Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
-
Upload
ali-hassan -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
0
Transcript of Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
1/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
1
Daniel J. Weidman, Ph.D.
Advanced Electron Beams, Wilmington, MA
IEEE Boston-area Reliability Society MeetingWednesday, January 14, 2009
Practical Reliability Engineering
for Semiconductor Equipment
The pdf of this version of this presentation may be distributed freely.
No proprietary information is included.
If distributing any portion, please include my name as the author.
Thank you, Dan Weidman
Copyright 2009, D. J. Weidman
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
2/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
2
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Abstract Reliability data can be utilized to allocate efforts for improvements and
presentation to customers. This talk presents several practical techniques used to
gather reliability data for these purposes. These techniques are based on basicreliability engineering concepts and are applied in simple ways. Data will be shownfor illustrative purposes without details about specific components or subsystems.This presentation will review definitions of several reliability engineering metrics.Examples will illustrate Pareto plots over various time intervals and availability withplanned and unplanned downtime. Important metrics such as Mean Time BetweenFailure (MTBF) and Mean Time Between Assists / Interrupts (MTBA/I) are used for
quantifying failure rates.
Data is collected and analyzed from various sources and tallied in a variety ofways. Repair data can be collected from service technician or customer fieldreports. Reliability data can be collected from in-house or customer-site machines.In-house inventory statistics can indicate which parts are being replaced mostfrequently, by part number or cost.
Failure Analysis Reports should be communicated within the organization in a waythat is effective. Vendors often have to be engaged to improve reliability ofcomponents or subsystems. Information that will be presented may be applicableto several other industries.
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
3/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
3
Daniel J. Weidman, Ph.D.
Dr. Daniel J. Weidman received his Bachelors degree in Physics from MIT in1985. He earned his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University ofMaryland, College Park. He has authored or co-authored more than 20
journal articles and technical reports in publications and more than 60conference presentations. He started working with electron beams more than20 years ago, and has since returned to that industry. He brings a freshperspective to reliability engineering in the semiconductor industry, becausehe has no formal training in reliability engineering and he had less than twoyears of experience in the semiconductor industry when he took a position asthe Reliability Engineer at NEXX Systems.
NEXX Systems is located in Billerica, Massachusetts, and designs and sellssemiconductor manufacturing equipment. Dr. Weidman was the ReliabilityEngineer there for almost five years. Dr. Weidman has resumed working inthe field of electron beams, at Advanced Electron Beams of Wilmington, MA.
He is the Principal Process Engineer, and his responsibilities includereliability testing of the electron-beam emitters and high-voltage powersupplies.
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
4/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
4
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Goal and scope of this talk
Review basic reliability engineering concepts and showhow they can be used successfully
Applicable to equipment in the semiconductor industry,and other industries
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
5/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
5
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Goal
Reliability program Immediate issues
Reactive reliability engineering
Proactive reliability engineering
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
6/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
6
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Goal
Reliability program Immediate issues
Reactive reliability engineering
Proactive reliability engineering
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
7/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
7
PVD Machine
Physical Vapor Deposition of thin metal film Wafers carried on trays to minimize handling & time to
change size
Up to five metals in a small footprint
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
8/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
8
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Goal
Reliability program plan Immediate issues
Reactive reliability engineering
Overall process
Data gathering to record each issue
Data tallying
Reliability engineering metrics with examples
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
9/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
9
Reliability program
Failure Reporting, Analysis, and Corrective Action System
reports faultcustomer
internet
access
Field ServiceEngineer receives
customer report orobserves fault
FAR
parts or
information
or both
Immediately: Serviceteam addresses
customer need
FSR
FTA
FMEA
Longer term:Reliability
teaminvestigates
ECO
TestTrack
Implement /integrateidentified
improvement
Deliver
on new machine
upgrade existing machine
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
10/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
10
Machine faults from customers About 300 service reports per product line per year
Copied from FSR database, pasted into Excel, and reviewed.
9 entries are shownas an example.
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
11/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
11
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Goal
Reliability program plan Immediate issues
Reactive reliability engineering Overall process
Reliability engineering metrics with examples Fault vs. failure
Pareto plot
Uptime and Availability
MTBF, MTBA, MTBI
MTTR, MTR
Additional metrics specific to industry
Additional metrics
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
12/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
12
Reliability definitions: faults
Fault: anything that has gone wrong
Failure: an equipment problem
All failures are faults
Examples: If a transport system stops due to particles that are normal to the process, then it is a failure (and a fault).
a left wrench inside, then its a fault but not a failure.
faults failures action
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
13/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
13
Pareto plots
Location Function
Locatio
n1
Locatio
n2
Locatio
n5
Locatio
n4
Locatio
n6
Locatio
n7
Locatio
n8
Locatio
n3
FunctionC
FunctionE
FunctionI
FunctionH
Functio
nF
FunctionD
Functio
nG
FunctionB
Functio
nA
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
14/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
14
Machine cross-section
Location 6 Location 6
for new control system
sn323 et seq.
Location 4Location 3Location 2
Location 5
Location 8
Chase: Location 7
Front end: Location 1
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
15/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
15
Faults on all machines in one quarter
Location FunctionLo
catio
n2
Locatio
n4
Locatio
n3
Locatio
n7
Locatio
n5
Locatio
n6
Locatio
n8
Locatio
n1
FunctionI
FunctionC
FunctionE
Functio
nG
FunctionF
Functio
nD
FunctionH
Functio
nB
FunctionA
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
16/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
16
Faults on all machines in one quarter
Top faults shown bylocation and function
Allows focusing on the biggesttypes of issues
Few enough issues percategory per quarter toinvestigate each issue
Note: A shorter interval, suchas monthly,
Has the advantage of a fasterresponse if a problem arises
Has the disadvantage ofnoise due to smallersampling (issues shift backand forth)
location and function
1C 2I 2C 4I 4C 1I
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
17/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
17
Faults on all machines in one quarter
Location 1 & Function C, 7 new subsystem
new subsystem new dll
reboot controller
reboot controller
component ineffective issue with test wafers
Most of these faults are notfailures: upgrades of
subsystem on oldermachines or rebooting
No predominant issue
location and function
1C 2I 2C 4I 4C 1I
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
18/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
18
Faults on all machines in one quarter
Location 2 & Function I, 6
5 of 6 faults: same component
Validated a known issue andtwo ECOs to address it
location and function
1C 2I 2C 4I 4C 1I
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
19/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
19
Faults on all machines in one quarter
Locatio
n1
Locatio
n2
Locatio
n5
Locatio
n4
Locatio
n6
Locatio
n7
Locatio
n8
Location Function
Locatio
n3
FunctionC
FunctionE
FunctionI
FunctionH
Functio
nF
FunctionD
Functio
nG
FunctionB
Functio
nA
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
20/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
20
Sample size & machine failures by month
Locatio
n1
Locatio
n2
Locatio
n5
Locatio
n4
Locatio
n6
Locatio
n7
Locatio
n8
Locatio
n3
Function
C
Function
E
Fun
ction
I
Function
H
Function
F
Function
D
Function
G
Function
A
May JuneApril
May JuneApril
Function
B
Locatio
n4
Locatio
n5
Locatio
n1
Locatio
n8
Locatio
n3
Locatio
n6
Locatio
n7
Locatio
n2
Locatio
n4
Locatio
n2
Locatio
n5
Locatio
n7
Locatio
n3
Locatio
n1
Locatio
n6
Locatio
n8
Function
C
Fun
ction
I
Function
D
Function
H
Function
E
Function
F
Function
A
Function
G
Function
B
Function
D
Function
C
Fun
ction
I
Function
E
Function
H
Function
G
Function
B
Function
F
Function
A
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
21/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
21
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Goal
Reliability program plan Immediate issues
Reactive reliability engineering Overall process
Reliability engineering metrics with examples Fault vs. failure Pareto plot
Uptime and Availability
MTBF, MTBA, MTBI
MTTR, MTR
Additional metrics specific to industry
Additional metrics
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
22/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
22
Reliability definitions: uptime, etc.
All time: either uptime or downtime
Uptime: either operating or idle time
Uptime (hours) availability (%)
Downtime: either PM, or Unscheduled Maintenance (Repairs) MTTR (mean time to repair) applies to PM and to UM
uptime downtime
operating /productive
idle /standby
uptime
availability
PM /Scheduled
UM / Repairs
downtime
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
23/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
23
Reliability definitions: SEMI
Above plot is from SEMI E10 We assume that Total Time is Operations Time
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
24/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
24
Machine availability, on average
Machine Availability
Specification: availability > 85% Typical performance: 90%
Measured from Field Service Reports
quarter
portionofOperation
stime
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
25/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
25
Machine availability, on average
Machine Availability
Specification: availability > 85% Typical performance: 90%
Measured from Field Service Reports Machine PM time approximately 7%. Customers report
At beta Customer, one machine: 94.3% avail. better than 6% PM
At another customer: 6% PM reported
portionofOperation
stime
quarter
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
26/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
26
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Goal
Reliability program plan Immediate issues
Reactive reliability engineering Overall process
Reliability engineering metrics with examples Fault vs. failure Pareto plot
Uptime and Availability
MTBF, MTBA, MTBI
MTTR, MTR Additional metrics specific to industry
Additional metrics
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
27/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
27
SEMI E10 definitions
Assist: an unplanned interruption where
Externally resumed (human operator or host
computer), and
No replacement of parts, other than specifiedconsumables, and
No further variation from specifications of equipmentoperation
Failure: unplanned interruption that is not an
assist # of interrupts = # of assists + # of failures
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
28/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
28
SEMI E10 definitions
MTBF, MTBA, MTBI
MTBF = Interval / (number of failures)
MTBA = Interval / (number of assists)
MTBI = Interval / (number of interrupts)
# of interrupts = # of assists + # of failures
Interval/MTBI = Interval/MTBA + Interval/MTBF
1/MTBI = 1/MTBA + 1/MTBF
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
29/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
29
MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) in hrsper machine each month
250 hours is specified
Based on Field Service Reports
month
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
30/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
30
MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) in hrsper machine each quarter
250 hours is specified
Field Service Reports indicate we exceed this
Quarterly less noisy than monthly
quarter
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
31/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
31
Customer-measured MTBF due to our
improvements
Per machine, averaged over two machines
1: Adjusted one of the subsystems
2: Installed an upgraded version of the subsystem in one machine
4-week rolling average
spec 250 hours
week
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
32/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
32
MTTR (Mean Time To Repair) and MTR
MTTR is Mean Time to Repair (SEMI E10definition): the average elapsed time (not person
hours) to correct a failure and return theequipment to a condition where it can perform itsintended function, including equipment test time
and process test time (but not maintenancedelay).
MTR is Mean Time to Restore: includes
maintenance delays.
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
33/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
33
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Goal
Reliability program plan Immediate issues
Reactive reliability engineering Overall process
Reliability engineering metrics with examples Fault vs. failure: all failures are faults Pareto plot: location and function, sample size of several
Uptime and Availability: time is up or down
MTBF, MTBA, MTBI: I = F + A
MTTR, MTR: working time vs. clock time Additional metrics specific to industry
Additional metrics
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
34/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
34
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Goal
Reliability program plan Immediate issues
Reactive reliability engineering Overall process
Reliability engineering metrics with examples
Fault vs. failure: all failures are faults
Pareto plot: location and function, sample size of several
Uptime and Availability: time is up or down
MTBF, MTBA, MTBI: I = F + A
MTTR, MTR: working time vs. clock time Additional metrics specific to industry
Additional metrics
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
35/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
35
Broken wafers
Goals Ideally zero
In practice, need fewer than 1 in 10k (or 1 in 100k) Broken wafers reported on four different machines
Qty 1, Dec, Year 1
Qty 4, Feb, Year 2
Qty 4, March, Year 2 Qty 1, May, Year 2
Total broken wafers reported 1 in Year 1
9 in Year 2 Q1 and Q2 >7,000k wafers/year on all machines within 1 in 300k
Total reported on newer-style machines: zero
F il ti
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
36/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
36
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
numberoffa
iluresper
Nimbusre
porting
month
#offailuresp
ercustomer
machiner
eporting
Failures vs. timeper customer machine each month
First two new-series machines being used 24/7.
First machine with two new major features shipped.
2 more machines both arrived at customer
dropped
from >5
to
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
37/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
37
Unplanned downtime
by machine life
Unplanned maintenance (UM) based on FSRs only Actual UM is higher
Data scattered: 1 std dev values themselves
All machines have reported in time shown (6 quarters)
Not customer dependent
PM > UM
machine life (Q1 warranty start)
unpla
nnedmaintenance
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
38/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
38
Failures by component
Component
1
Component
2
Component
4
Component
5
Component
6
Component
7
Component
3
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
39/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
39
Component failure rate normalized
Component 8 failure rateis 3 to 5 times the rate of
other failures Component 1 failures
addressed by ECOs
Component 4 to be movedfrom baseline
Component 9: Eng project
Compo
nent8
Compo
nent1
Compo
nent9
Compo
nent5
Compo
nent2
Component10
Component11
Compo
nent4
Component12
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
40/45
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
41/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
41
Most expensive shipments
Includes all shipments
replacements upgrades
5 quarters
Item1
3
Item1
4
Item1
6
Item1
7
Item1
8
Item1
9
Item1
5
Item2
0
Item2
1
Item2
2
Item2
3
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
42/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
42
All failures
Two quarters
123 reported failures, which fell into 65 categories
One series and another series
Categories are named by cause not by symptom
Other faults were not included. If PM was required, then the fault was not counted as a failure.
Failures occurring twice or more are plotted, which are in 23 categories.
Failures occurring three times or more were analyzed13 categories. Next slides
0123456789
cause
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
43/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
43
Failures from previous slide: analysis
Failures occurring three times or more
1. 8
2. 7
3. 74. 6+2
5. 5
6. 5
7. 3 (not 4)
8. 4+1
9. 4-1
10. 4
11. 3
12. 313. 3
Status of design
improvement
completed, 24in progress, 7
not started, 33
Note: status has not been updated.
Practical Reliability Engineering for
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
44/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
44
Practical Reliability Engineering for
Semiconductor Equipment
Acknowledgements
Thank you
-
7/30/2019 Boston Rs Meeting Jan09
45/45
D. J. Weidman January 2009
45
End of presentation
Thank you