G450C Guidelines for Component Lifting Systems for 450mm Fab Equipment
Initial Release March 2014
Introduction
The members of Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI) prioritized the topic of
“cranes and hoists” in a survey of potential 450mm standardization focus areas in late 2012 and the
members of the Global 450mm Consortium (G450C) agreed that industry alignment was needed to deal
with the handling of components for 450mm equipment that might be larger and heavier than those
currently being manually lifted. These guidelines are the result of extensive discussions among IC
Makers, Equipment Suppliers and Facilities Systems Suppliers in 2013. While lift solutions for each tool
will be developed by the Supplier and there is much more detailed design work to be done, quite a few
aspects of the configuration for lift mechanisms and their operation have been agreed. Additional
understanding of component lifting challenges and methods may result in future enhancements to this
guidance.
Background
Once the topic was selected for alignment by survey of priorities, the G450C Standardization Working
Group, comprising representatives of its members and later merged with its Facilities Working Group as
the G450C Industry Alignment Working Group, met several times to frame the discussion. A number of
IC Maker concerns around interference with overhead track automation systems, ceiling loading and fab
layout flexibility led to almost immediate determination that ceiling-mounted cranes would not work
generally for wafer fabs, despite their necessity for EUV scanner heavy component lifting.
Three broad classes of component lifting were identified:
1) Generally light-duty custom fixtures integrated with and often mounted on the tools for specific
component handling operations
2) Aisle-based mobile lift mechanisms operating from the periphery of the tools, capable of
multiple configurations for somewhat heavier payloads
3) Gantry-like structures addressing the full span of large (e.g. cluster) tools, capable of heavy
lifting and conveying payloads beyond the tool periphery
It was decided to focus first on the heavy lift / gantry approaches since solutions already exist for the
first two groups and there were many different ideas about how to address the third.
Page 1 of 6
Derivation
G450C members in consultation with those of the Facilities 450mm Consortium (F450C) agreed
to form a Component Lift Task Force, later renamed the Component Lift Working Group to
avoid confusion with SEMI Standards Task Forces, to also include Suppliers of large cluster tools
interested in the topic and representatives from SEMI.
G450C would like to thank the participants of the Working Group for their broad range of ideas,
a lot of hard work developing them and analyzing the pros, cons and trade-offs.
ASM
Applied Materials
CH2M Hill
College of Nanoscale
Science and Engineering
GLOBALFOUNDRIES
Intel Corporation
IBM
Lam Research
M+W Group
Samsung
SEMI
tsmc
Tokyo Electron
Todd Dunn
Michael Kuchar
Jeff Hudgens
Alpay Yilmaz
David Krick
Lawrence Hennessy
Carolyn Towle
Kevin O’Malley
Tom Alfieri
Les Marshall
Shiv Kumar
Bill Corbin
Brian Byrne
Ted Minshall
Miguel Saldana
Adrian Maynes
Allen Ware
Don Yeaman
Seok Hee Park
Seungun Kim
Jonathan Davis
James Amano
Vincent Chou
T. Y. Lee
Pinyen Lin
Turbo Horiuchi
Sensho Kobayashi
Supika Mashiro
Toshiuki Namba
Page 2 of 6
Early Information Gathering
A survey of the G450C members resulted in a projected range of dimensions for the 450mm fab
structures in which the lifting operations and mechanisms must fit (Table 1). Suppliers were also asked
to provide inputs and CH2M Hill, an F450C member fab construction consultant company participating
in the discussion, gave typical values based on their experience.
Projected Ranges of 450mm Fab Dimensions
Table 1
Equipment Suppliers pointed out other constraints under which they had to address the lifting needs,
including access to space around tools, exclusion zones and pressure to minimize footprint, as well as
costs. They were asked to provide information in confidence on the characteristics of the payloads and
motions required in the lifting of components in the context of their tool configurations. It is not
possible to share those inputs but they resulted an understanding of the operations that drove many of
the guidance points later agreed by the group.
Proposed Solutions
Tightly Mounted: an integrated gantry spanning the tool was the baseline approach for heavy lifting
across large areas. Variations on such structures have been used in prior applications; the group
focused on ways to mount them either directly to the tool, onto the cleanroom raised metal floor (RMF)
or through the RMF onto the concrete floor. Concerns included lack of standardization, potential to
increase footprint and the cost of providing a gantry for every tool requiring heavy component lifting.
Hybrid: early on the group looked to create efficiencies by using standardized columns, rails, beams and
connectors that could be assembled onto a fixed front arbor in an “erector set” fashion for the
operation and then disassembled for re-use at other tools. This approach received a lot of attention for
Page 3 of 6
its flexibility, having no permanent footprint and potential for cost savings through multiple uses of
common parts, but concerns arose about the security of connections and potential safety exposures of
the assembly, as well as the costs of putting them up, taking them down and storing them. The landing
of the rear portion of the gantry on the RMF proved a sticking point for some participants.
Mobile gantry: resembling two A-frames joined by rails, it could be wheeled into place and thus shared
across multiple tools as well; it could be left in place until needed elsewhere but moved if needed, thus
avoiding both footprint penalty and dedicated storage space. Such a structure could avoid some of the
concerns about assembly / safety / recertification and could be configured for adjustability in span,
height and maneuverability in tight aisles.
Under-floor Track: by mounting either swing arms or an arbor on rails fixed at or under floor level, the
lift support structure could be assembled and moved along the depth of the tool in an inverted gantry.
The rails would be mounted onto sub-structure resting on the concrete floor, avoiding concerns of
loading the RMF; the area could be clear when not in use and rails could be shared between adjacent
tools, thus minimizing footprint impact, but the space above would have to be clear, potentially
requiring life safety and facilities access tiles to be located somewhere other than alongside the tools.
Tube-in-tube: an array of receiver tubes could be spaced around the fab below floor level and swing
arms mounted on tubes to be mounted into them could be deployed as needed and shared across
multiple tools. The Tube-in-Tube approach can also be used in combination with others to provide
anchoring to the concrete floor with minimal footprint. There were concerns about the fixed receiver
tubes interfering with sub-floor space and affecting the load boundary for PGV carrier delivery.
Mobile lifter: aisle-based carts for heavy lift applications could also be enabled by stabilizing
mechanisms such as bracing attachment to tools (concern on vibration), cantilevered footings and
counterweighting or by built-in adjunct mechanisms like sliders to convey the payload outboard of the
tool over the aisle, avoiding the need for stabilizing mechanisms on the cart that might require more
space.
In evaluating the options the group determined a set of criteria, in order of importance: safety, tool
performance impact, overall cost, space efficiency and risk of implementation. Given safety and
recertification concerns about structures assembled for temporary use, and the fact that they had not
been designed or proven, the hybrid and under-floor track options in particular had some resistance.
The other factors could be quantified and compared by looking at costs.
Cost Considerations
The Working Group defined a cost of ownership model to compare the various approaches on an overall
basis. Elements comprehended included the capital costs, including any efficiency for multiple use,
footprint and storage space required, and operational costs including labor, excess downtime and
certification for any assembled approach. The most striking outputs of the cost analysis were how small
the costs of these capabilities were compared to the overall fab operation costs and how little difference
there was between the approaches.
Page 4 of 6
The cost model outputs are summarized in Table 2 and the spreadsheet model is available for anyone
wishing to look at different assumptions and inputs, but the bottom line is that cost is not a major
differentiating factor in this consideration.
Summary of 5-Year Costs for the Various Lift Approaches
Cost Element
Hybrid
Capital Expense
Efficiency Factor
Storage Cost
Footprint Cost
Operational Cost
$13M
43%
$1M
$0M
$5M
Total
$12M
Tightly
Mobile
Under
Tube in Mobile
Mounted Gantry
Track
Tube
Lifter
$13M
$3M
$13M
$2M
$1M
100%
N/A
30%
N/A
N/A
$0M
$2M
$1M
$1M
$1M
$2M
$0M
$5M
$2M
$0M
$0M
$1M
$3M
$1M
$1M
$15M
$6M
$13M
$6M
$3M
Table 2
Key Requirements
Suppliers own designing and providing lift capability integrated with configuration and operations of
tools. The IC Makers identified a number of boundary conditions to ensure whatever lift solutions might
be designed have minimal impact on other fab operations.



Lift mechanisms, like all tools, must be safe to operate and maintain at any stage of maturity, and
must comply with applicable SEMI Safety and Ergonomics Standards, regulations and codes
Lift solutions as integrated by the Supplier with the tool must conform to SEMI E72, in particular
with regard to height restrictions
The load cannot be suspended from the ceiling and must be transferred to the concrete floor
Guidelines
Safety Imperatives:
S1: All equipment must be safe to operate and maintain at any stage of maturity
S2: Lift mechanism must be engineered to be safe to assemble / operate
S3: Must comply with SEMI Safety / Ergonomic Standards and applicable codes and requirements
Productivity Imperatives: IC Makers and Suppliers benefit from minimizing cost and maximizing
productivity of fab space. Component lift solutions must not affect:
P1: Closest packing of tools (minimize space around tools)
P2: Layout flexibility (free-span ceilings enable adjustments)
P3: Minimal tool down time (efficient component lifting)
Page 5 of 6
Design Requirements (in no order):
D1: Must comply with SEMI E72
D2: No ceiling mounting
D3: Must transfer component weight to concrete floor, e.g. via steel or concrete pedestal, though a
tool base is not required
D4: Must position components beyond tool periphery for exchange with transport cart without unaided
human lifting or lowering
D5: Must not impact tool process performance
D6: Permanent structure counts as footprint – minimize space beyond tool periphery
D7: Not part of the facility – must be able to move with tool
D8: Articulating lift mechanisms must be used in cases where insufficient vertical lift space is available
D9: Avoid component lift structure recertification upon deployment
Other Areas of Agreement:
A1: Temporary structures using floor space adjacent to the tool should not interfere with the RMF tiles
when the lift mechanisms are not in use (otherwise counts as additional footprint)
A2: Minimize impact to flexibility of facilities routing under the RMF
A3: No significant impact to airflow in the space under the RMF (part of the cleanroom air return)
A4: Methods of fixing load-bearing lift elements to the concrete floor should be minimal in scope and
easy to relocate if necessary
A5: Where the lift mechanism does not extend beyond the tool periphery, adjunct mechanisms (e.g.
slider, rotation fixture with adequate cantilever structure or counter-weight) should be provided to
convey the load over transportation cart in aisle
A6: While no side-to-side aisle dimension has been agreed, there is resistance to needing more than 1.5
tiles (3’) between tools
A7: With respect to adjacent equipment, lift elements or swing arms shall not (even temporarily)
compromise exclusion volumes such as OHT chimneys
Forward Thinking
Given these assessments it is clear that some concepts would require substantially more engineering
design and prove-in than others. Mobile lift carts and gantries are in use and will be used for 450mm.
One could envision having gantries tightly mounted on those tools that require frequent heavy lifting
across a large operating span. For tools with less frequent or limited overhead operations adjunct
mechanisms could be included to convey loads to mobile lift carts in the aisles, which can address most
peripheral work. For infrequent heavy lifts a mobile gantry might be brought in, e.g. for an annual PM
or a chamber change-out.
G450C greatly appreciates the industry collaboration that has gone into the understanding of
component lifting to date and is open to proposals to prototype lift mechanisms.
March 4, 2014
Document Owner: Frank Robertson
Page 6 of 6