Industry News, Trends and Technology, and Standards Updates

Factory System Infrastructure Support Necessary for a Full-scale EDA Deployment

Posted by Alan Weber: Vice President, New Product Innovations on Nov 24, 2015 12:30:00 PM

In my October 27th blog, I wrote about the Equipment Automation topic shown in the figure below and stressed the importance of developing good equipment purchasing specifications from the outset to ensure the company’s manufacturing objectives can be met. Given the number of EDA pilot and production projects currently active across the industry, it’s likewise important to consider what kind of Factory System Infrastructure will be necessary to support a full-scale EDA deployment… so the purpose of this posting is to highlight this topic for the semiconductor manufacturing IT professionals who may face these challenges soon.

Automation strategy frameworkHowever, before diving into a detailed design process for an EDA factory system, you must decide what overall system architecture will govern that design. A number of factors go into this decision, including 1) the functional requirements that distinguish EDA-based data collection from other more traditional approaches, 2) technology constraints of the existing factory systems, 3) budget limitations, 4) schedule requirements, and especially 5) the non-functional requirements (scalability, performance, reliability, ease-of-use, etc.) that often make the difference between success and failure of a given system.

Each of these factors deserves a thorough treatment of its own, but since we were invited to address this topic at a recent seminar sponsored by SEMI Taiwan, we’ve assembled an overview presentation entitled “Factory Systems Architectures for EDA” that you can use as a starting point. It not only covers in more depth the requirements above which drive key architectural decisions, but also suggests what some of the major architectural components of a production system would need to be, based on the experience Cimetrix has gained working with the earliest adopters of EDA across the semiconductor device maker and equipment supplier communities. These include provisions for handling the scores of equipment metadata models that will exist in a production facility, for creating and managing the thousands of data collection plans that are resident at the equipment instances themselves, for monitoring and maintaining the overall performance of a system with such inherent flexibility, and for a number of other examples. Finally, the presentation describes some high-level examples of architectural “styles” that have been implemented in the industry thus far.  

We sincerely hope you will download this presentation and its companion “The Power of E164: EDA Common Metadata” that was also presented at the SEMI Taiwan event, and contact us when you want to know more about any of these topics.

Topics: Industry Highlights, EDA/Interface A, Doing Business with Cimetrix, Data Collection/Management

SEMI Standards Meetings from the North American Information & Control Committee Forecasts the Direction of the Semiconductor Industry

Posted by Brian Rubow: Director of Solutions Engineering on Sep 29, 2015 1:30:00 PM

During the week of SEMICON West in San Francisco this past July, the North American Information & Control Committee met to discuss and consider new and pending standards within the industry. SEMATECH was noticeably absent from the sessions. For many years, SEMATECH has been a leader in developing and promoting the GEM 300 and EDA standards.

Here are the highlights from those meetings and how they will effect you.

The DDA Task Force is in the early stages of planning a Freeze 3 version of the EDA (Interface A) standards. This may cause some concern—especially with OEMs—as some are just now getting their Freeze 1 interfaces accepted in Fabs. Freeze 2 was a big step forward in making the standards clearer and easier to adopt, but it required a lot of work to move from Freeze 1 to Freeze 2. The hope is that the transition from Freeze 2 to Freeze 3 will be easier, but there will be doubt and concern among many OEMs.

One of the changes proposed for Freeze 3 is replacing the usage of SSL (HTTP) with WS-Security, an extension to SOAP and a member of the web services specifications published by OASIS. This extension allows for secure data within a SOAP message, while still using HTTP for data transfer. This is really an underlying issue and should not affect the applications that would interface with our CIMPortal Plus product. It would allow for a secure connection between CIMPortal and the Fab client so that the data transmitted is protected from theft. There would be configuration changes required to allow the secure connection to be defined, but—once it is—the actual interaction between the OEM’s application and CIMPortal Plus should not change.

Another change being considered is the implementation of WS-ReliableMessaging, another extension to SOAP and also a member of the web services specifications published by OASIS. WS-ReliableMessaging describes a protocol that allows SOAP messages to be reliably delivered between distributed applications in the presence of software component, system, or network failures. Just as the WS-Security item above, this would be at the protocol level, an “under-the-hood” change. It should not affect the way applications interact with our product, but should provide for a more reliable connection to the host EDA client. Use of this extension could also allow EDA to be used in more factory applications, where guaranteed data acquisition is required.

The final issue that was discussed relating to Freeze 3 was a new high-frequency trace for collecting data at very high speeds triggered for short periods of time where the collected data is sent at the end of the collection period. For example, a 1 ms trace for 5 seconds where the 5,000 collected samples for each parameter would be sent at the end of the 5 second period. This change might require alterations in our products. This will help the data reporting be more efficient. Rather than reporting small individual pieces of data to the EDA client, this will allow many data samples to be sent together making for more efficient use of the network.

The GEM 300 Task Force had three ballots on hold due to the ongoing SML copyright legal trial between SEMI and The PEER Group. However, work on other pending ballots continued. The first, Ballot 5872, proposes to add new features to the E172 SEDD standard. E172 is a new standard that provides an XML schema for documenting a GEM/GEM 300 interface. Eventually, E172 can completely replace the current GEM documentation requirements.

Recipe Integrity ballot 5618 has an uncertain future since ISMI failed to pursue its development; unfortunately, the ballot had seemed very close to completion. This standard says that it will not require changes to SECS II messages, but simply clarifies what parameters are defined and how the existing pieces work together. So, essentially, it would be a standard that tells you how to use other existing standards.

Finally, the Task Force discussed enhancing the GEM 300 standards to handle equipment that bond substrates and divide substrates. This will affect E90 and could affect E40, E87, and E94 as well. These changes would likely require updates to CIM300. Right now the standards just address how to treat equipment where the same material (substrates or wafers) go in and out. Traditional material tracking assumes one wafer in, get processed, then return to an output carrier. In the proposed case, either two wafers go in and one unit comes out, or one substrate goes in and two come out

The committee is scheduled to next meet in November, so you can plan on seeing another post from me on the outcome of those meetings afterwards. Subscribe to our blog in the upper right corner of this page to be sure not to miss that or any of my future updates on the North American Information & Control Committee.

Topics: Industry Highlights, Semiconductor Industry, EDA/Interface A, Events

EDA Standards Seeing Increasing Adoption Across the Industry

Posted by Alan Weber: Vice President, New Product Innovations on Sep 22, 2015 9:19:21 PM

As mentioned briefly in a previous posting, the adoption momentum for the SEMI EDA (Equipment Data Acquisition) suite of standards has picked up noticeably over the past 6 months, and a number of pilot projects are now underway at leading chip makers across the industry, especially in Asia. As these projects bear fruit, we expect to see explicit requirements for EDA interface capability in the purchase specifications of many more fabs in the coming months. But that’s just a start.

The early adopters of these standards who have now accumulated years of production experience clearly understand that the key to realizing the full manufacturing benefit of this technology lies in the structure and content of the equipment metadata models, which to date have been largely determined by the equipment suppliers themselves. The resulting diversity of EDA implementations is reminiscent of the situation that existed in the days before GEM, when every chip maker required their own particular “dialect” of SECS-II, and the equipment suppliers had to support a custom interface for each customer… not a pretty picture.

Luckily, the standards community recognized this problem early on, and addressed it via the Specification for EDA Common Metadata (SEMI E164). This standard effectively unifies the equipment models across the fab, regardless of process type or supplier, enabling the factory software developers to create generic manufacturing applications that “plug and play” with the equipment to address the problems that are common to all (status and productivity monitoring, material flow, resource utilization, etc.). 

EDA1.jpg

As a result, the next wave of factory implementations can directly leverage these lessons learned by requiring compliance to “Freeze 2, E164” level of the EDA standards suite, and focus their energies on new application development rather than supplier-specific custom integration software. Given the years of experience Cimetrix has dedicated both to the development of the EDA standards in the SEMI community and in providing product-based implementations on “both ends of the wire” (in other words, equipment and client/host side), we can support customers wherever they are in the implementation life cycle, from building awareness to initial purchase specification development to system architecture and application design to conformance and acceptance testing.

For more information about how we can help align your activities with this accelerating adoption process, please contact us… and stay tuned for more specifics on all the above!

For an introduction to EDA, download the presentation Interface A Overview: Characteristics, Benefits, and Applications.

Topics: Industry Highlights, Semiconductor Industry, EDA/Interface A

New SEMI Standards Automation Technology Committee Formed

Posted by Cimetrix on Oct 15, 2014 11:36:00 AM

James Amano of SEMI, in the October 2014 SEMI Standards Watch, announced a new Automation Technology Committee whose mission is to bring together automation standards for the semiconductor, PV, HB-LED, and other related industries. The first chapters will be in Europe and Japan.

The new committee replaces the PV Automation Committee. That committee developed standards based upon the SECS/GEM standards were used by the photovoltaic equipment industry. Interestingly enough, programmable logic controller (PLC) manufacturers are now considering using those standards because they are general enough to support flow-oriented manufacturing in other industries.

Fab System Host 1 resized 600

Previously, different industry segments such as PV, FPD, and HB-LED addressed their automation requirements in separate committees. Now, the new committee will combine interests and resources into a single group.

 

Topics: Industry Highlights, SECS/GEM, Photovoltaic/PV Standards

EDA/Interface A versus SECS/GEM SEMI Standards

Posted by Cimetrix on Oct 13, 2014 4:11:00 PM

With the growing interest in the use of SEMI EDA/Interface A standards, we have been getting a great deal of requests for the difference between Interface A and SECS/GEM

For a quick comparison, here is a table to showing some of the differences between Interface A and SECS/GEM:

EDA/Interface A versus SECS/GEM 
 

EDA/Interface A

SECS/GEM

Clients

Multiple

Single

Security

Can be configured for SSL-secured communications

HSMS is not secure

Equipment Model

You can upload a description of the logical structure of the equipment which includes parameters, events, and exceptions assigned to modules, subsystems, and I/O devices

Equipment information is found in a manual provided with the equipment, but often without the necessary context

Traces


Start & stop triggers that may include one or more events and/or exceptions  Traces begin via a SECS message and end when a specified number of samples are collected

Event Reports

Specify an event and an optional set of parameters to be collected when that event occurs

GEM host defines collections of parameters called reports, then links one or more reports to one or more events. The same report may be linked to multiple events if needed.

Data Collection Reports

E134 allows data collection to be throttled if data collection is reducing equipment performance below a specified level

GEM does not throttle back data collection

 

Additional Resources:

Topics: Industry Highlights, SECS/GEM, EDA/Interface A

SEMI Standard E164 Officially Approved

Posted by David Francis: Director of Product Management on Aug 10, 2012 3:52:00 PM

By David Francis
Product Manager

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about our SEMICON West experience and how we expected Ballot 5002B to soon be approved by SEMI as the E164 – EDA Common Metadata standard (see SEMICON West - Ballot 5002B Passes). E164 is now approved, and is available for download on SEMIViews at SEMI E164-0712 - Specification for EDA Common Metadata.

SEMI Logo

The purpose of the E164 specification is to encourage and promote those companies using EDA/Interface A connections to use a more common representation of equipment metadata that is based upon the SEMI E125 Specification for Equipment Self-Description. This will help establish more consistency from tool to tool and from fab to fab, making it easier for equipment vendors to provide a consistent EDA interface and for fabs to develop EDA clients.

The standard was developed because semiconductor equipment suppliers were developing equipment models that were compliant with the E125 standard, but very different from one equipment to the next. Even similar types of equipment had different models, which produced different metadata sets. That scenario was pretty frustrating for fabs as they tried to determine what data they could gather from each piece of equipment.

With E164 approved, equipment suppliers now have a standard they can use to generate the equipment models and fabs now have a standard they can use to generate their client side applications. GLOBALFOUNDRIES has been actively working to adopt the new E164 standard as part of their EDA acceptance criteria. This requirement will help accelerate the adoption of EDA/Interface A as well as the new E164 standard by OEMs and ultimately by other fabs.

Stay tuned – Cimetrix will have some solutions coming soon to support our customers through these changes. If you want to talk with us now about what we can do for an existing project, visit Contact Cimetrix.

Topics: Industry Highlights, EDA/Interface A

SEMICON West - Ballot 5002B Passes

Posted by Cimetrix on Jul 26, 2012 11:28:00 AM

By David Francis
Product Manager

We had a lot of interest in EDA/Interface A SEMI standards at our booth at SEMICON West 2012 in San Francisco during the week of July 9. Equipment Data Acquisition (EDA), also referred to as Interface A, is made up of SEMI standards SEMI E125, E134, E120, E132, and supporting standards. EDA offers semiconductor manufacturers the ability to collect a significant amount of data that is crucial to the manufacturing process, including descriptions of the equipment's structure and behavior. This data is represented on the tool as an equipment model, which is communicated to EDA clients as metadata sets. The metadata includes the equipment components, events, and exceptions, along with all the available data parameters.

One of the challenges with creating an equipment model and the resulting metadata sets is the variability with which the model can be created. It is possible for one tool to create a model that is compliant with the standards, but is quite different from the model for another tool, which is also standard compliant. This makes it difficult for the fabs to then reliably know where to find the data they are interested in from tool to tool. This issue has been addressed in SEMI Ballot 5002B which  defines the common metadata set that will support consistent implementation of EDA/Interface A Freeze Version II. Through our leadership role in the DDA Task Force, Cimetrix has played a major part in defining Ballot 5002B.

SEMI is in the final proof review of the standard that resulted from the5002B ballot, which SEMI will soon publish as the E164 Common Metadata Standard. With this new specification, equipment modeling will be more clearly defined and provide more consistent models between OEMs, which will make it easier for EDA/Interface A users to navigate models and find the data they need. Some semiconductor manufacturers, such as GLOBALFOUNDARIES, will require both compliance with E164 and validation of the compliance with the ISMI/SEMATECH Metadata Conformance Analyzer (MCA).

ISMI/SEMATECH Logo

MCA is the industry standard means for automated checking for conformance of equipment metadata to applicable portions of the SEMI standards and ISMI guidelines. By using MCA, both OEMs and semiconductor manufacturers will be able to attain consistency in the representation of 300mm data, objects, and events within EDA/Interface A. Those supported standards include E30, E40, E87, E90, E94, E116, E157, and the new E164 standard.

 SEMI logo

One important thing to recognize is that, since it is possible to create a Freeze Version II compliant interface that will not pass MCA testing, understanding the requirements for compliance to both before beginning the design.

For more information about EDA/Interface A Freeze Version II, as well as the new E164 and MCA testing, contact us at Ask EDA/Interface A Question. We are recognized as one of the industry leaders in SEMI standards. Let’s talk and find out how we may be able to help.

Topics: Industry Highlights, Events

Implementing GEM and PV2 – what you should know

Posted by Cimetrix on May 4, 2012 10:08:00 AM

by Rob Schreck
Marketing Manager

As we gear up for SEMICON West, we are encouraged by some good news in the industry after enduring the bleak news of autumn and winter. SEMI reports the North American semiconductor capital equipment industry book-to-bill was over 1.0 in February and March of this year (see Semiconductor Equipment Industry Book-to-Bill), and the PV equipment book-to-bill ratio is starting back up (see PV Manufacturing Equipment Book-to-Bill Increases from Record Low). With the good news comes more companies developing new equipment, drawing more attention to SEMI standards such as SECS/GEM and PV2 (PVECI).

Understanding the SEMI SECS/GEM and PV2 standards, and the impact to their product roadmaps, might seem a little daunting for many equipment suppliers. We have updated a white paper to provide some background, called Introduction to the SEMI Standards: Implementing GEM and PV2.

This paper highlights key elements and issues associated with GEM software projects to help guide users toward a successful implementation.

A GEM (E30) interface is implemented by the equipment manufacturer to enable the equipment and factory software (a.k.a. “host”) to communicate using SECS-II (E5) messages via Ethernet.

 GEM Factory Host Interface resized 600

GEM standard compliance consists of fundamental requirements and additional capabilities, and compliance is only required for the equipment interface, not for the factory host software. Companies scale the GEM standard implementations to match the complexity of the equipment and the needs of the factory host software.

The GEM fundamental requirements include establishing communication with the factory host software, implementing a processing state machine, event notification, protocol error messages, and a GEM implementation document. Here is an example of such a document, and you can find a GEM compliance check list at Are You GEM Compliant?

GEM COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

FUNDAMENTAL GEM REQUIREMENTS

IMPLEMENTED

GEM COMPLIANT

State Models

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes (see #1)

□ No

Equipment Processing States

□ Yes         □No

Host-Initiated S1,F13/F14 Scenario

□Yes          □No

Event Notification

□ Yes         □No

On-Line Identification

□ Yes         □ No

Error Messages

□ Yes         □ No

Documentation

□ Yes         □ No

Control (Operator Initiated)

□ Yes         □ No

ADDITIONAL CAPABILITIES

IMPLEMENTED

GEM COMPLIANT (see #2)

Establish Communications

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Dynamic Event Report Configuration

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Variable Data Collection

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Trace Data Collection

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Status Data Collection

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Alarm Management

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Remote Control

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Equipment Constants

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Process Recipe Management

□ Yes         □ No

Process Programs:  □ Yes         □ No

E42 Recipes:            □ Yes          □ No

E139 Recipes:          □ Yes          □ No

Material Movement

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Equipment Terminal Services

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Clock

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Limits Monitoring

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Spooling

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

Control (Host-Initiated)

□ Yes         □ No

□ Yes         □ No

GEM Compliance Statement

Much like how the GEM standard is a subset of the SECS-II standard with additional required features, the PV2 standard is a subset of the GEM standard with additional required features, which include:

  • The required format to use for data items in the SECS-II messages
  • A specific list of variables, equipment constants, and collection events
  • A subset of SECS-II messages
  • An implementation of SEMI E10 to report equipment states related to reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM)
  • An implementation of the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
  • A statement of PV2 compliance

These PV2 requirements should make PV2-compliant equipment even easier than GEM to integrate with the factory host software.

 

Topics: Industry Highlights, SECS/GEM, Photovoltaic/PV Standards

EDA/Interface A and ISMI Common Metadata: Guidelines versus Rules

Posted by David Francis: Director of Product Management on Apr 25, 2012 11:05:00 AM

by David Francis
Product Manager

During SEMICON West last year, ISMI made a presentation about a proposed new standard: EDA Common Metadata. EDA stands for Equipment Data Acquisition and is also known as Interface A. The EDA Common Metadata was being balloted as SEMI Document number 5002. That initial ballot failed and so did the next attempt. However, recently, on the third attempt, document 5002B passed SEMI’s Information & Control Committee voting. While it still needs to pass the SEMI ISC Audits & Review Committee before it becomes an official SEMI standard, the 5002B ballot seems to be gaining support.

The SEMI E30, E40, E87, E90, E94, E116, E148, and E157 all define communication and behavior standards for semiconductor processing and metrology equipment. These standards produce the content of the EDA data. The E120, E125, E128, E132, E134, and E138 standards define how to establish and use web services that use SOAP/XML messages over HTTP or HTTPS to transfer data from the equipment to client applications.

So if all these standards already exist for defining EDA content, why was a Common Metadata necessary?

Although he wasn’t talking about SEMI Standards, I think Captain Barbosa in the movie Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl captured the reason best when he said, “The code is more what you would call guidelines than actual rules.” Within the standards there is a lot of room for interpretation regarding the details of how they are implemented. The EDA Common Metadata establishes more specificity around the guidelines for how the equipment data should be represented. The goal is to improve the quality and consistency of the data provided through the EDA interface so that host-side client applications can make better use of the data.

ISMI Logo

In 2010, ISMI announced a new Freeze Version of the EDA standards known as Freeze Version 2 or the 0710 Freeze Version. This defined the specific version of each of the individual EDA standards that should be used by equipment manufacturers to create an EDA interface. For more about the freeze versions for EDA/Interface A, read the Cimetrix Introduction to SEMI EDA/Interface A Standards.

The new SEMI 5002B document provides a single, agreed, interpretation of the various SEMI standards as represented in a common metadata definition, which will help drive consistency in how the standards are implemented. The consistency that should result from the new Common Metadata will help remove some of the uncertainty that may have prevented many companies from developing host-side client applications that can use the EDA data produced by the equipment.

 

Topics: Industry Highlights, EDA/Interface A

Using EDA/Interface A SEMI Standards

Posted by David Francis: Director of Product Management on Apr 2, 2012 1:19:00 PM

By David Francis

Product Manager

As companies see the improvements in quality and efficiency resulting from the investment in automation over the last decade, there is a greater focus on gathering and analyzing factory data and turning it into actionable information. The implementation of the Equipment Data Acquisition (EDA)/Interface A standards will now allow the industry to further improve the efficiencies in the automated manufacturing facilities by providing access to large quantities of process data.

SEMI (www.semi.org) released the EDA standards in 2005 in order to support the communication between the factory’s data gathering software applications and the factory equipment.

There was no intention of replacing other standards, such as SECS/GEM or GEM 300, and, in fact, EDA does not provide any features for equipment control or configuration. Instead, the EDA standards focus on gathering more data–—particularly state information, sensor feedback, actuator states, and other raw data– necessary for process, product and equipment analysis.

EDA/Interface A Standards Operations Flow

 

During 2005, IC makers started requiring integrated EDA solutions from the equipment suppliers. Since then, the demand has continued to increase as IC makers roll out plans to improve yield and equipment utilization. Some of the reasons EDA is gaining in popularity are:

  • EDA supports multiple concurrent clients. SECS/GEM, on the other hand, supports only one client connection, which means semiconductor fabs cannot run several data gathering applications at the same time without an infrastructure to share the data.
  • EDA presents the data in a hierarchy, organized by the major hardware components. By comparison, SECS/GEM data is relatively flat and unorganized, which means that the fab must study the documentation, hardware, software, and processing in order to understand how to organize the data.
  • While data in a SECS/GEM message is highly structured and relatively inflexible, EDA standards use XML, which is inherently designed to accommodate additional metadata
  • SOAP/XML and HTTP are the backbone of most Internet and Intranet applications and there are many programmers worldwide familiar with this technology. On the other hand, only a few industries use SECS/GEM, which limits the worldwide expertise.

Integra ES

There have been developments in EDA/Interface A standards since their introduction. The industry adopted the initial ISMI 1105 freeze version in 2006, and then, four years later, ISMI announced a new 0710 freeze version that includes many improvements and some new capabilities. Cimetrix has learned that equipment suppliers and semiconductor fabs need to discuss and agree upon which freeze version – whether it is 1105 or 0710 – that will be used both for the equipment and the host. In addition, they need to ensure there is a clear understanding of the acceptance testing for the interface.

For more information about the SEMI EDA/Interface A standards, we recommend you request the white paper at Cimetrix Introduction to SEMI EDA/Interface A Standards.

Maybe in a few years we will look back and smile at how common place EDA has become!

Topics: Industry Highlights, EDA/Interface A