109/04/03

ITRS 2003 Factory Integration ChapterMaterial Handling Backup Section

Details and Assumptions for Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions

209/04/03

AMHS Backup Outline1. Contributors Page 3

2. How Metrics were Selected Page 4

3. Material Handling Technology Requirements Table Page 5

4. Translating Material Handling Technology Reqs to Reality Page 6

5. Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Reqs Pg 7-271. System Throughput Requirements pages 7-17

2. Reliability pages 18-19

3. Hot Lot Delivery Time Pages 20-22

4. Delivery Time Pages 23-27

6. Potential Solution Options Pg 28-671. Direct Transport (Includes capabilities needed from FICS) Pages 28-42

2. Direct Transport/Delivery Time: 3rd Party LP/Buffer Pages 43-46

3. Integrated Flow and Control Pages 47-54

4. Delivery Time & Storage Density: Under Track Storage Pages 55-59

5. Inert Gas Purging of FOUPs Pages 60-61

6. Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced Constraints Pages 62-67

7. Potential Research Topics Pg 68-69

309/04/03

AMHS Contributors

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

409/04/03

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.

509/04/03

Year of Production 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009/ 2010

2012 / 2013

2015 / 2016

2018

Wafer Diameter 300mm 300mm 300mm

300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm 450mm 450mm 450mm

Transport E-MTTR (min) per SEMI E10

15 12 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 6

Storage E-MTTR (min) per SEMI E10 30 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 15 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 (40K WSPM)

Interbay Transport (moves/hour) 2075 2150 2250 2500

Intrabay transport (moves/hour) – High Throughput Bay

190 200 210 230

Transport (moves/hour) - unified system

4100 4240 4740 4900 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000

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

Material Handling Technical Requirements

609/04/03

Translating Material Handling metrics to Reality

Metric Potential Solution it is driving

Wafer Transport System Capability Direct transport (or integrated interbay & intrabay). Needed for hot lot, gating send-ahead, & 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

709/04/03

2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements

AMHS System Throughput

809/04/03

2003 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Numbers used in 2003 AMHS Requirements Table)

Coefficient of Variation (SD/Mean) for MPH 20% (was 41% in 2002 ITRS)% of Direct Tool-Tool Moves 10% (was 100% in 2002 ITRS. Changed based on FO input)

Wafer Diameter 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm

Technology Node/Year (from ITRS 2001) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Number of Mask Layers 25 25 27 27 27

Number of Process Steps per Layer 28 29 30 31 32Wafer Starts per Month 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000Wafer Starts per Week 9231 9231 9231 9231 9231

Hours per Month 728 728 728 728 728Wafers per Carrier 25 25 25 25 25

Average Process Steps per Hour 1538 1593 1780 1840 1899

AMHS Configuration - Unified Transport 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Avg MPH 2923 3027 3382 3495 3608Peak MPH (Avg + 2 Std Dev) 4092 4238 4735 4893 5051

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)

Process Step Assumptions

Output - AMHS Transport Moves

Avg AMHS MPH = ((%Tool to Tool moves*1)+((1-%Tool to Tool moves)*2))*Average Process Steps per Hour

Note: Updated Number of Mask Layers based on 2003 ITRS executive summary, Electrical Defect Density-Table 5-page 49.

Peak AMHS MPH = Average AMHS MPH*(1+2std dev)

Inputs

M. JungIntel

909/04/03

Peak AMHS MPH – Sample Calculation

System Throughput Requirements for 2004-2005 transition to direct transport:

Sample Calculation for 2005:

40K WSPMProcess 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

1009/04/03

2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output(Reference)

Coefficient of Variation (SD/Mean) for MPH 41%% of Direct Tool-Tool Moves 100%

Wafer Diameter 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm

Technology Node/Year (from ITRS 2001) 2005 2006 2007 2008Number of Mask Layers 28 29 30 31

Number of Process Steps per Layer 29 30 31 32Wafer Starts per Month 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000Wafer Starts per Week 9231 9231 9231 9231

Hours per Month 728 728 728 728Wafers per Carrier 25 25 25 25

Average Process Steps per Hour 1785 1912 2044 2180

AMHS Configuration - Unified Transport 2005 2006 2007 2008Avg MPH 1785 1912 2044 2180Peak MPH (Avg + 2 Std Dev) 3248 3480 3720 3968

Inputs

Process Step Assumptions

Output - AMHS Transport Moves

M. JungIntel

1109/04/03

2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output(Reference)

System Throughput Requirements for Intrabay (2004/2005):

Sample Calculation:

High throughput = 20 tools/bay X 125 wafers/hour Intrabay MPH 25 wafers/carrier

= 100 Moves / Hr Average

= ~200 Moves / Hr Peak ( i.e., Avg+ 2xStd Dev)

1209/04/03

2003 Inputs, Assumptions, Outputs & Description (Additional AMHS Configurations)

Coefficient of Variation (SD/Mean) for Moves per Hour 20%% of Direct Tool-Tool Moves within a bay (TTiB) 10.0%% of Direct Tool-Tool Moves between bays (TTbB) 10.0%% of Moves within a bay (MiB) 50%% of Moves Between bays (MbB) 50%

Wafer Diameter 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm

Technology Node/Year (from ITRS 2001) 2005 2006 2007 2008Number of Mask Layers 25 27 27 27

Number of Process Steps per Layer 29 30 31 32Wafer Starts per Month 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000Wafer Starts per Week 9231 9231 9231 9231

Hours per Month 728 728 728 728Wafers per Carrier 25 25 25 25

Average Process Steps per Hour 1593 1780 1840 1899Peak Process Steps per Hour (Avg + 2 Std Dev) -(PPS) 2231 2492 2575 2658

AMHS Configuration 2005 2006 2007 2008Separate Interbay and Intrabay 5465 6106 6310 6513Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays Connected 4796 5358 5537 5716Unified Transport 4238 4735 4893 5051Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff 5465 6106 6310 6513

Separate Interbay and IntrabaySeparate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays ConnectedUnified TransportMultiple Transport System w/ Handoff

=(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

Inputs

=(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

Formula Description

Process Step Assumptions

Output - Peak AMHS Transport Moves

M. JungIntel

1309/04/03

Transport Move Definition/Details (AMHS Configuration & Move Type Definitions)

AMHS Configuration1.Between Tools in same bay

2.Between Tools in different bays

3.Between Tool and Storage

4.Between two Storage devices

Separate Interbay and Intrabay 1 Transport Move 3 Transport Moves

1 Transport MoveOR

2 Transport Moves if "Remote" Stocker

1 Transport Move

Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays Connected

1 Transport Move

1 Transport Move (if bays connected)

OR3 Transport Moves

1 Transport MoveOR

2 Transport Moves if "Remote" Stocker

1 Transport Move

Unified Transport 1 Transport Move 1 Transport Move 1 Transport Move 1 Transport Move

Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff*

1 Transport Move 3 Transport Moves

1 Transport MoveOR

2 Transport Moves if "Remote" Stocker

1 Transport Move

Move Type and Number of Moves

M. JungIntel

1409/04/03

Separate Interbay & Intrabay

S1 S2

T1 T2

S3 S4

T3 T4

S5 S6

T5 T6

S7 S8

T7 T8

L1 L3L2 L4

L5

1. Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2

2. Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L5 -> S3 -> L2 -> T3

3. Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1

4. Between two Storage devices S1 -> L5 -> S3

M. JungIntel

1509/04/03

Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays Connected

S1 S2

T1 T2

S3 S4

T3 T4

S5 S6

T5 T6

S7 S8

T7 T8

L1 L2

L3

1. Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2

2. Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> T3 OR T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L3 -> S5 -> L2 -> T5

3. Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1

4. Between two Storage devices S1 -> L1 -> S3 OR S1 -> L3 -> S3

M. JungIntel

1609/04/03

Unified Transport System – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool

S1 S2

T1 T2

S3 S4

T3 T4

S5 S6

T5 T6

S7 S8

T7 T8

L1

1. Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2

2. Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> T3

3. Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1

4. Between two Storage devices S1 -> L1 -> S3

M. JungIntel

1709/04/03

Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff Between Transport Systems – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool

S1 S2

T1 T2

S3 S4

T3 T4

S5 S6

T5 T6

S7 S8

T7 T8

X1 X2 X3 X4

L5

L1 L3L2 L4

1. Between Tools in same bay 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

M. JungIntel

1809/04/03

2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements

AMHS Reliability Metrics

1909/04/03

AMHS MCBF – Translated into Failures/Day

Inputs

Outputs

Current ITRS ProposalYear of Production 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Transport E-MTTR (min per SEMI E10) 15 12 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 6Storage E-MTTR (min per SEMI E10) 30 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 15 10Peak System throughput (40K WSPM) Interbay Transport (moves/hour) 2075 2150 2250 2500 Intrabay transport (moves/hour) – High Throughput Bay 190 200 210 230 Transport (moves/hour) - unified system 4100 4240 4740 4900 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000Stocker cycle time (seconds) (100 bin capacity) 14 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Long term goal: 1 transport failure/13hr + 1 storage failure per >10.5hrs in a 40K WSPM Fab.

ITRS Proposed ChangesYear of Production 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Transport MMBF (Mean move between failure) 5,000 7,000 8,000 11,000 15,000 25,000 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000Storage 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

What do changes translate into for the Factory?Year of Production 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Transport Time between Failure - Hours - MMBF/MPH 1.7 1.9 2.3 3.1 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0Storage Time between Failure - Hours - MCBF/Stocker Cycles 3.2 3.7 3.9 4.8 5.8 6.3 7.4 8.4 10.5Storage Unscheduled Uptime = (1-(MTTR/(MTBFx100stks))). Note: Metric is dependent upon number of stockers! 99.87% 99.89% 99.89% 99.93% 99.94% 99.95% 99.95% 99.97% 99.98%

2009/04/03

2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements

Hot Lot Delivery Time

2109/04/03

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.

M. JungIntel

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) 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51- X-Factor 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

Process Step Assumptions:Year of Production 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 28 29 30 31 32 32 32 32 32 32Number of Process Steps 700 725 750 837 864 864 864 928 928 928

AMHS Metric Recommendation:Year of Production 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018

Avg AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time (min) 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2209/04/03

AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time

Assumptions:Cycle Time = Number of Mask Layers x Cycle Time per Mask LayerNumber Process Steps = Number of Mask Layers x Number of Process Steps per LayerTransport Time = Number Process Steps x AMHS Hot Lot Delivery TimeX Factor = Cycle Time / Processing TimeCycle Time = Queue Time + Transport Time + Processing 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.

M. JungIntel

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

Hot Lot (ave top 5% of Lots)

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) 11.1 11.1 11.1 9.9 11.4 11.4 10.6 11.4 11.4 11.4 Queue Time (days) 2.5 2.9 2.9 3.8 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1

2309/04/03

2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements

Delivery Time

2409/04/03

Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #1

Timestamp Description Comment Example

Carrier is handed over to AMHS (e.g. at loadport, shuttle-I/O, nest)

09:13:12

‚ Carrier is handed over to hoist, vehicle or conveyor (“real transport media”)

may be = 09:13:50

ƒ Hoist, vehicle or conveyor arriving at (final) destination

9:20:02

„ Carrier is handed over from AMHS to equipment (e.g. at loadport, I/O, …)

may be = ƒ 11:05:07

… Operator, Host or Equipment requesting carrier

11:04:11

D. GlueerAMD

2509/04/03

Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #2

Description Interval Example

Travel Time Time carrier spends on vehicle, hoist or conveyor

ƒ - ‚ 5 min

Delivery Time 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

… - „ - tRetrieve 2 min

D. GlueerAMD

2609/04/03

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. GlueerAMD

2709/04/03

Strategic Goals for Delivery Time

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Year

Min

ute

s

Delivery Time[min/ 10 meter]

Lateness[min]

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. GlueerAMD

2809/04/03

ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutionsDirect Transport:

Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions

2909/04/03

AMHS is Changing to an On-Time Delivery System

Intra and InterSeparate System

Unified System(Dispatcher Base)

Unified System(Scheduler Base)

TransferThroughput

Transfer Time(Ave & Max)

Punctuality(On-Time)

Intra-Bay

Inter-Bay

Intra-Bay

Push Pull

Re-RouteAve & Max

Time

Wafer LevelTracking

CapacityPlanning

On-TimeDelivery

AMHSAMHS Key IndicatorKey Indicator

EquipmentView

Lot View

H/W Efforts

S/W Efforts

Reduce WIP

Schedule WIP

J. IwasakiRenasas

3009/04/03

E-MfgE-Mfg..

….. …..

…..

….. …..

…..

…..

SupportingSystem

Mfg.System

PlanningSystem

AgileAgile-Mfg.-Mfg.

DirectTransport

WaferLevel Control

E-Diagnostic

Supplier’sSCM

User’s SCM -Supply ChainManagement

EES

The Next Generation Factory Concept

Direct Transport - Plays key role in next generation factories

3109/04/03

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: 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

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

Timing Research Required 2001-2003 Development Underway 2003-2005 Qualification/Pre-Production 2004-2006

S1 S2

T1 T2

S3 S4

T3 T4

S5 S6

T5 T6

S7 S8

T7 T8

S1 S2

T1 T2

S3 S4

T3 T4

S5 S6

T5 T6

S7 S8

T7 T8

Fully Connected OHV

OHV with Interbay Transport

Partially Connected OHVWith Conveyor Interbay

Several AMHS Mechanical & Layout Design Concept

Options being considered

3209/04/03

Material Handling: Vehicle Based Direct Transport System Concept

Under FloorFull Direct Transport

Central Stocker(Large Capacity)(High Throughput)

Upper Ceiling

OHT

Branch

Note: CurrentOHT systemscannot meet the longer-termthroughput

3309/04/03

Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor Based Direct Transport Concept

Conveyor TypeTransport

3409/04/03

Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor / Hoist Hybrid Based Direct Transport Concept

Interbay Conveyor <-> Intrabay hoist

Interbay/Intrabay Conveyor <-> Tool Delivery Hoist

A. PykeMiddlesex

3509/04/03

Interbay vehicle <-> Intrabay RGV/AGV handoff station

Interbay Vehicle (passive) <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station

Interbay Vehicle <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station with height translation

Interbay Vehicle <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station.

Interbay Conveyor <-> Intrabay RGV/AGV

Material Handling: Alternate Concepts for achieving Direct Transport w/ multiple transport systems

A. PykeMiddlesex

3609/04/03

Waffle slab

Raised metal floor

Sto

cker

rob

ot

Section X-X

Conveyor installedon waffle slab

Transparent cover

600mmmax

12’ceiling

2nd transport loop(if needed)

Conveyor Maintenance:Via the top for Subway systemVia the bottom for Overhead system

Stocker Stocker Stocker

Stocker Stocker Stocker

X

X

SubwayTransportsystem

Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Stocker to Stocker Moves)

D. PillaiIntel Corp

3709/04/03

Loadport withSafety coverand Elevator

Stocker Stocker

ToolME

ToolME

ToolME

ToolME

Tool ME

Tool ME

Tool ME

Tool ME

X X

ToolPedestalenvelope

MiniEnvironment

Tool body(side view)

do

or o

pe

ner

zone

RaisedMetalFloor

Waffleslab

Conveyoron waffleslab

900mm

600mm

PGVDockflange

SafetyCover

D+D1 = 450mm

EB

FOUP gripper

SimpleGantryrobot

Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Tool Moves)

D. PillaiIntel Corp

3809/04/03

EB

Doo

r o

pen

er

Doo

r o

pen

er

Tool bodyMiniEnvironment

D+D1 = 450mm

GantryRails

Safetycover

Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Plan View w/ Gantry)

D. PillaiIntel Corp

3909/04/03

Loadport 1 Empty loadport 2

Door openerflange

Subway conveyor

Gantry robot takes FOUP toLoadport and places on KC

Tool front face

Raised Metal Floor

Waffleslab

Œ

Ž

FOUP liftingExclusionzones

Outline ofpedestal Gantry robot picks up FOUP from

Conveyor and raised to the top

900mm

Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Elevation View w/ Gantry)

D. PillaiIntel Corp

4009/04/03

D. PillaiIntel Corp

Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Layout)

4109/04/03

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. HanAMD

4209/04/03

SEMI Standards Assessment Intrabay Side 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 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.

A. PykeMiddlesex

4309/04/03

ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions

Direct Tool-to-Tool Delivery

3rd Party Loadport / Buffer.

C. HanAMD

4409/04/03

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. HanAMD

4509/04/03

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 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 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. HanAMD

4609/04/03

Key Factors – Operation Scenario for Non-Production Wafer FOUP

Non-Production Wafers

Production Wafers

Time

Three LP

Two LP

LP #1

LP #2

LP #3

LP #1

LP #2

•Next lot can be delivered at any time

•Non-production FOUP can be delivered back to LP #2 at any time

•Next can be delivered after finishing non-production lot

•Non-production FOUP need to be delivered to stocker

C. HanAMD

4709/04/03

ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutionsIntegrated Flow and Control:

Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions

4809/04/03

Material Handling Potential SolutionsBackup 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”)

4909/04/03

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.

5009/04/03

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

All configurations above are valid, however it is important to select appropriate solution for each factory situation

5109/04/03

Type 1: Carrier Level integrated Flow and Control - Sorter and Metrology with Stockers

End View

Sorter

MetroTools

OHT Loop

Stocker

Stocker robot loadsSorters and Metroequipment Loadports

Metro

Process Tools

Process Tools

Sto

cker

s

OH

T L

oop

SorterMetro

MetroTools

Stocker robot interfaces directly withSorters and Metro equip

Potential Solutions Require:Standardized Intrabay OperationIntegrated Software

When Solutions Are Needed: •Development Underway in 2002•Qualification/Production by 2003•(Complete for Sorter)

5209/04/03

Potential Solutions Require:I/F Standard (H/W, S/W)

Standardized EFEMSoftware

IntegratedWafer level APC

Standardized Intrabay Operation

Type 2-1 ： Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control (Connected EFEM ）

When Solutions Are Needed: •Research Required by TBD•Development Underway by TBD•Qualification/Production by TBD

Wafer Staging

Carrier Staging

EquipmentSupplier A Equipment

Supplier B

EquipmentSupplier C

Conceptual Only

5309/04/03

Potential Solutions Require:System controller of Equipment Group

Wafer DispatcherModule structure of equipment

Standardized I/F Standardized Width

Modular Process StepsHigh Speed Wafer TransferStandardized Intrabay Operation

Type 2-2 ： Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control (Expanded EFEM ）

When Solutions Are Needed: •Research Required by TBD•Development Underway by TBD•Qualification/Production by TBD

Conceptual Only

StandardTool Widths

5409/04/03

Potential Solutions Require:Ultra High Speed Wafer Transfer

Target M/C to M/C 7sec.Wafer Level Dispatching

Type 2-3: Wafer Level Integrated Flow and ControlContinuous EFEM (Revolving Sushi Bar)

When Solutions Are Needed: •Research Required by 2007•Development Underway by 2010•Qualification/Production by 2013

Target 450mm

Single ChamberProcess ToolStocker

MetrologyTool

Conceptual OnlySingleWafer

WaferTransport

Multi-WaferCarrier

CarrierLevel

Transport

5509/04/03

ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutionsDelivery Time:

Under Track Storage

5609/04/03

UTS Requirements

When Solutions Are Needed: •Development Underway by 2003•Qualification/Production by 2004

Potential Solutions Require:Capable of OHT pick / placeHandoff by E84 (optional)Lightweight to minimize ceiling loading issuesWIP management algorithms important to realize the performance benefits of UTSAlignment with kinematic pins (optional)Carrier identification capabilities (optional)Ability to detect FOUP placement/presence and/or misplacement

Potential Benefits:Shorter delivery times based on storage closer to process tools

Better support of quick-turn processesHot lot handling

Lower storage cost / Higher Storage Density (zero foot print, no robot)Higher AMHS reliability based on less complex storage solution

T. MarianoBrooks

5709/04/03

Potential UTS Solutions – Passive Shelf

T. MarianoBrooks

5809/04/03

Potential UTS Solutions – Re-circulating Buffer

T. MarianoBrooks

5909/04/03

Potential UTS Solutions – Linear Buffer

T. MarianoBrooks

6009/04/03

ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions

Inert Gas Purging of Foups

6109/04/03

End View

OHT Loop

Stocker

Stocker robot loads to/from Purge & Non-Purge FOUP storage nests

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)

When Solutions Are Needed: •Development Underway in 2003

•(65nm / 90nm)•Qualification/Production starting 2004

FOUP

InputFOUP

Output

FOUPs being Purged

FOUP Input FOUP Out put

Need: Option for Improvement in Wafer FOUP Level Environmental Conditioning along with Compliance to Industry Safety Standards

FOUP

Nest

Current Port Versions: 2 Ports near Door and 4 Ports

Potential Solutions – Inert Gas Purging of FOUPs

L. FosterTI

6209/04/03

ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions

Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced Constraints

6309/04/03

Facility Cross Linkage Issues

Area A Area AArea B

‚

Protocol Change

‚Traverse

Drivers:

Slurry (Polish) Copper Other hazardous

materials Cleanliness

requirements Shipping & receiving ...

D. GlueerAMD

6409/04/03

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. GlueerAMD

6509/04/03

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. GlueerAMD

6609/04/03

Facility Cross Linkage Metrics

Throughput

“Cycle Time”

Availability

Amount of Transfers/Layer

Amount of Mask Layer

Amount of Transfers due to

other reasons

WSPM

Wafers / Carrier

„Bi-directional“ „Unidirectional“

= +

Sample: 40000 WSPM ÷ 25 Wafers/FOUP • (4 • 29 + 3) = 265 Transfers per Hour

= 2 • Average Carrier Delivery Time + Transfer Time

Sample: 2 • 8 Minutes + 5 Minutes = 21 Minutes

D. GlueerAMD

6709/04/03

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. GlueerAMD

6809/04/03

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 Tools for characterization, wafer vibration,Skills in mechanical engineering, materials, process, yield

Benefit 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.

6909/04/03

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 What are requirements for FOUP purging?