Industry News, Trends and Technology, and Standards Updates

Cimetrix Korea is happy to announce that the 5th EDA (Equipment Data Acquisition) Seminar will be held on January 15th, 2020. It will be co-hosted with Linkgenesis, the regional distributor of CIMPortal Plus, the EDA suite from Cimetrix.

As EDA has expanded its footprint as the preferred industry standard among leading IDMs in the world of big data, AI, Machine Learning, and Industry 4.0, equipment makers face the challenges of delivering the new requirements of EDA without fully understanding its fundamental objectives, technologies, and benefits.

This seminar is designed with highly practical sessions where speakers will share their personal experiences and insights as developers to help software engineers at the equipment suppliers understand the most efficient ways to implement robust EDA interrfaces.

For registration and questions, please email Ian Ryu (ian.ryu@cimetrix.com).

Topics include the following:

1. Global and domestic EDA trends, including Freeze III, that will introduce major performance improvements.
2. EDA spec review – A summary of key contents from the newest and most demanding EDA specifications that a developer must know.
3. EDA modeling methodology and important lessons learning that Cimetrix engineers have gained while supporting many new EDA customers.
4. Testing methodology used during development and needed for EDA acceptance to ensure that standards compliance and interface performance expectations are met.
5. Other general topics
   a-Software roadmap for equipment makers
   b-Smart factory

We look forward to seeing you at the seminar!

씨메트릭스 코리아는 파트너사인 링크제니시스와 공동으로 제5회 EDA 세미나를 2020년 1월 15일에 개최하게 되었음을 기쁘게 생각합니다. 최근 몇년 간 EDA가 국내뿐 아니라 해외 반도체 제조사에서 빅데이터, AI, 인더스트리 4.0에 부응하기 위해 업계 표준으로 자리를 잡아감에 따라, 여러 장비회사들은, 복잡한 EDA 요구사항을 충분히 이해하지 못한 상황에서 관련된 요구사항을 개발해야하는 도전에 처해 있는 상황입니다.

한국에서 개최되는 금번 세미나는 실용적인 방법론을 최대한 강조한 세션들로 구성되어, 발표자들이 지난 수년 동안 쌓은 개발자로서의 경험과 통찰력을 최대한 공유함으로 참가한 개발자분들이 각자의 회사로 돌아가 EDA 인터페이스를 개발할 때, 최선의 개발 및 디자인 선택을 할 수 있도록 하였습니다.

참석하시는 분들에게 실전에 도움이 되는 유익한 시간이 되시리라 생각됩니다.

세미나 등록이나 기타 질문은 유종하 팀장 (ian.ryu@cimetrix.com)에게 연락 주시기 바랍니다.

세션은 아래와 같이 진행됩니다.

1. EDA의 국내외 동향(FREEZE III 포함) – EDA 관련 업계 현황과 큰 성능개선을 기대하는 Freeze III 소개
2. EDA Spec Review : 개발자로서 알아야 할 새롭고 복잡한 EDA  스펙의 키포인트 정리
3. EDA 모델링 개발 지원 경험 공유 – EDA를 신규 개발하는 여러 회사를 지원하며 축적된 경험 공유 및 방향성 제시
4. 개발 및 납품 시 테스트 방법론 – 개발과 검수 효율성을 향상
5. 일반 주제
1. 장비회사에서 가져야 할 소프트웨어 로드맵
2. 스마트팩토리 솔루션

감사합니다.

A SECS GEM driver can be looked at from a factory or equipment supplier perspective. I will discuss both of them in that order.

Factory Perspective

A little background:

From a factory perspective, a SECS GEM driver is the host software that talks to an equipment’s GEM interface. It allows the factory to take advantage of the features implemented in each equipment’s GEM interface. However, what the factory can do with an equipment’s GEM interface is also limited by what the equipment supplier has included in that interface. The GEM standard is very flexible and scalable, which accounts for the widespread and growing adoption of GEM technology—it can be adapted to any manufacturing equipment and market segment.

It is possible to implement features in a GEM interface. But this also means that just having a GEM interface on the equipment does not ensure that it has been correctly designed to meet the factory’s expectations. An equipment supplier’s poor implementation of GEM can frustrate a factory’s plans for Smart Manufacturing by not providing features that the factory expects that could have been implemented. The tendency of most equipment suppliers is to implement the absolute minimum functionality in a GEM interface to save money. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the factory during equipment acceptance to evaluate the GEM interface to make sure that it is robust and has the full set of required features. The factory must have a clear vision of its needs both initially and later as its Smart Manufacturing goals are realized. It is not unusual for a factory to request an upgrade to an equipment’s GEM interface with more features, but these modifications usually come at a cost.

Although a factory’s SECS GEM driver must be adaptable to different suppliers’ GEM implementations, it only needs to support the specific features that the factory uses. For example, if the factory is only concerned about alarm and event report notification, then it does not need to support the messages for recipe management, remote control or trace data collection. As such, the investment in a SECS GEM driver is proportional to the number of GRM features that are utilized. However, the SECS GEM driver should also support variations in alarm and collection event implementations, because each equipment type will support a unique set of alarms and a unique set of collection events with unique data variable for event reports. Moreover, from equipment type to equipment type, the same collection ID might have different meanings. The SECS GEM driver therefore needs an ability to adapt by having a method to characterize the GEM implementation (such as a list of available collection events) and the ability to map a general capability to the actual implementation (such as “material arrived” = collection event ID 5).

So why would a factory want to use SECS GEM technology?

In order to reach the goals of Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing, factories must be able to monitor and control manufacturing equipment remotely. Therefore the equipment must have a software interface to provide this functionality and the factory must be able to access and use this interface.

Factories could let the equipment suppliers choose their own implementation technologies for this kind of capability, but as a result, different suppliers might take a different approach for every equipment type. This would be tremendously expensive and resource intensive. It is far better to standardize on one or two technologies, and ideally, one that is proven to work and known to have all of the necessary features. This allows the factory to achieve its goals with minimum investment, focusing instead on using the equipment interface in creative ways to improve manufacturing.

SECS GEM is the most proven technology already widely used across the globe and supported by the most sophisticated and automated industry in the world; semiconductor manufacturing. It is also widely adopted several other industries, making it a safe choice. The range of production applications supported by SECS GEM data collection include productivity monitoring, statistical and feedback/feedforward process control, recipe selection and execution tracking, fault detection and classification, predictive maintenance, reliability tracking, and many more. By contrast, alternatives to SECS GEM have so far been demonstrated to be incomplete or immature solutions. 

What specifically can you do with the SECS GEM technology?

1. Collection Events: Be notified when things happen at the equipment, such as when processing or inspection begins and completes, or when a particular step in a recipe is reached.
2. Collection Event Reports: Collect data with collection events. The host chooses what data it wants to receive. For example, track the ID of material arriving and departing from the equipment, or components placed on a board.
3. Alarms: Be notified when bad or dangerous things are detected, receive a text description of the alarm condition, and when the issue is cleared.
4. Trace Data Collection: Tell the equipment to report status information (software and/or hardware data) at a specific interval. For example, track digital and/or analog sensors during processing at 10 Hz frequency.
5. Recipes: Upload, download, delete and select recipes as desired, whether in ASCII or binary formats. Make sure that the right recipe is run at the right time to eliminate misprocessing and minimize scrap. Track when someone changes a recipe.
6. Remote Commands: Control the equipment, such as when to start, stop, pause, resume and abort. Custom commands, such as calibrate, skip or anything else can be supported.
7. Equipment Constants: Configure and track the equipment configuration settings remotely.
8. Terminal Services: Interact with the equipment operator remotely or provide instructions for the operator.
9. Extensions: There are numerous extensions to GEM that can be supported but are not yet form requirements. For example, implement wafer or strip maps from E142 to provide and report details about material in XML format.

Equipment Supplier Perspective

From an equipment supplier’s perspective, a SECS GEM driver is the software used to implement GEM technology on the equipment. In other words, the software to create a GEM interface. The equipment-side software requirements are inherently more complex that the host SECS GEM driver. This is because the equipment-side features are precisely defined by the GEM standard and should be implemented to the fullest extent possible. By contrast, the host can really do whatever it wants, so a limited implementation may be sufficient. In an ideal situation, the equipment supplier will implement just enough features in its GEM interface to satisfy all of its customers and therefore ship an identical GEM interface to all its customers. It is up to the equipment supplier to decide what GEM features to implement and how to adapt them for a particular type of equipment, but the factory should provide clear expectations about its planned use of the interface. It is also the factory’s responsibility to qualify the GEM interface during equipment acceptance. Note that it is not uncommon for factories to withhold partial equipment payment until the GEM interface has also passed its own acceptance.

Some equipment suppliers include the GEM driver as a standard feature on all equipment. This is ideal because it makes the GEM interface much easier to support and distribute. Some equipment suppliers only install GEM when it is specifically purchased. This often results in installation problems because the field technicians may or may not be knowledgeable enough or specifically trained to do this correctly. Other equipment suppliers include the GEM driver on all equipment, but only enable it when the feature has been purchased. This is better than attempting GEM interface installation after equipment delivery because the GEM interface can often be enabled with a simple equipment configuration setting.

Here are some key reasons for implementing a SECS GEM driver:

1. “One ring to rule them all”

By implementing a GEM interface, an equipment supplier can avoid having to implement multiple interfaces. Because GEM is the most feature complete option, the it should be implemented first and Thoroughly integrated with the equipment control and user interface software. If other protocols must be supported, they can usually be mapped onto the GEM capabilities or a separate external system because they only include a subset of GEM functionality.

2. Equipment Supplier Application Software

If the GEM implementation includes support for multiple host connections, then the GEM interface can be used by the equipment supplier itself for many applications. For example, an equipment supplier can develop a software package that monitors and controls their specific equipment at a factory. This can run simultaneously and independently while the factory GEM host software is connected. Many factories are willing to buy applications from the equipment supplier that enhance the productivity of the equipment they have purchased. As an example, equipment suppliers are better equipped to develop predictive maintenance applications that determine when parts are approaching failure and need replacement. These applications can save the factory time and money by avoiding unscheduled downtime. Other applications can also be developed by equipment suppliers to analyze and optimize equipment execution.

3. Competitive Advantage

A well implemented GEM interface can differentiate a supplier’s equipment from that of its competitors. Factories are beginning to recognize the value in controlling and monitoring equipment remotely, and know that a poor GEM interface contributes nothing to a factory’s Smart Manufacturing initiatives. A GEM interface that goes the extra mile to be truly useful empowers the factory to excel at Smart Manufacturing and to be far more productive. Selling equipment in today’s market without a GEM interface is like selling a television without a remote. On the other hand, providing a fully featured GEM interface is like selling a smart television.

Final Words

Experts on GEM technology are available all over world. Because GEM is a mature industry standard and well defined, it can be implemented by anyone in a range of different programming languages and operating systems. however, to save time I recommend using a commercially available product rather than developing the complete GEM interface from scratch. This can save massive amounts of time and effort, and ensures the quality of the resulting implementation.

To speak with a Cimetrix GEM expert, or to find out more about our GEM software products, you can schedule a meeting by clicking the link below.

The Cimetrix CIMPortal^TM Plus software product allows users to achieve compliance with the SEMI Interface A standards. This includes E120, E125, E132, E134 and E164. A key element in enabling the data collection provided by Interface A is the equipment model, which has three main purposes:

1. It defines the structure and relationships of the components that make up equipment (E120)
2. It defines the data (parameters, events and exceptions) that are available to be used in data collection (E125)
3. It defines the supporting structures (state machines, parameter type definitions, logical elements, etc.) for creating objects throughout the life of the running equipment (E125)

Part of the CIMPortal Plus Software Development Kit (SDK) is an application called Equipment Model Developer (EMDeveloper for short) that uses a simple drag and drop interface to allow CIMPortal Plus users to create a fully EDA-compliant equipment model. This includes making the model compliant with the E164 (Specification for EDA Common Metadata) standard which incorporates best practices from many production EDA implementations by defining common structures and other important conventions for the equipment metadata.

While EMDeveloper makes it simple to create, validate and deploy a fully compliant equipment model, there are times when equipment manufacturers want to provide a more flexible way of creating the equipment model. For example, an equipment manufacturer may offer multiple configurations of a unit of equipment with different arrangements of load ports and/or process module combinations. It is possible for the equipment supplier to save multiple equipment models that are shipped with each equipment, but this opens the door for possible human error in deploying an incorrect model file. It is also possible to create a “master model” that has all possible components defined. When the model is deployed, the equipment developer can use DisableModelNode functionality to disable the components that are not present. However, this approach may also result in errors, and is in the “gray” area of the standards (i.e., it is possible, but not encouraged).

Wouldn’t it be convenient if there was a way to create a model that exactly matched the equipment configuration?

We wouldn’t have a blog post if we didn’t already a positive answer to this question! EMDeveloper uses an API provided by the CIMPortal Plus CxModelLibrary. It does not use any sleight of hand or backdoors to create the equipment model. If a CIMPortal Plus user had the desire to do it, they could recreate EMDeveloper on their own. The API provided by CxModelLibrary allows users to programmatically create an EDA-compliant equipment model that exactly matches the desired equipment configuration.

When using programmatic model building, Cimetrix recommends first becoming familiar with the available API and determining the model building approach that works best for your equipment. The Solutions Engineering team at Cimetrix provides a sample application (including source code) that shows how to programmatically build an equipment model. This sample builds an E164-compliant model. In other words, all the expected parameters, events and exceptions and associated structures required by the standards are included as part of the resulting model.

The EDA standards – and specifically E164 – define the types of data that are required for various components in the equipment. For example, each substrate location in the model is required to implement a SubstrateLocation state model. Moreover, this state model must appear within the equipment node in the model hierarchy that matches the physical structure of the equipment. This sample illustrates best practices in constructing model objects that can be reused based on the type of component. Programmatic model building may take a little more investment up front, but in the end, it can pay big dividends to those equipment providers that may need to change their equipment model on the fly depending on its configuration.

Once a model has been programmatically created/modified, Cimetrix also provides an API for validating the model, deploying the model to be used by an EDA client and creating an Access Control List (ACL) entry to allow a client to securely connect to the interface and gather data.

There is also a provision in the standard for addressing the concern that if the model is updated dynamically, an EDA client may have data collection plans (DCPs) that become out of sync with the modified model. In this case, the client is notified of model changes, and can also be designed to dynamically update the data collection plans based on the changes.

The Cimetrix CIMControlFramework (CCF) product makes use of this programmatic model building functionality. CCF dynamic model building is described in a blog post that you can find here.

To learn more about the EDA/Interface A standards, CIMPortal Plus or programmatic model building, click below and a Cimetrix expert will contact you. 

The SEMI North American standards meetings for the Information and Control Committee were held recently and the following is a summary of some of the highlights and action items. 

In the GEM 300 task force, a revision to GEM officially removed E139 as a recipe management option. A planned revision to GEM should be much more exciting and progressive, but this work cannot begin until E30 is published with the current changes. In the meantime, future near-term plans include defining new SECS-II messages to improve host access to data collection setup and some terminology clarification. Brian Rubow from Cimetrix continues to co-lead this task force with Chris Maloney of Intel.

In the DDA (Diagnostics Data Acquisition) task force, which Brian Rubow from Cimetrix continues to co-lead, the standard that establishes gRPC and Protocol Buffers for EDA freeze 3 was approved. However proposed changes to the other core standards E125, E132 and E134 all failed, as well as the gRPC adoption for E132. The failures were expected. Additionally the North America DDA task force leaders continue to actively collaborate with the co-leaders of the DDA task force in South Korea. It is a great example of competitors working together at SEMI to create common solutions that satisfy everyone’s requirements.

Tami Tracy, a Cimetrix Solutions Engineering Manager, was officially voted in as a GUI task force co-leader for 2020, co-leading with Frank Summers. Congratulations and thanks to Tami for volunteering for this position. This will accelerate the task force's plans to modernize the SEMI E95 standard.

The Computer and Device Security (CDS) task force announced a vastly improved collaboration with its sister organization in Taiwan which has officially agreed to "divide and conquer" rather than attempting to address the entire scope of this domain with a single standard. A few months ago, the two groups seemed to be at odds with each other...The Taiwan task force proposed to include all factory and equipment security issues in one effort, while the North American task force wanted to focus initially on the equipment issues. The Taiwan, Japan and North America Task Force Leadership have now agreed to convert the Specification for Malware Free Equipment Integration (SNARF) 6506 into an overarching standard. The CDS task force is moving forward on SNARF 6566, and received authorization for a ballot on this proposed new standard for Cycle 2-2020.

The Advanced Factory Factory Integration (ABFI) task force, headed by Brian Rubow (Director of Solutions Engineering, Cimetrix) and Dave Huntley (PDF Solutions), held its first task force meeting. One order of business is to update E142 substrate mapping. The task force intends to map equipment features to SEMI standards including GEM and GEM 300. This effort could facilitate adoption of the GEM standard on equipment that previously had little interface standardization. It should also encourage further advance the goals of Smart Manufacturing and Industry 4.0 in related industries, encouraging more factories and equipment to adopt the standards that have been so successfully applied in semiconductor manufacturing for decades.

To find out more, you can speak with an industry standards expert today by clicking the link below.

In the early 1990’s I worked with companies like Motorola, Wacker Siltronics, and AT&T to characterize the SEMI Equipment Communication Standards (SECS) interface on the equipment. It was early in the process of connecting process and metrology equipment to a factory control system (Manufacturing Execution System – MES), in the days before the leading chip makers at that time got together to define the Generic Equipment Model (GEM), which was eventually balloted as SEMI E30.

It was a fun and exciting time as process owners began to see the power and benefit of having an automated interface to the equipment. The first project I worked on was collecting critical dimension (CD) data from a microscope following a lithography process step. Previously the operators would manually enter 6 measurement data points to 8-digit precision. This was a very error-prone process, and each time a mistake was made, lots were put on hold until the problem was diagnosed. This affected not only the throughput of the lithography area, but also the overall fab, since the litho tools are invariably the bottleneck. The automated interface eliminated this problem because process engineers knew that any lot holds were due to real process errors rather than operator input errors.

Moving the automated interface to the process equipment was a little more difficult. An automated interface on a metrology tool cannot cause misprocessing, but an automated interface on a process tool was a little riskier. We decided that the first step would be to simply verify that the correct recipe was selected, and not allow processing to proceed until it was reviewed by the process Engineer assigned to that equipment. Within a few minutes of going live with the first automated interface for a process equipment, a mismatch was detected between the operator-selected recipe and the recipe specified in the MES. A quick check by the process engineer verified that the technician had indeed selected the wrong recipe—this simple check alone saved misprocessing the entire carrier of material.

From these humble beginnings, full factory automation in front end 300mm fabs was adopted quickly and revolutionized semiconductor manufacturing. The level of automation in other areas of the semiconductor and electronics assembly industries is now increasing dramatically, motivated by the prospect of improved factory throughput and higher yields. Moreover, the experience gained through implementation of automated interfaces using SEMI communication standards will be a great benefit to semiconductor backend and electronics assembly markets. Some of the standards used in 300mm automation have already been modified for this purpose, and new standards are in work to better serve these industries.

In September 2019, SEMI published the PCBECI (Printed Circuit Board Equipment Communications Interface) standard, officially designated SEMI A3. This standard is a simplification of the reliable and much-used GEM equipment communication standard.

Early in 2019 the SMT-ELS (Surface Mount Technology Equipment Link Standard) suite, designated SEMI A1, A1.1, and A2, was also published. These standards address the need for machine-to-machine (M2M) communications to support flow manufacturing processes. The adoption process for these new standards has just begun, but like the early adoption of the SECS and GEM standards, it is exciting times and good things are happening. 

Visit us as Productronica (Hall A3 Booth 421) or SEMICON Europa (Hall B1 Booth 525) to hear more about these new standards and the products Cimetrix has developed to support their implementation and validation in equipment and factories. Or you can get in touch with a standards expert any time by clicking the link below. 

The 31^st annual APC Conference is now in the history books, and the diversity of topics, presenters, and local distractions made it well worth the visit to San Antonio! This year’s agenda featured half-day tutorials on the basics of APC and cyber-security, keynotes from chip makers and leading suppliers on automotive industry requirements, smart equipment, and smart manufacturing, and a series of packed technical sessions covering sensors and equipment control, fault detection and feedforward/feedback control, advanced analytics, and standards.

One of the presentations in the standards session provided detailed information about the new SEMI SMT-ELS (Surface Mount Technology Equipment Link Standards) M2M (machine-to-machine) communications standard. Alan Weber made the presentation titled “SEMI Standards to Support APC for Post-Fab Operations” to an interested audience, which triggered a number of discussions about the automation roadmap for the semiconductor assembly and test segment. This was especially relevant, since some of the leaders of the newly formed SEMI Advanced Backend Factory Integration Task Force (ABFI TF) were also present.

The SMT-ELS standard has come a long way in a short time, and the ambitious, integrated demonstration created by 4 major SMT suppliers (Fuji, Juki, Panasonic, Yamaha) that was exhibited in June (Japan) and August (China) will again be shown in productronica (Munich, 13-15 November). The basic functions of SMT-ELS (officially designated at SEMI A1, A1.1, and A2) appear in the figure below.

Cimetrix will likewise demonstrate this new standard at productronica, showing not only an equipment-level implementation of the M2M features but also the host-based configuration process and a plug-in for doing protocol validation tests.

Smart Manufacturing was a common theme this year, with an entire session dedicated to this global initiative. The Factory Integration section of the IRDS (International Roadmap for Devices and Systems) will be reorganized around the tenets of Smart Manufacturing, and a two-volume multi-industry book on this body of technology is scheduled for publication early next year. Another of Alan Weber’s presentations was dedicated to this topic, as he wrote the chapter chronicling the semiconductor industry’s development and use of these technologies.

If you would like any further information, you can speak with a Cimetrix expert, or you can stop by our booth at productronica this week (Hall A3 booth 451). 

Recently, I had the opportunity to participate in the development, testing, and integration of the Cimetrix ELS library that encompasses the SEMI A1, A1.1, and A2 (SMT-ELS) standards. It’s been exciting to see how ELS has increasingly been embraced as a connectivity solution for electronic manufacturing equipment.

I was first introduced to the SMT-ELS standard in June 2019 by Alan Weber (VP, New Product Innovations, Cimetrix). To begin, I obtained a functioning ELS implementation from Siemens Japan as well as the needed hardware. To make sure I fully understood ELS, I attended a 2-day class presented by Siemens and began studying the ELS standard and the Siemens ELS implementation.

It took a significant amount of time to get familiar with Siemens Implementation and gain an understanding of what they did to support the ELS standard. Siemens Japan has done a great job with their SEMI SMT-ELS implementation, and their assistance with my efforts is greatly appreciated. Once I felt familiar enough with ELS, I built a SMEMA interface driver to simulate the conveyor signals.

Using the SMT-ELS communications library, the Cimetrix development team designed a sample equipment application which I was able to use for initial connectivity testing. At first, it was fairly difficult to get the two libraries to communicate. However, when I used the Cimetrix EquipmentTest^TM software, I was able to find defects in our library, which were quickly and easily resolved by our development team. 

While it was beneficial to have a known ELS implementation to test against, it is now clear how valuable using a testing tool would be for anyone creating or validating their own SEMI SMT-ELS implementation.

Even though the SEMI A1, A1.1 and A2 standards are not long, they are dense. As adoption of these standards increases, it becomes paramount that equipment manufactures can test their SMT-ELS implementations during development. It is not effective or efficient for equipment manufacturers to test against other equipment as their primary form of testing. This is why the Cimetrix EquipmentTest SMT-ELS plug-in is so valuable.

I am currently working on test are written in C# and the code is easy to follow. The tests are split into two categories; one for horizontal communication between equipment ,and vertical communication to a factory system.

Horizontal Tests

For Panel Transfer verification, EquipmentTest connects to the first and last equipment in the line. This allows EquipmentTest to send messages to the first equipment and validate the format and content of the message from the last equipment. 

For this test, the user defines the panel parameters. The panel is sent to the first equipment. Once the last equipment in the line sends the panel to EquipmentTest, the Material Data Content is verified. 

In addition to actual tests, EquipmentTest can be used to send user defined atomic messages such as SetMDMode.

Vertical Tests

EquipmentTest Connects directly to the vertical port of the equipment. Using EquipmentTest, I can set and validate the Net Configuration.

The EquipmentTest software has been pivotal in developing and test our SMT-ELS Implementation. A demonstration of EquipmentTest SMT-ELS and the Cimetrix EquipmentConnect^TM SMT-ELS software will be given at Productronica from November 12-15, 2019 in Munich, Germany. Please drop by our booth any time, or feel free to set up an appointment in advance. We look forward to meeting with you and discussing your ELS needs!

The Cimetrix Resource Center is a great way to familiarize yourself with standards within the industry as well as find out about new and exciting technologies. 

Our resource center features information about equipment connectivity and control, data gathering, GEM (SECS/GEM), EDA/Interface A, and more. These standards are among the key enabling technologies for the Smart Manufacturing and Industry 4.0 global initiatives that are having a major impact on the electronics assembly, semiconductor, SMT and other industries. Manufacturers and their equipment suppliers must be able to connect equipment and other data sources, gather and analyze data in real time, and optimize production through a wide variety of applications.

The many presentations featured in our resource center provide in-depth coverage from Cimetrix expert's presentations at many different conferences and expos around the world. Some of our most popular presentations are below.

• Getting the Most from the GEM Standard
• Addressing Connectivity Challenges of Disparate Data Sources in Smart Manufacturing
• Standards-based Multi-Source Data Collection in the Smart Manufacturing Era
• Smarter Manufacturing through Equipment Data-Driven Application Design

Be sure to stop by our Resource Center any time or download the presentations directly from the links in this posting.

In the EDA Best Practices blog series, we have discussed choosing a commercial software platform, using that package to differentiate your data collection capabilities and how to choose what types of data to publish. In this post we will review why you should choose to provide an E164-compliant equipment model.

What is E164?

Equipment Data Acquisition (EDA) - also referred to as Interface A - offers semiconductor manufacturers the ability to collect a significant amount of data that is crucial to the manufacturing process. This data is represented on the equipment as a model, which is communicated to EDA clients as metadata sets. The metadata, based upon the SEMI E125 Specification for Equipment Self-Description, includes the equipment components, events, and exceptions, along with all the available data parameters.

Since the advent of the SEMI EDA standards, developers and fabs have recognized that equipment models, and the resulting metadata sets, can vary greatly. It is possible to create vastly different models for similar pieces of equipment and have both models be compliant with the EDA standards. This makes it difficult for the factories to know where to find the data they are interested in from one type of equipment to another.

Recognizing this issue, the early adopters of the EDA standards launched an initiative in to make the transition to EDA easier and ensure consistency of equipment models and metadata from equipment to equipment. This effort resulted in the E164 EDA Common Metadata standard, approved in July 2012. Another part of this initiative was the development of the Metadata Conformance Analyzer (MCA), which is a utility that tests conformance to this standard. With this specification, equipment modeling is more clearly defined and provides more consistent models between equipment suppliers. This makes it easier for EDA/Interface A users to navigate models and find the data they need.

Power of E164

The E164 standard requires strict name enforcement for events called out in the GEM300 SEMI standards. It also requires that all state machines contain all of the transitions and in the right order as those called out in the GEM300 standards. This includes state machines in E90 for substrate locations and in E157 for process management. The states and transition names in these state machines must match the names specified in the GEM300 standards.

These requirements may seem unnecessarily strict, but implementing the common metadata standard results in:

• Consistent implementations of GEM300
• Commonality across equipment types
• Automation of many data collection processes
• Less work to interpret collected data
• Ability for true “plug and play” applications
• Major increases in application software engineering efficiency

Knowing that a model is E164 compliant allows EDA client applications to easily and programmatically define data collection plans knowing that the compliant models must provide all of the specified data with the specified names. For example, the following application is able to track carrier arrival and slotmap information as well as movement of material through a piece of equipment and process data for that equipment.

This application will work for any GEM300 equipment that is E164 compliant. The client application developer can confidently create data collection plans for these state machines, knowing that an E164-compliant model must provide the needed state machines and data with the proscribed names.

Decide to be E164 compliant

A number of leading semiconductor manufacturers around the globe have seen the power of requiring their equipment suppliers to provide EDA/E164 on their equipment, and now require it in their purchase specifications.

If you are a semiconductor manufacturer, you should seriously consider doing the same because it will greatly simplify data collection from the equipment (and most of your candidate suppliers probably have an implementation available or underway.

If you are an equipment supplier and your factory customers have not required that your EDA models be E164 compliant, you should still seriously consider providing this capability anyway as a way to differentiate your equipment. Moveover, E164-compliant models are fully compliant with all other EDA standards. Finally, it is much easier and more cost effective to create E164-compliant models from the outset than it is to create non-compliant models and then convert to E164 when the factory requires it.

Conclusion

The purpose of the E164 specification is to encourage companies developing EDA/Interface A connections to implement a more common representation of equipment metadata. By following the E164 standard, equipment suppliers and factories can establish greater consistency from equipment to equipment and from factory to factory. That consistency will make it easier and faster for equipment suppliers to provide a consistent EDA interface, and for factories to develop EDA client applications.

For the last couple of years, we have published a number of beneficial series in this forum to help contribute to the understanding of many of the standards in the manufacturing industry. In case you missed some of them, we are going to re-cap and link to the most popular today.

GEM Features and Benefits

This series features 15 separate posts with videos and information on some of the most important aspects of the GEM (SECS/GEM) standard. This series is one of our most popular ever and was written by a number of the Cimetrix engineering team who have studied and practiced GEM for many years.

EDA Application and Benefits in Smart Manufacturing

With the adoption of the latest SEMI EDA (Equipment Data Acquisition, also known as Interface A) standards accelerating significantly over the past 2 years, we felt it was time to highlight the applications across the industry that make the best use of these standards, and the specific manufacturing benefits that result. 

Models in Smart Manufacturing

In this series, we highlighted the importance of explicit and standardized models in the context of equipment communications interfaces and some of the “smart” factory applications they support. 

EDA Testing

Since the EDA/Interface A adoption process has now clearly reached critical mass, we must seriously address the question “How are we going to test the equipment and systems that incorporate these standards?” This is an excellent question, and one that has a multi-part answer, which is addressed in this 6-part series.

These, and many others including a the Cimetrix Book Club and Meet-the-Team series are some of what you can find on our blog. Be sure to subscribe today!