controller of Equipment Group n. Wafer Dispatcher l. Module structure of equipment n. Standardized I/F n. Standardized Width l. Modular Process Steps l. High Speed Wafer Transfer l. Standardized Intrabay Operation 09/04/03 When Solutions Are Needed: • Research Required by TBD • Development Underway by TBD • Qualification/Production by TBD Conceptual Only 53
Type 2 -3: Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Continuous EFEM (Revolving Sushi Bar) Single Wafer Conceptual Only Wafer Transport Potential Solutions Require: Carrier Level Transport Stocker Multi-Wafer Carrier Single Chamber Process Tool Metrology Tool Target 450 mm 09/04/03 l. Ultra High Speed Wafer Transfer n. Target M/C to M/C 7 sec. l. Wafer Level Dispatching When Solutions Are Needed: • Research Required by 2007 • Development Underway by 2010 • Qualification/Production by 2013 54
ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Delivery Time: Under Track Storage 09/04/03 55
UTS Requirements Potential Benefits: l. Shorter delivery times based on storage closer to process tools ØBetter support of quick-turn processes ØHot lot handling l. Lower storage cost / Higher Storage Density (zero foot print, no robot) l. Higher AMHS reliability based on less complex storage solution Potential Solutions Require: l. Capable of OHT pick / place l. Handoff by E 84 (optional) l. Lightweight to minimize ceiling loading issues l. WIP management algorithms important to realize the performance benefits of UTS l. Alignment with kinematic pins (optional) l. Carrier identification capabilities (optional) l. Ability to detect FOUP placement/presence and/or misplacement T. Mariano Brooks 09/04/03 When Solutions Are Needed: • Development Underway by 2003 • Qualification/Production by 2004 56
Potential UTS Solutions – Passive Shelf T. Mariano Brooks 09/04/03 57
Potential UTS Solutions – Re-circulating Buffer T. Mariano Brooks 09/04/03 58
Potential UTS Solutions – Linear Buffer T. Mariano Brooks 09/04/03 59
ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Inert Gas Purging of Foups 09/04/03 60
Potential Solutions – Inert Gas Purging of FOUPs Need: Option for Improvement in Wafer FOUP Level Environmental Conditioning along with Compliance to Industry Safety Standards FOUP OHT Loop Nest Current Port Versions: 2 Ports near Door and 4 Ports Potential Solutions Require: l Inert Gas Injection Purge Nests in Wafer Stockers l Gas Plumbing with High Flow Initial Purge & Low Sustaining Flow Rates l Material & Stocker Control Systems to Support Partial Population of Purge Nests in Stockers l User Consensus and/or Industry Hardware Standards Needed for FOUP / Purge Port Interoperability (E 47. 1 update – Locations on Foup Define interface in E 47. 1) FOUP Output Input Stocker FOUPs being Purged FOUP Out put FOUP Input Stocker robot loads to/from Purge & Non-Purge FOUP storage nests End View When Solutions Are Needed: • Development Underway in 2003 • (65 nm / 90 nm) • Qualification/Production starting 2004 L. Foster TI 09/04/03 61
ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced Constraints 09/04/03 62
Facility Cross Linkage Issues § Drivers: Area A l l l Slurry (Polish) Copper Other hazardous materials Cleanliness requirements Shipping & receiving. . . Area B Area A ‚ Protocol Change ‚ Traverse D. Glueer AMD 09/04/03 63
Facility Cross Linkage Approaches § Protocol Change: l Vehicle change: Transferring a carrier from one AMHS vehicle to another vehicle requiring robotic handlers and local buffers. l Potential Solutions: See presentation Direct Transport material for option to “Transfer between transport devices”. l FOUP change: - Potential Solutions A) Via Sorter: Transferring wafer by wafer B) Via Flipper: Transferring content as a whole, e. g. via comb 1) Integrated: Transfer device integrated in Stocker 2) External: Hoist delivering carrier to Transfer Device § Traverse: - Potential Solutions l l l through tunnels on dedicated vehicles using dedicated tracks and/or routes D. Glueer AMD 09/04/03 64
Facilitity Cross Linkage Considerations § Directions: l l l Unidirectional: Best separation Bi-directional: Lower COO (1 for 2, re-use of Empties) Multi-usage: E. g. from area A one transfer device both to B and to C + saving footprint - complex control structure, higher impact of down-events § Availability of (appropriate) Empties: l Empty vehicles / empty FOUPs l Washing cycles Protocol restrictions esp. for multi-usage transfers Local buffer capacity of transfer device l l § Facilities: l l Air pressure Fire protection D. Glueer AMD 09/04/03 65
Facility Cross Linkage Metrics § Throughput = WSPM Wafers / Carrier Amount of Transfers/Layer Amount of Mask Layer „Bi-directional“ + Amount of Transfers due to other reasons „Unidirectional“ Sample: 40000 WSPM ÷ 25 Wafers/FOUP • (4 • 29 + 3) = 265 Transfers per Hour § “Cycle Time” = 2 • Average Carrier Delivery Time + Transfer Time Sample: 2 • 8 Minutes + 5 Minutes = 21 Minutes § Availability D. Glueer AMD 09/04/03 66
Facility Cross Linkage Conclusions § Many ways to address Facility Cross Linkage issues l Selection process is site-specific and needs to be made in close cooperation with CFM department § High drawback to MES and AMHS control structure l l Transfer devices may turn out to be bottleneck, esp. when “multi-usage” Handling Empties increases AMHS duties significantly § High impact to AMHS delivery times l l May lead to impact of whole wafer processing cycle time Usually trade-off between cleanliness concerns vs. AMHS performance § Could be reduced by appropriate dispatching and scheduling l l “Just in Time” delivery of FOUPs Redundancy needs to be build-in D. Glueer AMD 09/04/03 67
Potential Research Topics – Vibration Requirements Proposed Research Title Characterization of Acceptable Vibration and Acceleration Limits on Wafers Background Current industry specs on vibration/acceleration applied to wafers by AMHS and not supported by data on potential damage to wafers Proposal Need to analyze potential negative effects (mechanical damage, defects, yield loss) to wafers induced by different levels or types of vibration during automated handling. Project Scenario Data Characterization threshold for acceptable vibration/acceleration would allow for speed and cycle time of AMHS products to be improved without inducing WIP Jeopardy. Deliverables Recommended specifications for vibration applied to wafers by AMHS and supporting data Support Required Benefit 09/04/03 Tools for characterization, wafer vibration, Skills in mechanical engineering, materials, process, yield Current vibration limits are constraining the AMHS cycle time (stockers, vehicles). New vibration limits have the potential to increase system throughput. Simulation results w/ new stocker and vehicle cycle time can be used to show system throughput benefits. 68
Potential Research Topics § FOUP Cleanliness l Methodology for measuring cleanliness of FOUPs (other than liquid particle counts). Need repeatable technique for characterization of cleaning FOUPS. Benefit – Better cleaning system, reduced cleaning § Unified Transport System Validation l Demonstrate, through simulation, a unified transport system capable of achieving system throughput requirements in requirements table. Ø Ex. Empty vehicle management in a unified system. Need to demonstrate a peak system for 40 K WSPM factory with unified transport system (vehicle based). Ø Provide distribution strategy / rules that can be used by AMHS vendors. Ø Benefit – Validate feasibility of unified transport system in a fully loaded fab. § FOUP Purging l 09/04/03 What are requirements for FOUP purging? 69
Скачать презентацию ITRS 2003 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup
822a0a289dabc2cbaa8d67237cc09136.ppt