ITRS 2005 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup Section

1. ITRS 2005 Factory Integration ChapterMaterial Handling Backup Section Details and Assumptions for Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions MPH Backup Hot Lot Backup

2. AMHS Backup Outline • Contributors Page 3 • How Metrics were Selected Page 4 • Material Handling Technology Requirements Table Page 5 • Translating Material Handling Technology Reqs to Reality Page 6 • Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Reqs Pg 7-27 • System Throughput Requirements pages 7-17 • Reliability pages 18-19 • Hot Lot Delivery Time Pages 20-22 • Delivery Time Pages 23-27 • Potential Solution Options Pg 28-67 • Direct Transport (Includes capabilities needed from FICS) Pages 28-42 • Direct Transport/Delivery Time: 3rd Party LP/Buffer Pages 43-46 • Integrated Flow and Control Pages 47-54 • Delivery Time & Storage Density: Under Track Storage Pages 55-59 • Inert Gas Purging of FOUPs Pages 60-61 • Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced Constraints Pages 62-67 • Potential Research Topics Pg 68-69 • 450mm Inputs (2005 addition) Pg 70-98 • Inputs on Layout Assumptions (2005 addition) Pg 99-108

3. 2004/2005 AMHS Contributors • Mikio Otani, ASI • Makoto Yamamoto, Murata • YY Chen, UMC • Jonathan Chang, TSMC • Junji Iwaskai, Renasas • Eric Englhardt, AMAT • Tom Chang, Asyst • Rex Wright, Asyst • Mike Bufano, Brooks • Bill Fosnight, Brooks • Clint Haris, Brooks • Mark Magleby, Daifuku • Dan Stevens, Hirata • Larry Hennessy, IDC • Adrian Pyke, Middlesex • Ron Denison, Murata • Marlin Shopbell, AMD • Dave Miller, IBM • Melvin Jung, Intel • Steve Seall, Intel • Len Foster, TI • Roy Hunter, TI • Sven Hahn, Infineon • Harald Heinrich, Infineon

4. 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.

5. 2005 Update Material Handling Technical Requirements

6. Translating Material Handling metrics to Reality

7. 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology RequirementsAMHS System Throughput

8. 2003 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Numbers used in 2003 AMHS Requirements Table) M. Jung Intel

9. 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

10. 2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Reference) M. Jung Intel

11. 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)

12. 2003 Inputs, Assumptions, Outputs & Description (Additional AMHS Configurations) M. Jung Intel

13. Transport Move Definition/Details (AMHS Configuration & Move Type Definitions) M. Jung Intel

14. L5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 L1 L4 L2 L3 Separate Interbay & Intrabay • Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2 • Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L5 -> S3 -> L2 -> T3 • Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1 • Between two Storage devices S1 -> L5 -> S3 M. Jung Intel

15. L3 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 L1 L2 Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays Connected • Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2 • Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> T3 OR T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L3 -> S5 -> L2 -> T5 • Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1 • Between two Storage devices S1 -> L1 -> S3 OR S1 -> L3 -> S3 M. Jung Intel

16. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Unified Transport System – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool • Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2 • Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> T3 • Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1 • Between two Storage devices S1 -> L1 -> S3 L1 M. Jung Intel

17. L5 X4 X1 X3 X2 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 L1 L4 L2 L3 Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff Between Transport Systems – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool 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. Jung Intel

18. 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology RequirementsAMHS Reliability Metrics

19. Need to update AMHS MCBF – Translated into Failures/Day • Inputs • Outputs

20. 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology RequirementsHot Lot Delivery Time

21. AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time Goal: Determine Regular AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time to meet Cycle Time. • Factory Operations and process step assumptions are listed below. • If a Queue time of ~2 days is acceptable for Hot Lots then AMHS Delivery Times meet Cycle Time Requirements. M. Jung Intel

22. AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time Cycle / Processing / Transport / Queue Time Output and Assumptions: • The following table outlines the Required Cycle Time and the expected processing time. • The transport time is directly dependent on the AMHS Delivery Time. • The Queue Time is determined by subtracting the Transport Time and Processing Time from the Cycle Time. M. Jung Intel

23. 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology RequirementsDelivery Time

24. Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #1 D. Glueer AMD

25. Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #2 D. Glueer AMD

26. 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

27. Strategic Goals for Delivery Time Conceptual - Values don't match Reqs Table. See Direct Transport Material for further discussion. 5% p.a. Delivery Time decrease p.a. due to advances in AMHS technology 10% p.a. Lateness decrease due to Delivery Time, MES and dispatching improvements D. Glueer AMD

28. ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutionsDirect Transport:Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions

29. Inter-Bay AMHS Key Indicator Transfer Throughput Intra and Inter Separate System Intra-Bay Intra-Bay Equipment View H/W Efforts Reduce WIP Transfer Time (Ave & Max) Unified System (Dispatcher Base) Push Pull Re-Route Ave & Max Time S/W Efforts Lot View Schedule WIP On-Time Delivery Punctuality (On-Time) Unified System (Scheduler Base) Capacity Planning Wafer Level Tracking AMHS is Changing to an On-Time Delivery System J. Iwasaki Renasas

30. User’s SCM - Supply Chain Management Planning System ….. ….. Direct Transport ….. ….. Mfg. System Agile -Mfg. EES Wafer Level Control ….. ….. E- Diagnostic Supporting System ….. Supplier’s SCM The Next Generation Factory Concept E-Mfg. Direct Transport - Plays key role in next generation factories

31. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Direct Tool to Tool Transport Is Needed by 2005 Several AMHS Mechanical & Layout Design Concept Options being considered • 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 Fully Connected OHV OHV with Interbay Transport Partially Connected OHV With Conveyor Interbay

32. Central Stocker (Large Capacity) (High Throughput) Upper Ceiling OHT Note: Current OHT systems cannot meet the longer-term throughput Branch Material Handling: Vehicle Based Direct Transport System Concept Under Floor Full Direct Transport

33. Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor Based Direct Transport Concept Conveyor Type Transport

34. Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor / Hoist Hybrid Based Direct Transport Concept Interbay Conveyor <-> Intrabay hoist Interbay/Intrabay Conveyor <-> Tool Delivery Hoist A. Pyke Middlesex

35. Material Handling: Alternate Concepts for achieving Direct Transport w/ multiple transport systems Interbay Vehicle <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station. Interbay Conveyor <-> Intrabay RGV/AGV Interbay Vehicle (passive) <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station Interbay vehicle <-> Intrabay RGV/AGV handoff station Interbay Vehicle <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station with height translation A. Pyke Middlesex

36. X Section X-X Stocker Stocker Stocker X Stocker Stocker Stocker Subway Transport system 12’ceiling 2nd transport loop (if needed) Stocker robot Transparent cover Raised metal floor 600mm max Conveyor installed on waffle slab Waffle slab Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Stocker to Stocker Moves) Conveyor Maintenance: Via the top for Subway system Via the bottom for Overhead system D. Pillai Intel Corp

37. EB Loadport with Safety cover and Elevator ME Tool Mini Environment D+D1 = 450mm ME Tool X X Simple Gantry robot ME ME ME ME Tool Tool Tool Tool Tool body (side view) ME Tool 900mm Safety Cover door opener zone PGV Dock flange ME Tool Raised Metal Floor FOUP gripper Tool Pedestal envelope Stocker Stocker Conveyor on waffle slab 600mm Waffle slab Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Tool Moves) D. Pillai Intel Corp

38. EB D+D1 = 450mm Gantry Rails Door opener Safety cover Door opener Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Plan View w/ Gantry) Mini Environment Tool body D. Pillai Intel Corp

39. 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 Ž  Door opener flange  Empty loadport 2 Loadport 1 FOUP lifting Exclusion zones 900mm Raised Metal Floor Outline of pedestal Œ Gantry robot picks up FOUP from Conveyor and raised to the top Subway conveyor Waffle slab D. Pillai Intel Corp

40. Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Layout) D. Pillai Intel Corp

41. 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

42. 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. Pyke Middlesex

43. ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutionsDirect Tool-to-Tool Delivery 3rd Party Loadport / Buffer. C. Han AMD

44. 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

45. 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. Han AMD

46. Key Factors – Operation Scenario for Non-Production Wafer FOUP Non-Production Wafers Production Wafers Time 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 LP #1 Two LP LP #2 • Next can be delivered after finishing non-production lot • Non-production FOUP need to be delivered to stocker C. Han AMD

47. ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutionsIntegrated Flow and Control:Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions

48. 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”)

49. 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 ControlType 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.

50. Material Handling Potential Solutions – Integrated Flow and Control (continued) • Assumptions (continued): • Wafer Level Integrated Flow and ControlType 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 ControlType 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