improving equipment performance tracking using semi standards

Improving Equipment Performance Tracking Using SEMI Standards

Lisa PivinIntel

[email protected]

SEMICON West 2006 STEPMethods to Measure/Improve

Equipment Productivity

July 12, 2006 SEMICON West 2006 STEP 2

Agenda1. Drivers for Automated Data Collection for Equipment

Performance

2. Methods of Automated Data Collection for Equipment Performance

3. Issues Seen with Using E5/E30/E58 for Equipment Performance Data Collection

4. How E116 Can Help Fix These Issues

5. How Factories Can Leverage E116 for Equipment Performance

6. Conclusion


Why Care About Equipment Performance?

• Equipment Performance is key to factory output• Factory Output is limited to Performance of Bottleneck Equipment

Bottleneck Equipment Performance = Factory Output

Individual Equipment Capacities

Factory Capacity


Stepper Productivity (all types of steppers)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

95 96 97 98 99 00 01

Time

Waf

er o

pera

tions

per

ste

pper

per

day

M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8M9M10

Source: Dr. Robert Leachman, UC Berkeley

Competitive Semiconductor Manufacturing (CSM) Survey 28 Factories Surveyed & Best Practices Identified (’97 – ’02)

• Equipment throughput performance is highly divergent among competing fabs.

Integrated Stepper Throughput

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

95 96 97 98 99 00 01Time

Equi

v. fu

ll w

afer

ope

ratio

ns p

er s

tepp

er p

er

day

M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8M9M10

• Even among leaders, there is significant improvement potential.


Source: Dr. Robert Leachman, UC Berkeley

Best Practices (from CSM Survey)• The Leading Fabs:

– Rigorously measure OEE of their processing equipment, identify losses in throughput and prioritize needed improvements.

– Automatically capture equipment status using SECS-II interfaces. – Automatically monitor actual processing time and compare against engineering

standards; alarms are triggered when elapsed times are excessive.– Provide automated notification to operators or technicians when equipment are

about to become idle or when they require maintenance or attention.– Have instilled participation on continuous improvement teams focusing on

equipment productivity.


To Improve Equipment Performance

• Collect Equipment Data to Measure Current Performance

• Analyze Data to Identify Performance Losses• Determine Reasons for Performance Losses• Address Reasons for Performance Losses

– Implement cross-functional teams to improve operational issues

– Work with supplier to address equipment design issues to improve performance

Need to Start with Accurate Measurement of Current PerformanceBUT…Issues Exist with Collecting This data


Collecting E10 Data

ProductionEquipment

Manual Recordingof Equipment States

Hardwiring into Equipmentto Get Analog Signals

Host Controller

Host Controller

Standard E5 SECS-IIInterface

Non-Standard Analog Signals

Automated Data Collectionvia Standard Interface


Equipment Automation Standards Used for Data Collection

• SEMI E5 – Semiconductor Equipment Communication Standard (SECS-II)

• SEMI E30 – Generic Equipment Model (GEM)• SEMI E58 – Automated Reliability, Availability, and

Maintainability (ARAMS)


Using E5 (SECS-II) for Equipment Performance Data

Processing Started

Alarm Set

Alarm Clear

Processing Complete

Event Reporting

Alarm Reporting12345678

Bit 81 = Set 0 = Cleared

Bits 7-1 Alarm Code

Alarm Code:0 = Not Used1 = Personal Safety2 = Equipment Safety3 = Parameter Control Warning4 = Parameter Control Error5 = Irrecoverable Error6 = Equipment Status Warning7 = Attention Flags8 = Data Integrity

Alarm codes 1, 2, and 5 are used in some performance tracking systems (e.g., SEMATECH’s TP2) to detect a failure or processing stopped situation.

Host ControllerE5 Compliant

Equipment


Using E30 (GEM) for Equipment Performance Data

• E30 proposes a Processing State Model for semiconductor equipment

• Includes standard automated messages to receive equipment processing data

• Requires alarm set / clear messages to be provided by equipment

• Downside: Does not require alarm codes

IC Makers can use E5 SECS-II messages to get E30 Processing State changes & to get Alarm Set/Clear messages for performance tracking data


Using E58 (ARAMS) for Equipment Performance Data

• E58 States are identical to E10.• Equipment reports E10 state changes to host computer via E5

SECS-II messages.– Includes E58 substate codes to indicate substates of E10

• Equipment supports User Interface (UI) for manual state changes entered by user at equipment console.

Host Controller

E10 / E58 States

E58 StatesE58

Compliant Equipment

TOTAL TIME

OPERATIONS TIME

NON-SCHEDULED

TIMESTANDBY

PRODUCTIVE

MANUFACTURINGTIME

UPTIME

ENGINEERING

SCHEDULEDDOWNTIME

UNSCHEDULEDDOWNTIME


Using E116 (EPT) for Equipment Performance Data

• E116 supports only the basic states the equipment knows, without requiring manual input– BUSY– IDLE– BLOCKED

• States are reported for major modules (e.g., processing chambers) of the equipment, as well as the overall equipment

• Equipment reports E116 state changes to host computer via E5 SECS-II messages

Host Controller

E116 States

E116 States

E116 Compliant Equipment


Issues with Automated Data Collection using E5/E30/E58

• Lack of standardized messages, state models, equipment behavior for equipment performance tracking

• Inability to consistently obtain performance data for individual chambers of a multi-chamber equipment

• No standard “failure” message• Dependency on manual input from a human

operator


Impact: Need to customize Host software to analyze specific messages;Longer System Integration Time

Equipment Type 1

“Processing Started”

Different equipment types report different events.Only 1 equipment studied used exact GEM Processing Model

– all others had custom states & transitions.

“Batch Started”

“Wafer Started”

Equipment Type 2

Equipment Type 3

Equipment Type 4

“Implant Started”

11 state transitions




Lack of Standardized Messages, State Models, Equipment Behavior for Performance Tracking


Lack of Ability to get Module-Level Data

UserConsole

Load Port

Load Port

Load Port

Load Port

Process ModuleProcess Module

Align Module Cool Plate

Dual-Arm Robot

Multiple Wafer Airlocks

In SituMetrology

Single-Arm Robot

Impact: Over- or Under-estimated Availability due to inability to get “Partial Availability” data

UP DOWN

E30 GEM Processing State model / events only

apply to overall equipment, not individual

chambers.

Equipment availability tracked as

either 0% or 100%

Need ability to track at partial %


No Standard Failure Message

Impact: Missed Failures; Overestimated Equipment Performance; Missed Opportunities for Performance / Productivity Improvements

Host EquipmentAlarm Set

Alarm Clear

SEMATECH’s TP2 approach: Use E5 alarm categories 1 (Personal Safety), 2 (Equipment Safety), 5 (Irrecoverable Error) as failures.

But, E30 does not require Alarm Category to be supported!

But no “failure” message!!

As a result, need to determine which of 100’s (or 1000’s!) of equipment alarms cause failures! It is not feasible to characterize every single alarm, so often guesses are made to pick which alarms should be tracked as failures.

Using E30, you get Alarm Set & Alarm Cleared messages


Dependency on Manual InputE58-compliantequipment Manual Input

Required to Indicate Equipment’s

E10 State

Impact: Mixing of Manual Data + Automatically Provided Data incorrect E10 states; Over- or Under-estimated equipment performance; Manual input at equipment not acceptable in 300mm highly automated factory

Now the equipment has a mix of manually input data and automatically tracked equipment states the entire mix of data is at risk of human error!

(e.g., equip. doesn’t know it is Scheduled Down

unless it is told)


Study – Issues with Data Collection (1)Equipment Type Data Reporting Issue Impact

Photolithography Equipment P1

• Alarm codes not implemented (50 alarms; no alarm codes)

• No failures recorded due to Host Controller software relying on alarm codes to determine failures. Availability reported as 16% higher than actual value.


• No alarms actually halt the equipment

• Non-standard implementation of GEM Process State model

• Module-level data not reported

• Utilization is high; quality may be comprised if equipment does not failure processing when needed.

• Equipment characterization and host-control software customization required to determine equipment operating states based on GEM Processing states.

• Partial availability cannot be accurately tracked (e.g., data reflects equipment is 100% down when it is only 50% down). Impacts supplier payment and run rate.


• Alarms don’t indicate failures (~775 alarms; 4 alarm codes)

• Non-Standard implementation of GEM Process State Model (41 state transitions)


• Failures not accurately tracked. • Equipment characterization and host-control software

customization required to determine equipment operating states based on GEM Processing states.

• Partial availability cannot be accurately tracked (e.g., data reflects equipment is 100% down when it is only 50% down). Impacts supplier payment and run rate.


Study – Issues with Data Collection (2)

Equipment Type Data Reporting Issue Impact

ImplantEquipment I1

• No failure “clear” events sent by equipment

• Non-standard implementation of GEM Process State model (18 state transitions)

• Availability data is inaccurate; failures cannot be accurately tracked. Data shows equipment is constantly in failure state.


CMP C1

• Alarms do not indicate equipment failures (240 alarms; 1 alarm code)

• Inaccurate failure tracking. Availability reported as higher than actual; missed opportunity for performance improvement.

DiffusionEquipment DF1

• Non-standard implementation of GEM Process State model (11 State Transitions)

• Alarms do not indicate failures (400 alarms, 4 alarm codes)

• Equipment does not publish chamber-level EPT data


• Availability data is inaccurate; failures are not accurately tracked.

• Partial availability cannot be accurately tracked (e.g., data reflects that equipment is 100% down when it is only 50% down). Impacts supplier run rate and pay-for-performance incentives.


Study – Issues with Data Collection (3)

Equipment Type Data Reporting Issue Impact

PolishEquipment PL1

• Host Control software not receiving data on equipment failures

• Actual availability is lower than reported due to missed tracking of failures. Impacts supplier payment and run rate. Missed opportunities for improving throughput and equipment performance.

DepositionDP1

• Alarms do not indicate equipment failures (~50 alarms; no alarm codes)


• Note: Chamber-level data is reported

• Inaccurate failure tracking. Availability reported as higher than actual; missed opportunity for performance improvement.


DepositionDP2


• Events on module-level data reporting not available

• Alarm information not available


• Partial availability cannot be accurately tracked. • Failure tracking is inaccurate.


Cost Impacts of Over- or Under-Estimating Equipment Performance - Example

If actual availability of the equipment is 4% higher than estimated:• The inaccurate data indicates that an additional equipment is required• When planning new factory, this is an additional capital cost of $12 millionIf actual availability of the equipment is less than estimated:• Missed opportunities for performance improvements & missed revenue

# Equipment Needed

Actual Availability

(%)Total Capital

($M)

Unneeded Capital

Purchase ($M)

Missed Revenue per week

($M)Run Rate: 45 10 71.00% 120 $0 $6.8

Capital Cost ($M): 12 10 72.00% 120 $0 $6.0# Steps: 9 10 73.00% 120 $0 $5.3

Wafer per Week Loading: 5500 10 74.00% 120 $0 $4.5Utilization: 74% 9 75.00% 108 $0 $3.8

Estimated Availability: 80% 9 76.00% 108 $0 $3.0Range (+/-) 10% 9 77.00% 108 $0 $2.3

(A - U) Gap to Maintain: 6% 9 78.00% 108 $0 $1.5Est Revenue per wafer $10,000 9 79.00% 108 $0 $0.8

9 80.00% 108 $0 $0.09 81.00% 108 $0 $0.09 82.00% 108 $0 $0.09 83.00% 108 $0 $0.08 84.00% 96 $12 $0.08 85.00% 96 $12 $0.0


What IC Makers Need

• IC Makers need accurate equipment data to measure OEE and utilization– Total Time that Equipment is IDLE– Total Time that Equipment is BUSY processing– Total Time that Equipment is BLOCKED from processing– Reasons why Equipment is BLOCKED from processing– Run Rate / Throughput Information

• IC Makers need standard events and state model to get this data

• IC Makers need fully automated equipment operations (No Manual Intervention) to track equipment states


How E116 Can Help• Lack of standardized messages, state models, equipment behavior for

equipment performance tracking.– E116 defines standardized state model, messages, and equipment behavior

for reporting performance data.• Inability to obtain performance data for individual chambers of a multi-

chamber equipment.– E116 requires the state model and associated data to be reported for

individual processing chambers of an equipment, as well as the overall equipment.

• No standard “failure” message.– E116 provides an event to indicate when the equipment is blocked from

processing, and provides details on why equipment is blocked from processing.

• Dependency on manual input from a human operator.– E116 relies on equipment data only; no manual input.


“What if” Study - E116 Improvements (1)Equipment Type EPT Data Reporting Issue How Issue Is Fixed

PhotolithographyEquipment P1

• Alarm codes not implemented. (50 alarms; no alarm codes)

• Failures accurately tracked via standard messages from equipment indicating “Blocked” state. Host control software does not need alarm codes to determine if equipment has a failure.


• Alarms do not halt the equipment

• Non-standard GEM Process State model


• None – E116 does not require that the equipment halt; it only requires that failures are reported in a standard manner.

• Key operational states (Idle, Busy, Blocked) are reported in standard messages. Host control software does not need to be customized for non-standard GEM Process State model.

• Key operational states (Idle, Busy, Blocked) are reported for modules and partial-availability metrics.


• Alarms don’t indicate failures (~775 alarms; 4 alarm codes)

• Non-Standard implementation of GEM Process State Model (41 state transitions)


• Failures are accurately tracked via standard messages from equipment indicating “Blocked” (Unscheduled Down) state. Host control software does not need alarm codes to determine if equipment has a failure.

• Key operational states (Idle, Busy, Blocked) are reported in standard messages. Host control software does not need to be customized for non-standard GEM Process State model in order to determine equipment states.

• Key operational states (Idle, Busy, Blocked) are reported for modules of the equipment, enabling ability to determine partial-availability metrics.


“What if” Study - E116 Improvements (2)Equipment Type EPT Data Reporting Issue How Issue Is Fixed

ImplantEquipment I1

• No failure “clear” events sent by equipment


• Failure ‘clears’ are accurately tracked via standard equipment messages indicating transition out of “Blocked” state. Host control software is able to detect when equipment recovers from failure.

• Key states (Idle, Busy, Blocked) reported in standard messages. Host control software does not need to be customized for non-standard GEM Process State model.

DiffusionEquipment DF1

• Non-standard implementation of GEM Process State model (11 State Transitions)

• Alarms do not indicate failures (400 alarms, 4 alarm codes)

• Equipment does not publish chamber-level EPT data


• failures are accurately tracked via standard messages from equipment indicating “Blocked” (Unscheduled Down) state, including reason. Host control software does not need alarm codes to determine if equipment has a failure.


PolishEquipment PL1

• Host Control software not receiving data on equipment failures

• All equipment failures are reported via “Blocked” state change events.


Equipment Type EPT Data Reporting Issue How Issue Is Fixed

Deposition EquipmentDP1

• Alarms do not indicate equipment failures (~50 alarms; no alarm codes)


• Chamber-level data is reported

• Failures are accurately tracked via standard messages from equipment indicating “Blocked” (failure) state.


Deposition EquipmentDP2


• Events on module-level data reporting not available

• Alarm information not available



• Failures are accurately tracked via standard messages from equipment indicating “Blocked” (Unscheduled Down) state, including reason.

CMP EquipmentC1

• Alarms do not indicate equipment failures (240 alarms; 1 alarm code)

• Failures are accurately tracked via standard messages from equipment indicating “Blocked” (Unscheduled Down) state, including reason.

“What-If” Study – E116 Improvements (3)


Building the E10 States• Keep Manual data separate from Equipment data to sustain

equipment data accuracy• Use data from MES & Equipment to produce E10 metrics

Equipment

Equipment is BUSY

Equipment is IDLE

Equipment is BLOCKED

MES

Data on NON-SCHEDULED TIME

Data on ENGINEERING TIME

Data on MANUFACTURING TIME

Data on SCHEDULED DOWNTIME

Data on UNSCHEDULED DOWNTIMEE10

StateLogic

NON-SCHEDULED TIME

ENGINEERING TIME

PRODUCTIVE TIME

SCHEDULED DOWNTIME

UNSCHEDULED DOWNTIME

STANDBY TIME


Mapping the States

NON-SCHEDULEDTIME

UNSCHEDULEDDOWNTIMESCHEDULEDDOWNTIME

ENGINEERINGTIME

STANDBYTIME

PRODUCTIVETIME

E10 States

NON-SCHEDULED (MES) AND ANY STATE* (E116)

MANUFACTURING (MES) AND BLOCKED (E116)ENGINEERING (MES) AND BLOCKED (E116)

UNSCHEDULED DOWN (MES) AND ANY STATE* (E116)

SCHEDULED DOWN (MES) AND ANY STATE* (E116)

ENGINEERING (MES) AND BUSY (E116)ENGINEERING (MES) AND IDLE (E116)

MANUFACTURING (MES) AND IDLE (E116)

MANUFACTURING (MES) AND BUSY (E116)

MES based and equipment based E116 Data

*ANY STATE (E116) means that the E116 state is not a factor in determining the E10 state.


Using E116 to Pareto Reasons for Blocked Processing

Without E116: IC Maker must analyze alarms to determine which alarms cause equipment to be BLOCKED from processing.

With E116: A BLOCKED event and a BLOCKED REASON are sent when equipment is BLOCKED from processing. Data can be analyzed to determine failures that impact processing.

0102030405060708090

Failur

e Typ

e 4

Failur

e Typ

e 6

Failur

e Typ

e 8

Failur

e Typ

e 1

Failur

e Typ

e 2

Failur

e Typ

e 3

Failur

e Typ

e 5

Failur

e Typ

e 10

Failur

e Typ

e 7

Failur

e Typ

e 9

Num

ber o

f Fai

lure

sEquipment 8

Equipment 7

Equipment 6

Equipment 5

Equipment 4

Equipment 3

Equipment 2

Equipment 1


Using E116 to Measure Detailed Processing

Carrier-1 Loading & Prep.

t0


Carrier-1 Processing

Carrier-2 Waiting for Resource

Carrier-2 Waiting

for Unload

Carrier-1 Waiting

for Unload

t1 t3 t5 t6 t7 t8 t4

Event Timestamp

Use Case 1: 300mm Product-material Tasks for Equipment

without Internal Buffer and with Two Loadports

t2

Carrier-2 Processing


Productive

Standby Waiting

for AMHS

Productive

t9

Waiting for new Material U

nloa

d

Unl

oad

t10 t11 t12

Standby Waiting

for AMHS

Waiting for new Material W

aitin

g fo

r Mat

’l

Standby Waiting

for AMHS Pro

duct

ive

Pro

duct

ive

Source: SEMATECH

• E116 provides events when equipment transitions to BUSY state, when equipment begins new task in BUSY State, and when equipment is BLOCKED waiting for external source (e.g., material handling for unload).

• Timestamps can be tracked to analyze details of equipment processing.


0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Task Processing Duration (hh:mm:ss.000)

16 identical chambers performing the same task (same recipe) exhibit a wide range of performance.

% o

f Tas

k In

stan

ces

Using E116 to Compare Processing Task Durations Across Identical Equipment


Using E116 to Compare Actual Processing Times vs. Expected Processing times

• Actual-Start and Actual-Finish collected via E116

• Should-Start = Max{precedent Actual-Finish times}

• Should-Finish = Actual Start +Theoretical Duration

StartLag

EfficientProcessing

InefficientProcessing

ShouldStart

ActualStart

ShouldFinish

ActualFinish

Theoretical Duration


Implementing E116 in Factories

• Add E116 standard to purchase specifications for equipment

• Modify host control software to accept E116 messages

• Modify Equipment Performance systems to accept E116 data & combine with MES equipment states to calculate E10 states/metrics

Equipment Performance

System(calculates & maintains

E10 State)

MESHost

Controller

E116-compliantEquipment

E5/E30 Events/Alarms

Equipment StateEquipment StateE116 Data

E116 Messages


• Leverage E116 to improve implementation/development time– Use standard Host Controller framework based on collecting E116 standard

messages to minimize development time– Leverage “BLOCKED” state to eliminate need to identify which alarms cause failures

• Collect E116 data to measure:– Time Equipment was BUSY

• What tasks it was busy doing• How long these tasks took• Variance in task processing time between products, equipment, sites, etc.

– Time Equipment was BLOCKED • How long equipment was BLOCKED overall• How long equipment was blocked for high-level categories of Blocked time• How long equipment was blocked for specific reasons• Pareto top equipment why equipment was blocked

– Time Equipment was IDLE– Module-level data

• Partial Availability based on chamber-level uptime/downtime• Regularly review data to determine areas for improvements• Drive productivity improvement teams & feedback to OEMs for improvement

Using E116 to Improve Performance


Summary• Improved equipment performance is key for IC Makers.

– Improving bottleneck equipment performance improves factory output• First, accurate data is needed. Automated data collection is best.• Without E116, IC Makers lack ability to easily collect automated,

accurate equipment performance data.– Lack of standardized messages, state models, equipment behavior – Inability to report module-level performance data– No standard “failure” message– Dependency on manual input from a human operator

• Issues with data result in:– Over or under estimates of equipment performance– Increased system integration time / effort for performance tracking– Missed opportunities for performance improvements– Unnecessary capital purchases and/or missed revenue due to capacity

• The new E116 standard was designed to address these issues with automated data collection of equipment performance data.

• With E116, IC Makers can improve performance data collection and use data to drive performance improvements to improve output.

improving equipment performance tracking using semi standards

Documents

processing equipment

equipment performance

equipment performance

equipment safety3

equipment status warning7

equipment design issues

performance tracking

venue informationsource