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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Contributors
How Metrics were Selected
Material Handling Technology Requirements Table
Translating Material Handling Technology Reqs to Reality
Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Reqs
1.
2.
3.
4.
System Throughput Requirements
Reliability
Hot Lot Delivery Time
Delivery Time
6. Potential Solution Options
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Direct Transport (Includes capabilities needed from FICS)
Direct Transport/Delivery Time: 3rd Party LP/Buffer
Integrated Flow and Control
Delivery Time & Storage Density: Under Track Storage
Inert Gas Purging of FOUPs
Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced Constraints
7. Potential Research Topics
09/04/03
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Pg 7-27
pages 7-17
pages 18-19
Pages 20-22
Pages 23-27
Pg 28-67
Pages 28-42
Pages 43-46
Pages 47-54
Pages 55-59
Pages 60-61
Pages 62-67
Pg 68-69
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, SemaTech
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

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


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

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
300mm
300mm
300m
m
300mm
300mm
300mm
300mm
450mm
450mm
450mm
15
12
10
9
9
8
8
8
7
6
30
25
25
25
20
20
20
20
15
10
Transport E-MTTR (min) per SEMI
E10
Storage E-MTTR (min) per SEMI E10
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 (40K 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
5000
5000
5000
 Transport (moves/hour) - unified
system
Stocker cycle time (seconds) (100 bin
capacity)
14
12
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Average delivery time (minutes)
8
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Peak delivery time (minutes)
15
12
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Hot Lot Avg. delivery time (minutes)
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
AMHS lead time (weeks)
<12
<11
<10
<9
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
<8
AMHS install time (weeks)
<16
<14
<12
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Downtime to extend system capacity
when previously planned (minutes)
<90
<60
<30
<30
<15
<15
<0
<0
<0
<0
09/04/03
5
Translating Material Handling metrics to Reality
Metric
09/04/03
Potential Solution it is driving
Wafer Transport System Capability
Direct transport (or integrated interbay &
intrabay). Needed for hot lot, gating sendahead, & hand-carry TPT targets
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
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)
Inputs
Coefficient of Variation (SD/Mean) for MPH
% of Direct Tool-Tool Moves
20%
10%
(was 41% in 2002 ITRS)
(was 100% in 2002 ITRS. Changed based on FO input)
Process Step Assumptions
Wafer Diameter
300mm
300mm
Technology Node/Year (from ITRS 2001)
2004
2005
Number of Mask Layers
25
25
Number of Process Steps per Layer
28
29
Wafer Starts per Month
40,000
40,000
Wafer Starts per Week
9231
9231
Hours per Month
728
728
Wafers per Carrier
25
25
Average Process Steps per Hour
1538
1593
AMHS Configuration - Unified Transport
Avg MPH
Peak MPH (Avg + 2 Std Dev)
Output - AMHS Transport Moves
2004
2005
2923
3027
4092
4238
300mm
300mm
300mm
2006
27
30
40,000
9231
728
25
1780
2007
27
31
40,000
9231
728
25
1840
2008
27
32
40,000
9231
728
25
1899
2006
3382
4735
2007
3495
4893
2008
3608
5051
Avg AMHS MPH = ((%Tool to Tool moves*1)+((1-%Tool to Tool moves)*2))*Average Process Steps per Hour
Peak AMHS MPH = Average AMHS MPH*(1+2std dev)
Note: Assumption is 1 move for tool to tool delivery and 2 moves for all other deliveries.
Note: Assumption is 5% direct tool to tool for Hot lots and upper limit of 10% (input from Factory Operations)
Note: Updated Number of Mask Layers based on 2003 ITRS executive summary, Electrical Defect Density-Table 5page 49.
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:
40K WSPM
Process Steps
= 25 layers X 29 steps/layer X 40k wspm
(725 steps X 40k wspm)
=
= 1593 process steps per hour
(727 Hrs/month X 25 wafers /lot)
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+2std dev)
= 3027 x (1 + 2 x .20)
= ~4240 MPH
09/04/03
9
2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output
(Reference)
Inputs
Coefficient of Variation (SD/Mean) for MPH
% of Direct Tool-Tool Moves
41%
100%
Process Step Assumptions
300mm
Wafer Diameter
2005
Technology Node/Year (from ITRS 2001)
28
Number of Mask Layers
29
Number of Process Steps per Layer
40,000
Wafer Starts per Month
9231
Wafer Starts per Week
728
Hours per Month
25
Wafers per Carrier
1785
Average Process Steps per Hour
300mm
300mm
300mm
2006
29
30
40,000
9231
728
25
1912
2007
30
31
40,000
9231
728
25
2044
2008
31
32
40,000
9231
728
25
2180
2007
2044
3720
2008
2180
3968
Output - AMHS Transport Moves
2006
2005
AMHS Configuration - Unified Transport
Avg MPH
1912
1785
3480
3248
Peak MPH (Avg + 2 Std Dev)
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
09/04/03
20 tools/bay X 125 wafers/hour
25 wafers/carrier
=
100 Moves / Hr Average
=
~200 Moves / Hr Peak ( i.e., Avg+ 2xStd Dev)
11
2003 Inputs, Assumptions, Outputs & Description
(Additional AMHS Configurations)
Inputs
Coefficient of Variation (SD/Mean) for Moves per Hour
% of Direct Tool-Tool Moves within a bay (TTiB)
% of Direct Tool-Tool Moves between bays (TTbB)
% of Moves within a bay (MiB)
% of Moves Between bays (MbB)
20%
10.0%
10.0%
50%
50%
Process Step Assumptions
Wafer Diameter
300mm
Technology Node/Year (from ITRS 2001)
2005
Number of Mask Layers
25
Number of Process Steps per Layer
29
Wafer Starts per Month
40,000
Wafer Starts per Week
9231
Hours per Month
728
Wafers per Carrier
25
Average Process Steps per Hour
1593
Peak Process Steps per Hour (Avg + 2 Std Dev) -(PPS)
2231
300mm
300mm
300mm
2006
27
30
40,000
9231
728
25
1780
2492
2007
27
31
40,000
9231
728
25
1840
2575
2008
27
32
40,000
9231
728
25
1899
2658
2007
6310
5537
4893
6310
2008
6513
5716
5051
6513
Output - Peak AMHS Transport Moves
AMHS Configuration
2005
2006
Separate Interbay and Intrabay
5465
6106
Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays Connected
4796
5358
Unified Transport
4238
4735
Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff
5465
6106
Separate Interbay and Intrabay
Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays Connected
Unified Transport
Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff
Formula Description
=(MiB*((TTiB*1)+((1-TTiB)*2))+MbB*((TTbB*3)+((1-TTbB)*3)))*PPS
=(MiB*((TTiB*1)+((1-TTiB)*2))+MbB*((TTbB*1.5)+((1-TTbB)*2.5)))*PPS
=(MiB*((TTiB*1)+((1-TTiB)*2))+MbB*((TTbB*1)+((1-TTbB)*2)))*PPS
=(MiB*((TTiB*1)+((1-TTiB)*2))+MbB*((TTbB*3)+((1-TTbB)*3)))*PPS
M. Jung
Intel
09/04/03
12
Transport Move Definition/Details
(AMHS Configuration & Move Type Definitions)
AMHS Configuration
1.Between Tools in
same bay
Move Type and Number of Moves
2.Between Tools in 3.Between Tool and 4.Between two
different bays
Storage
Storage devices
1 Transport Move
3 Transport Moves
1 Transport Move
OR
2 Transport Moves if
"Remote" Stocker
Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/
Some Bays Connected
1 Transport Move
1 Transport Move (if
bays connected)
OR
3 Transport Moves
1 Transport Move
OR
2 Transport Moves if
"Remote" Stocker
1 Transport Move
Unified Transport
1 Transport Move
1 Transport Move
1 Transport Move
1 Transport Move
3 Transport Moves
1 Transport Move
OR
2 Transport Moves if
"Remote" Stocker
1 Transport Move
Separate Interbay and Intrabay
Multiple Transport System w/
Handoff*
1 Transport Move
1 Transport Move
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.
T1 -> L1 -> T2
T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L5 -> S3 -> L2 -> T3
T1 -> L1 -> S1
S1 -> L5 -> S3
L5
S1
S2
T1
M. Jung
Intel
09/04/03
T2
L1
S3
S4
T3
T4
L2
S5
S6
T5
T6
L3
S7
S8
T7
T8
L4
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.
T1 -> L1 -> T2
T1 -> L1 -> T3
T1 -> L1 -> S1
S1 -> L1 -> S3
OR
T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L3 -> S5 -> L2 -> T5
OR
S1 -> L3 -> S3
L3
S1
T1
M. Jung
Intel
09/04/03
S2
T2
S3
S4
T3
T4
L1
S5
S6
T5
T6
S7
T7
S8
T8
L2
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
T1 -> L1 -> T2
T1 -> L1 -> T3
T1 -> L1 -> S1
S1 -> L1 -> S3
L1
S1
T1
S2
T2
S3
T3
S4
T4
S5
T5
S6
T6
S7
T7
S8
T8
M. Jung
Intel
09/04/03
16
Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff Between Transport Systems –
Capable of Direct Tool to Tool
T1 -> L1 -> T2
2. Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L5 -> S3 -> L2 -> T3 OR T1 -> L1 -> X1 -> L5 -> X2 -> L2 -> T3
3. Between Tool and Storage
T1 -> L1 -> S1
4. Between two Storage devices S1 -> L5 -> S3
L5
1. Between Tools in same bay
X1
S1
S2
T1
M. Jung
Intel
09/04/03
T2
L1
S3
S4
T3
T4
L2
X4
X3
X2
S5
S6
T5
T6
L3
S7
S8
T7
T8
L4
17
2003 Supporting Material for Material
Handling Technology Requirements
AMHS Reliability Metrics
09/04/03
18
AMHS MCBF – Translated into Failures/Day

Inputs
Current ITRS Proposal
Year of Production
Transport E-MTTR (min per SEMI E10)
Storage E-MTTR (min per SEMI E10)
Peak System throughput (40K WSPM)
Interbay Transport (moves/hour)
Intrabay transport (moves/hour) – High Throughput Bay
Transport (moves/hour) - unified system
Stocker cycle time (seconds) (100 bin capacity)

2003
15
30
2004
12
25
2005
10
25
2006
9
25
2007
9
20
2008
8
20
2009
8
20
2012
8
20
2015
7
15
2018
6
10
2075
190
2150
200
4100
12
2250
210
4240
12
2500
230
4740
10
4900
10
5000
10
5000
10
5000
10
5000
10
5000
10
14
Outputs
Long term goal: 1
transport failure/13hr + 1 storage failure per >10.5hrs in a 40K WSPM Fab.
ITRS Proposed Changes
Year of Production
Transport MMBF (Mean move between failure)
Storage MCBF (Mean cycle between failure)
What do changes translate into for the Factory?
Year of Production
Transport Time between Failure - Hours - MMBF/MPH
Storage Time between Failure - Hours - MCBF/Stocker Cycles
Storage Unscheduled Uptime = (1-(MTTR/(MTBFx100stks))). Note:
Metric is dependent upon number of stockers!
09/04/03
2003
5,000
22,000
2004
7,000
25,000
2005
8,000
30,000
2006
11,000
35,000
2007
15,000
45,000
2008
25,000
55,000
2009
35,000
60,000
2012
45,000
70,000
2003
2004
1.7
3.2
2005
1.9
3.7
2006
2.3
3.9
2007
3.1
4.8
2008
5.0
5.8
2009
7.0
6.3
2012
9.0
7.4
2015
2018
55,000 65,000
80,000 100,000
2015
11.0
8.4
2018
13.0
10.5
99.87% 99.89% 99.89% 99.93% 99.94% 99.95% 99.95% 99.97% 99.98%
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) Factory Operations and process step assumptions are listed below.
2) If a Queue time of ~2 days is acceptable for Hot Lots then AMHS Delivery Times meet Cycle Time
Requirements.
Excerpt from Factory Operations Requirements Table:
Year of Production
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2012
2015
2018
Hot Lot (ave top 5% of Lots)
- Cycle time per mask layer (days)
- X-Factor
0.62
1.4
0.62
1.4
0.62
1.4
0.55
1.5
0.55
1.3
0.55
1.3
0.51
1.3
0.51
1.3
0.51
1.3
0.51
1.3
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2012
2015
2018
Number of Mask Layers
25
25
25
27
27
27
27
29
29
29
Number of Process Steps / Layer
Number of Process Steps
28
700
29
725
30
750
31
837
32
864
32
864
32
864
32
928
32
928
32
928
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2012
2015
2018
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Process Step Assumptions:
Year of Production
AMHS Metric Recommendation:
Year of Production
Avg AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time (min)
M. Jung
Intel
09/04/03
21
AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time
Cycle / Processing / Transport / Queue Time Output and Assumptions:
1) The following table outlines the Required Cycle Time and the expected processing time.
2) The transport time is directly dependent on the AMHS Delivery Time.
3) The Queue Time is determined by subtracting the Transport Time and Processing Time from the Cycle
Time.
Output from Factory Operations / Process Step and AMHS Hot Delivery Time Assumptions:
Year of Production
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2012
2015
2018
Cycle Time (days)
15.5
15.5
15.5
14.85
14.85
14.85
13.77
14.79
14.79
14.79
Transport Time (days)
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
Processing Time (days)
Queue Time (days)
11.1
2.5
11.1
2.9
11.1
2.9
9.9
3.8
11.4
2.2
11.4
2.2
10.6
2.0
11.4
2.1
11.4
2.1
11.4
2.1
Hot Lot (ave top 5% of Lots)
Assumptions:
Cycle Time = Number of Mask Layers x Cycle Time per Mask Layer
Number Process Steps = Number of Mask Layers x Number of Process Steps per Layer
Transport Time = Number Process Steps x AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time
X Factor = Cycle Time / Processing Time
Cycle Time = Queue Time + Transport Time + Processing Time
M. Jung
Intel
09/04/03
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 AMHS (e.g. at
loadport, shuttle-I/O, nest)

Carrier is handed over to hoist, vehicle or
conveyor (“real transport media”)

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


Comment
Example
09:13:12
may be = 
09:13:50
9:20:02
may be = 
11:05:07
11:04:11
D. Glueer
AMD
09/04/03
24
Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #2



Description


Interval
Example
Travel Time
Time carrier spends on vehicle,
hoist or conveyor
-
5 min
Delivery Time
Time required to transport a
carrier from one production
equipment to any other production
equipment in the factory.
-
7 min
Lateness
Time operator or equipment
needs to wait for carrier, excluding
minimum robot handling time at
destination
 -  - tRetrieve
2 min
D. Glueer
AMD
09/04/03
25
AMHS Updates for 2003 – ITRS & ISMT Metric Definitions
 Definitions:




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 tRetrieve: 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
1,2
1
5% p.a. Delivery Time
decrease p.a. due to
advances in AMHS
technology
Minutes
0,8
0,6
0,4
10% p.a. Lateness
decrease due to Delivery
Time, MES and
dispatching improvements
0,2
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Year
Delivery Time
[min/ 10 meter]
Lateness
[min]
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)
S/W Efforts
Push
Pull
Re-Route
Ave & Max
Time
Punctuality
(On-Time)
On-Time
Delivery
Capacity
Planning
Transfer Time
(Ave & Max)
Lot View
Schedule WIP
Unified System
(Scheduler Base)
Transfer
Throughput
Wafer Level
Tracking
J. Iwasaki
Renasas
09/04/03
29
The Next Generation Factory Concept
Planning
System
…..
…..
Agile
-Mfg.
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:




Reduce product processing cycle time
Increase productivity of process tools
Reduced storage requirements (# of stocker)
Reduced total movement requirements
 Priorities for Direct Delivery:



Several AMHS Mechanical &
Layout Design Concept
Options being considered
S1
S2 S3
S4
S5
S6 S7
S8
T1
T2
T4
T5
T6
T8
T3
T7
Fully Connected OHV
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
S1
S2 S3
T1 T2
S4
T3 T4
S5
S6 S7
T5 T6
S8
T7 T8
 Capability Needs





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



09/04/03
Research Required
Development Underway
Qualification/Pre-Production
2001-2003
2003-2005
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:
Interbay Vehicle <-> Intrabay
Hoist handoff station.
Interbay Conveyor <-> Intrabay
RGV/AGV
Alternate 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 DirectX Transport Concept (Stocker to Stocker Moves)
Stocker
Stocker
Section X-X
Stocker
X
Stocker
Stocker
Stocker
Subway
Transport
system
12’ceiling
Conveyor Maintenance:
Via the top for Subway system
Via the bottom for Overhead system
Raised metal floor
600mm
max
D. Pillai
Intel Corp
09/04/03
Transparent
cover
Stocker robot
2nd 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+D1 = 450mm
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
600mm
Stocker
Stocker
FOUP gripper
Conveyor
on waffle
slab
door opener zone
900mm
Tool
Pedestal
envelope
Waffle
slab
09/04/03
37
Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor Direct Transport Concept (Plan View w/ Gantry)
EB
D+D1 = 450mm
Door opener
Gantry
Rails
Safety
cover
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
900mm
Raised Metal Floor
Outline of
pedestal

Gantry 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






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


High: Traffic jams may occur
Low: FOUP will wait to be picked up
 AMHS Controller/MCS Functionality


Support MES and Dispatching systems
Balance empty vehicles throughout the fab
 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).


Integrate third party buffers
Redirect vehicle route/destinations while on route
C. Han
AMD
09/04/03
41

Intrabay Side

SEMI Standards Assessment
Hoist type vehicle interface:
 Pickup: Carrier located by conveyor rails, pickup by top flange.
 Drop-off: Carrier lead-in by conveyor rails (similar to KC pins).
 Handoff by E84

RGV/AGV type vehicle interface (AGV/RGV uses KC pins or option fork lift flanges):
 Pickup: Carrier located by conveyor rails, KC pins available for robot.
 Drop-off: Carrier lead-in by conveyor rails (similar to KC pins).
 Handoff by E84

RGV/AGV type vehicle interface (AGV/RGV uses conveyor rails):
 Pickup: Carrier located by KC pin lifter, conveyor rails available for robot.
 Drop-off: Carrier placed on KC pins, robot uses conveyor rails
 Handoff by E84

Interbay Side

Most “active vehicle” type vehicles should work without issue:
 E85 Option A – “Active Transport Delivers Carrier to Internal Stocker location”
– “Internal Stocker location” replaced by Conveyor Buffer.
 E85 Option B - “Active Transport Delivers Carrier to External Stocker location”
– “External Stocker location” replaced by Conveyor Buffer.

Passive Vehicle Interface will require secondary active component:
 Dedicated pick and place unit or robot.

Software





A. Pyke
Middlesex
09/04/03
IBSEM will work as-is for Interbay, Intrabay and Hybrid systems.
E84 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 (E82) 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
3rd 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



LP #1: Processing
LP #2: Non-production wafer FOUP for Send Ahead or Test
LP #3: To be processed
 Advantage


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


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


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 NonProduction Wafer FOUP for two LP
 Non-production wafer (i.e. Send Ahead and test) FOUP resides on process
tool only for the time required




Transfer from
Transfer from
Transfer from
scenario)
Transfer from
stocker to process tool (not required for the 3 LP scenario)
process tool to metrology tool
metrology tool to sorter for Send Ahead merge (may not be required for 3 LP
sorter to Stocker (in 3 LP case, transfer to process tool)
 Advantage

Can be done with two LP in the process tool
 Disadvantage


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 NonProduction 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


Assumptions
Carrier Level Solution with Concept Drawing
 Type 1: Sorter and Metrology Equipment Integration with Stockers

Wafer level Solutions with Concept Drawings
 Type 2-1: Connected EFEMs (Equipment Front-end Modules)
 Type 2-2: Expanded EFEM
 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:

Carrier Level integrated Flow and Control
Type 1: Sorter and Metrology with Stockers
 Compatible with existing standard carrier
 Must be collaboration between sorter, metrology and AMHS suppliers to integrate
stockers with other equipment
 Hardware integration primarily owned by stocker supplier
 Equipment integration work primarily controls interface
 Requires a carrier 180º rotation during hand-off from stocker robot to tool load port(s)

Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control
Type 2-1: Connected EFEMs
 Transition from lot handling to single wafer handling systems may require new
sorting equipment
 Contamination control must be addressed by way of a tunnel or mini-environment
expansion
 Bypass required for individual equipment downtimes to prevent cluster shutdown
 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):

Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control
Type 2-2: Expanded EFEM
 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
 Required equipment to load port matching and lot integrity are key challenges

Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control
Type 2-3: Continuous EFEM (Revolving “Sushi Bar”)
 Transition from lot handling to single wafer handling systems will require ultra high speed wafer
handling equipment
– Lot integrity a key issue
 Equipment interface robot required to replace current EFEMs wafer handling robot
 Targeted for 450mm 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
Metro
Tools
Metro
Sorter
Process Tools
Stocker robot interfaces directly with
Sorters and Metro equip
Stocker robot loads
Sorters and Metro
equipment Loadports
End View
Potential Solutions Require:
Standardized Intrabay Operation
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:
I/F Standard (H/W, S/W)
Standardized EFEM
Software
Integrated
Wafer level APC
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:
System controller of Equipment Group
Wafer Dispatcher
Module structure of equipment
Standardized I/F
Standardized Width
Modular Process Steps
High Speed Wafer Transfer
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
Carrier
Level
Transport
Stocker
Multi-Wafer
Carrier
Single Chamber
Process Tool
Metrology
Tool
Target 450mm
09/04/03
Potential Solutions Require:
Ultra High Speed Wafer Transfer
Target M/C to M/C 7sec.
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:
Shorter delivery times based on storage closer to process tools
Better support of quick-turn processes
Hot lot handling
Lower storage cost / Higher Storage Density (zero foot print, no robot)
Higher AMHS reliability based on less complex storage solution
Potential Solutions Require:
Capable of OHT pick / place
Handoff by E84 (optional)
Lightweight to minimize ceiling loading issues
WIP management algorithms important to realize the performance benefits of UTS
Alignment with kinematic pins (optional)
Carrier identification capabilities (optional)
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
FOUP
FOUP
Output
Input
Current Port Versions: 2 Ports near Door and 4 Ports
Potential Solutions Require:
 Inert Gas Injection Purge Nests in
Wafer Stockers
 Gas Plumbing with High Flow
Initial Purge & Low Sustaining Flow
Rates
 Material & Stocker Control
Systems to Support Partial
Population of Purge Nests in
Stockers
 User Consensus and/or Industry
Hardware Standards Needed for
FOUP / Purge Port Interoperability
(E47.1 update – Locations on Foup
Define interface in E47.1)
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
•(65nm / 90nm)
•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






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:

Vehicle change: Transferring a carrier from one AMHS vehicle to another
vehicle requiring robotic handlers and local buffers.
 Potential Solutions: See presentation Direct Transport material for option
to “Transfer between transport devices”.

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



through tunnels
on dedicated vehicles
using dedicated tracks and/or routes
D. Glueer
AMD
09/04/03
64
Facilitity Cross Linkage Considerations
 Directions:



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:

Empty vehicles / empty FOUPs

Washing cycles
Protocol restrictions esp. for multi-usage transfers
Local buffer capacity of transfer device


 Facilities:


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

Selection process is site-specific and needs to be made in close cooperation
with CFM department
 High drawback to MES and AMHS control structure


Transfer devices may turn out to be bottleneck, esp. when “multi-usage”
Handling Empties increases AMHS duties significantly
 High impact to AMHS delivery times


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


“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
Background
Proposal
Project Scenario
Deliverables
Support Required
Benefit
09/04/03
Characterization of Acceptable Vibration and Acceleration Limits on
Wafers
Current industry specs on vibration/acceleration applied to wafers by
AMHS and not supported by data on potential damage to wafers
Need to analyze potential negative effects (mechanical damage, defects,
yield loss) to wafers induced by different levels or types of vibration
during automated handling.
Data Characterization threshold for acceptable vibration/acceleration
would allow for speed and cycle time of AMHS products to be
improved without inducing WIP Jeopardy.
Recommended specifications for vibration applied to wafers by AMHS and
supporting data
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

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

Demonstrate, through simulation, a unified transport system capable of
achieving system throughput requirements in requirements table.
 Ex. Empty vehicle management in a unified system. Need to demonstrate a peak
system for 40K WSPM factory with unified transport system (vehicle based).
 Provide distribution strategy / rules that can be used by AMHS vendors.
 Benefit – Validate feasibility of unified transport system in a fully loaded fab.
 FOUP Purging

09/04/03
What are requirements for FOUP purging?
69