SEMI Standards

This article is the fourth in a series highlighting the vital importance of SEMI Standards to commemorate the publication of the 1000th SEMI Standard in July 2019. Find the entire series here.Computer prices have plunged over the years even as desktop and laptop PC performance has skyrocketed thanks to the semiconductor industry, giving users much more bang for their buck. The chip industry stands in a stark contrast to healthcare and education with their exponentially rising costs.What distinguishes the semiconductor industry from healthcare and education in the capacity to deliver so much for so much less over time? After all, even in other parts of the technology sector that are heavily regulated, such as cable television, we have not witnessed the same price decreases as in microelectronics.Some pundits claim that the difference among sectors is tied to their degree of regulation. Does greater regulation somehow degrade product value? The reality is far more nuanced. But one thing is clear: Smart self-regulation (i.e. standards) in the semiconductor industry has contributed mightily to its success.The recipe for success has been simple. Standards have been rocket fuel for competition, which in turn has sparked innovation, driving down device prices while boosting performance. Computer prices fell dramatically between 1997-2015 while the cost of cable TV and internet services rose. Myth of unregulated competitionA semiconductor fab might actually be the most regulated place on earth. Fabs hew to a much higher standard of air quality and cleanliness than even uber-sterile hospital operating rooms. Manufacturing processes are voluntarily regulated not to millimeters, but to nanometers. While some standards are proprietary with limited reach, others span the supply chain. Regulation has worked so well in this sector that the semiconductor industry isn’t moving toward less standardization. It’s moving toward more. Secret is smart standards The gap between regulation and self-regulation is more like a chasm. We typically view regulation as a series of top-down directives that more often focus on the interests of the producer than the consumer. Healthcare regulation, for example, may improve quality of care, but it’s often insurers, big pharma and hospitals that benefit most from regulation, rather than consumers.The semiconductor industry, on the other hand, uses self-regulation to improve business operations and make better products for consumers. Falling prices and rising performance are natural byproducts.Semiconductor industry self-regulation is an ecosystem-wide effort, where input isn’t just top-down, but also bottom-up or even side-to-side. The first SEMI Standard, which specified wafer sizes, exemplifies this approach.The SEMI Standards Committee formed in 1973 to address silicon wafer dimensional specifications. At the time, wafer specifications proliferated. Numbering more than 2,000, the various specifications led to major inefficiencies just when the industry was just getting underway. Wafer suppliers banded together under SEMI to solve this problem and rapidly developed consensus specifications for 2- and 3-inch wafers. By the mid-1970s, over 80% of wafers conformed to these new standards.Standardized wafer sizes freed equipment companies to focus on innovations that reduced cost and increased performance. It also allowed manufacturers to focus on product differentiation without having to worry about device fabrication process and cost. Since that first SEMI Standard made possible the modern semiconductor equipment industry, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have competed to deliver amazing innovations. For example, lithography systems routinely use light to design chips with feature sizes smaller than the wavelength of light.SEMI’s 1000th standard on energetic materials demonstrates how smart standards are also pragmatic. This standard is not about banning materials or assigning blame when things go awry. It is about creating practical guidelines that companies will follow, enabling them to realize greater innovation. Guidelines that reduce accidents and risks will spur more, not less, energetic materials’ exploration. Industry suppliers will be the big winners.The 1st to the 1000th SEMI standard all represent examples of cooperation making more sense than competition.Standards for the real worldCreating a business-friendly standard that still gets the job done is a process. As SEMI Standards Task Force and Committee members, materials, equipment and manufacturing companies take part in defining best practice guidelines that support safe and practical use of materials and equipment. Task force and committee members assign particular responsibilities and associated costs to the most logical segments of the supply chain. They also develop information-sharing practices around competitive process recipes and purity standards.Andy McIntyre, CIH, a member of the energetic materials task force and an executive vice president and managing principal at BSI EHS Services and Solutions, summarized what makes SEMI standards smart.“SEMI standards are pragmatic,” said McIntyre. “They take into account the need for implementation in a real-world business environment. They embrace an engineering approach to problem-solving to create practical solutions, and they define specifications and performance goals in ways that allow engineers — in collaboration with EHS professionals — to identify practical solutions for reducing risk in R D, pilot line and manufacturing operations.“SEMI standards employ a holistic process that considers all the important points of view throughout the supply chain, from materials selection, installation, use, recycling and/or disposal,” said McIntyre. “The breadth of SEMI EHS Guidelines, for example, is also very comprehensive as the SEMI EHS Committee and task forces work to ensure that standards keep pace with dynamic technology developments. Energetic materials is a prime example where the industry recognized the need for a new safety guideline to document safe usage of pyrophoric, water-reactive and unstable reactive materials, which have become increasingly important in semiconductor and advanced materials R D and manufacturing.”This is the real secret to the success of the semiconductor industry. Smart self-regulation allows industry players to cooperate in the development and implementation of standards that are pragmatic, comprehensive and dynamic. Participants in SEMI Standards have a voice in the semiconductor industry because they are the voice of the semiconductor industry.While innovation in semiconductors may not always keep pace with Moore’s Law, we can depend on one truth: As long as collaboration and cooperation are the rule and not the exception, we will continue to advance technology in amazing and unprecedented ways. You, me and all other consumers will continue to reap the rewards of innovation. Use your voice to affect standardization in and around the semiconductor industry. Learn about SEMI Standards – and become part of the solution.Heidi Hoffman is senior director of technology communities marketing at SEMI. Hoffman and her team shine a spotlight on the work of the more than 20 technology communities under the SEMI electronics manufacturing supply chain collaboration platform. Actively engaging community members in marketing programs that showcase their unique value, Hoffman’s team helps companies to grow and prosper through the power of connection, collaboration and innovation.

This article is the third in a series highlighting the vital importance of SEMI Standards to commemorate the publication of the 1000th SEMI Standard in July 2019. Find the entire series here.SEMI Standards are the bedrock of the modern microelectronics industry. Without standards for wafer dimensions – which SEMI Standards first defined through a collaborative process involving semiconductor manufacturers and wafer suppliers in 1972 – the semiconductor equipment industry as we know it would not exist today. The late Robert Noyce of Intel noted in this 1992 video “being good at producing semiconductors will mean we have better, more consistent, better controlled equipment than we have in the past. Standards are going to play a vital role in that. Standards saves money and time for everyone.” Noyce also called standards a bellwether to surges of innovation in critical process technology. This is still true today as, for example, important standards-setting activity is afoot in panel-level packaging, electron microscopy and energetic materials. Will a surge of innovation follow?Panel-level packaging: a chicken-egg scenarioFrom advanced materials to more efficient production tools, one hallmark of the microelectronics industry is our fearless exploration of new technologies that will spawn change across the industry by improving performance and reducing cost. Advanced packaging techniques, such as panel-level packaging (PLP) – which moves semiconductor packaging to a larger-panel format – is one of those critical catalysts. Citing PLP’s potential to shrink costs by improving efficiency and economies of scale, research firm Yole Développement predicts a remarkable 63% CAGR for PLP from 2017-2023.[i]It’s no stretch to say that we are close to realizing a burst of innovation in packaging. With a just-published SEMI Standard (SEMI 3D20) specifying panel sizes, equipment companies will find it economically viable to invest more in developing the much-needed production tools that enable PLP. “It is really important to create standards so we come together and work much more efficiently. Creating those fundamentals allows you to be more productive in the long term,” said Christina Chu, ASM Semiconductors, and co-leader of the Panel Level Packaging Task Force, and one of five industry leaders recognized for their outstanding accomplishments in developing SEMI Standards for the electronics and related industries at the recent 1000 SEMI Standards reception during SEMICON West 2019. “This effort came up from the trenches,” said Richard Allen, NIST Quantum Measurement Division, and a co-leader of both SEMI’s 3D Packaging and Integration Committee and its Panel Level Packaging Task Force. “Equipment vendors told us that they wanted to serve the market, but they couldn’t do so without some standards. To respond to their request, our committee surveyed the market and discovered at least 15 different panel sizes in development.”“As no vendor is going to make over a dozen unique tools for the same process, we worked with the manufacturers and tool companies to write a specification that standardizes on two of the most widely accepted sizes,” Allen said. “For the first time, the industry will have a real market for panel-level packaging tools, and that will spur commercialization of new technologies that never would have seen the light of the day without standardization.”Allen pointed out that evolution of standards in microelectronics reflects the dynamism of the microelectronics industry itself. “Given the rate of technology advancement in microelectronics, SEMI Standards committee and task force members know that a newly-published standard is often just a starting point, and change will likely follow,” he said. “The Panel Level Packaging Task Force, for example, is currently determining how to best support this packaging technology, whether through possible enhancements to 3D20 or by creating new PLP standards.”Process automation is key for TEMTransmission electron microscopy (TEM) is another area where industry cooperation will fuel progress.“People throw around the phrase ‘exponential growth,’” said James Amano, senior director, International Standards at SEMI. “It’s usually a gross exaggeration, but not when it comes to TEM data. That’s because demand for more TEM data, which uniquely enables innovations around smaller feature sizes, has exploded. At the same time, TEM data is a bottleneck in the fab. Operators literally use tweezers to carry around electron microscope samples by hand, and that is untenable.” TEM sampling standards are currently being formulated under the SEMI Standards development process. “Applying a model that we have employed successfully time and time again through SEMI Standards, we are gearing up for process automation in TEM,” Amano said. “We’ll start by establishing a grid carrier standard for electron microscopy. Through ongoing standards efforts, we may realize a fully automated TEM process within just a few years. That achievement will enable exponential growth in shrinking design geometries.”Energetic materials gain safety standardAlong with wafer-level packaging and design shrinks, the push for safety in materials’ usage is a hotbed of innovation. This is especially true with energetic materials, the potentially hazardous process chemicals used increasingly in semiconductor manufacturing to spur advances in materials purity, integrity and quality.“When you’re working with energetic materials, if you don’t get it right, you may face serious yield and cost issues, and most important of all, safety risks,” said Paul Trio, senior manager of strategic initiatives at SEMI. “This isn’t a theoretical concern. Real problems occurring in fabs have made an energetic-materials standard a high priority for the industry.”“After years of collaborating with companies across the supply chain to address this significant challenge, we recently published our 1000th SEMI Standard around safe usage of energetic materials,” Trio said. “Now manufacturers can turn to a new standard – which will evolve dynamically in response to industry changes – as they employ energetic materials in their quest to achieve higher yields while controlling costs and managing safety risks.” Whether it’s packaging, design shrinks, materials or other key innovations, standards are essential to progress in microelectronics. From equipment and materials suppliers that provide the most advanced, efficient and safest tools, materials, and processes to device manufacturers that get products to market, all stakeholders in the microelectronics ecosystem benefit from SEMI Standards. Are you curious about the areas of process technology where innovations are likely to occur? Would you like to get involved in standards efforts that could have an impact on your business? Take a look at the activity of SEMI Standards Committees and Task Forces. Because that’s where innovation, pragmatism and a commitment to harness industry resources come together.Use your voice to affect standardization in and around the microelectronics industry. Learn about SEMI Standards – and become part of the solution. Heidi Hoffman is senior director of technology communities marketing at SEMI. Hoffman and her team shine a spotlight on the work of the more than 20 technology communities under the SEMI electronics manufacturing supply chain collaboration platform. Actively engaging community members in marketing programs that showcase their unique value, Hoffman’s team helps companies to grow and prosper through the power of connection, collaboration and innovation. [i] Status of Panel Level Packaging report, Yole Développement, 2018

This article is the second in a series highlighting the vital importance of SEMI Standards to commemorate the publication of the 1000th SEMI Standard in July 2019. Find the entire series here.Chip traceability. It’s one of the next big things for the technology industry. The benefits are enormous, and the upsides — which include enhancing yields by identifying the sources of reliability issues, fighting counterfeiting, and growing the overall technology market by enabling new applications — are plentiful.But the implementation challenges of chip traceability are also big and will require considerable effort to overcome. Perhaps the biggest hurdle of all is that we need to transcend industry fears by demonstrating that we can secure IP when it is shared across the hardware supply chain. What will drive the technology industry to make the necessary investments in traceability? “Automotive will drive traceability,” asserted Doug Suerich, product evangelist at PEER Group and an active participant in the SEMI Standards Traceability Committee. “If I had to guess, the autonomous car in particular will drive a traceability-standard effort.”Where Reliability is CriticalWhen your laptop crashes, it’s annoying. But when a car crashes because of a system failure, the damages can be severe and catastrophic It’s also one that is poised to get exponentially larger as we see ever greater amounts of silicon content in vehicles.Fortunately, everyone can agree on the nature of the solution. The industry needs to create a standard for traceability throughout the supply chain. When lives are at risk, we must find and fix the manufacturing source of any defects that affect reliability. That’s understood. Now it’s the not-so-small matter of figuring out the details.Of course, it’s not just about cars. Manufacturers and users of medical devices and military platforms also put a premium on extended, high levels of reliability. In the technology industry, however, the automotive market represents such enormous growth potential that we view it as integral to future industry success.At a market size of more than $1 trillion, automotive is steadily becoming a high-tech market as cars transform into advanced technology platforms that offer partially or fully autonomous features. Vehicles are fast becoming semiconductors on wheels. With leaders from Google to General Motors investing heavily in chip advances, the automotive industry will demand a supply chain that requires chip and device traceability from all its participants.The SEMI Technology Communities and Standards Committee have made some inroads toward solving the traceability challenge with their development and publication of a SEMI Standard enabling traceable device-level identification (ID) throughout the IC manufacturing, test, and assembly processes to the point of use in the final system. The standard is a meaningful first step but overcoming the challenges of counterfeiting and information sharing remain and will require greater industry collaboration.“It comes down to a safety issue,” said Suerich. “We need the ability to collect data across the supply chain, so we can trace down the source of a reliability issue, analyze the data and take corrective actions around applications for which safety is critical. Automotive, medical and aerospace devices need to keep working over five, 10 or even more years. For the semiconductor industry, that means redefining yield.”Traceability Roadmap“It’s going to be a major challenge to share data throughout the supply chain, not just technologically, but culturally as well,” added Suerich. “It will take a concerted effort, and we’re just in the early stages of figuring out some of the IP protection issues.”While traceability is new ground for the culture of the semiconductor industry, the automotive industry has long embraced tracing the sources of defects. In some cases, automotive suppliers have issued wide-ranging product recalls due to safety concerns. The Takata airbag defect, for example, resulted in tens of millions of recalled airbags. As the automotive and semiconductor supply chains increasingly overlap, SEMI committees and task forces are in an ideal position to model traceability best practices in after those implemented by the automotive industry.“We’re going to need an organization like SEMI to coordinate and organize this,” observed Suerich. “While we’re still in the early phases of figuring this out, the market potential around automotive has attracted a critical mass of powerful companies who want a solution. We need to standardize a way to tag which information can flow up and down the chain, and which is protected. I think we’re looking at more than five years of hard work around new standards.”Semiconductor companies are understandably cautious about sharing data related to their proprietary processes because the value of the intellectual property and need to protect data is simply higher than in many other industries. “Automotive offers the perfect confluence of factors to drive traceability in semiconductors,” Suerich concluded. “There is increasing silicon content as well as lives and big money at stake, and motivated players at leading companies and within government institutions want to see progress.”Use your voice to affect standardization in and around the microelectronics industry. Learn about SEMI International Standards – and become part of the solution. Learn more about SEMI's traceability activities. Heidi Hoffman is senior director of technology communities marketing at SEMI. Hoffman and her team shine a spotlight on the work of the more than 20 technology communities under the SEMI electronics manufacturing supply chain collaboration platform. Actively engaging community members in marketing programs that showcase their unique value, Hoffman’s team helps companies grow and prosper through the power of connection, collaboration and innovation.

This article is the first in a series highlighting the vital importance of SEMI Standards to commemorate the publication of the 1000th SEMI Standard in July 2019. Find the entire series here. More than 40 years after establishing the SEMI International Standards program, SEMI recently announced its 1000th SEMI Standard – a safety guideline for handling energetic materials. Creating a resource for unpredictable changes in materials is the type of challenge the SEMI International Standards program is often called upon to tackle – where the standard is merely the end of the beginning. The semiconductor industry has learned to expertly control its facilities, equipment and components. The next logical step is materials. It’s common knowledge that the industry drives innovation with new process materials and enabling safer material exploration is critical to the industry’s success. Classification Schema The 1000th SEMI Standard provides three classifications of energetic materials and byproducts based on three criteria: Hazardously exothermic (large amount of heat released following a trigger event such as heating or a physical shock) Pyrophoric (self-igniting upon air exposure) Water-reactive (releasing a large amount of energy or flammable gas upon contact with water) Unsafe handling of any of these byproducts can, to put it mildly, result in a bad day for a fab or lab. The leader of the Energetic Materials Task Force and an expert in process and equipment risk assessment at his company Safety Guru, Eric Sklar recounted one of the stranger incidents. A cleaning crew detached a pipe from a piece of equipment associated with a process recipe that used no energetic materials. The team set it in a sink, sprayed some water to begin cleaning it, and the pipe ignited in flames. Remarkably, although the initial materials weren’t energetic, the process created new byproducts that were very much so. Standardizing on Shifting Ground Energetic materials are new ground for standards and that ground is shifting, with much more material innovation to come. The upshot is that it is particularly important that the energetic materials standard is dynamic. By design, all SEMI Standards are malleable – continuously shaped by the demands they aim to meet. The release of this document is nowhere near the end of the work, as the standard will evolve to keep pace with continuing materials innovation. Creating a Robust Materials Supply Chain SEMI Standards create the conditions for a more robust materials supply chain and sustain the needs of business. If the standards safeguards are too burdensome, they will never be adopted. Conversely, without protections, people and equipment are unnecessarily put in harm’s way and innovation slows. SEMI’s Energetic Materials Task Force members realized early on that the industry needed a standard that would be practical to implement and flexible enough to be optimized over time. They understood that collaboration and compromise, while time-consuming, are also essential for standards’ creation. They determined roles and responsibilities across the supply chain, and they struck delicate balances between sharing no information about the intended uses of potentially dangerous materials and sharing everything about proprietary process recipes. The sheer scope of this standard necessitated a multi-year timeline. “The effort began with SEMATECH assembling its members’ views about energetic materials safety,” said Eric Sklar. “It then required years of effort from SEMI to bring the key industry participants together to create pragmatic guidelines that address the challenges around energetic materials in the supply chain.” Only Getting Started Despite all the work, one certainty is that the standard isn’t perfect for the present and can’t reflect future demands. This is why the energetic materials standard is not a static document, but a living process that is in its germinal stages. Key players continue to shape the standard, and that’s fundamental to enabling future materials innovation and ultimately reducing the number of unexpected energetic materials reactions in fabs. The variables in standards development are numerous and ever-changing. Energetic materials only magnifies the need for the broad collaboration that SEMI has facilitated for more than 40 years. While the risks posed by energetic materials are substantial, the criticality for continued innovation is undisputed. Now, with its adoption, the work of adapting and modifying this 1000th SEMI Standard is only about to begin. Use your voice to help drive standardization in and around the semiconductor industry. Learn about SEMI Standards – and become part of the solution. Register to receive Standards Watch, SEMI’s quarterly e-newsletter. Heidi Hoffman is senior director of technology communities marketing at SEMI. Hoffman and her team shine a spotlight on the work of the more than 20 technology communities under the SEMI electronics manufacturing supply chain collaboration platform. Actively engaging community members in marketing programs that showcase their unique value, Hoffman’s team helps companies grow and prosper through the power of connection, collaboration and innovation.

SCIS is a SEMI Technology Community that tackles critical component defectivity for the semiconductor manufacturing industry. The organization develops test methods for measuring defects in these critical components. Originally, this SEMI community was looking at challenges surrounding sub-10nm process nodes, but our constituents – Integrated Device Manufacturers (IDMs), capital equipment OEMs, and (sub)component suppliers – felt that the immediate need was for standards that would apply to process nodes that are already being used for volume semiconductor device manufacturing.IDMs need ways to tell their supply chain how defects attributable to these critical components factor into the overall process-node defect budgets and wafer-contamination limits. Chipmakers and IDMs needed to start with a baseline: How problematic are existing critical components in the overall fab systems and how do these contaminants contribute to defects and how do they affect overall process yields?These questions must be answered for every component in the fab’s process line including the drums that hold the fab chemistries, fluid delivery systems, and components used in the wafer-processing chamber. All of these critical fab-line components come into contact with each manufactured wafer, in one way or another, and each is a suspect with respect to contamination, defects, and yield problems. SCIS develops test methods for these fab-line critical components testing that are used to identify the defects caused by these components and for establishing baselines.SCIS has seven working groups dealing with various critical components. Each is developing various test methods for many critical fab-line components. There are many facets with respect to testing each of these critical components.Take something as simple as a seal, such as an FFKM (perfluoroelastomer, made from polymers) seal. These seals are ubiquitous in fab lines. In harsher environments, such as inside of a processing chamber, these seals are exposed to high temperatures and harsh chemistries. Different FFKM seals will have different characteristics such as thermal resistivity and chemical resistance, depending on customer specifications, and can also vary from one manufacturer to another. In addition, these characteristics can change depending on environmental conditions – or just the passage of time.SCIS looks at defect traits from the perspective of each component in the fab line and decides which of the components’ parameters contribute most to process defects. Initially, the SCIS Seals Valves Group collected a list of seal-related issues or parameters. The working group then cross-checked these parameters against different manufacturing processes used in the fab including ALD (atomic layer deposition) and CVD (chemical vapor deposition). Some processes are harder on seals than others. Then the working group prioritized these various parameters according to their contribution to the overall process defect budget. IDMs provided important input during these steps because they work with these seals on a daily basis. At this point, the SCIS working group had a prioritized list of parameters, vetted by various stakeholders in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. The group then set to develop standardized measurement methods for these critical parameters.Based on this work, the SCIS Seals Valves Group has already published two documents. The first is a standard that specifies methods for testing seal-induced impurities such as ashing (analysis of metals content of the ash) and TOC (total organic content).The second document published by the Seals Valves Group is a guide that documents BKMs (best known methods) for handling seals – from the moment they’re cured in an oven to packaging, shipping, handling in a fab, and installation – to reduce contamination problems during use. For example, some seals are sensitive to light. Some polymer seals degrade when they come into contact with IPA (isopropyl alcohol), which is often used for prepping. A degraded seal can emit contamination particles during processing, which will cause yields to fall. (This latter bit of information came directly from a major IDM, which demonstrates the invaluable role that users of these components can play in the development of testing standards.)The Seals Valves Group’s current work focuses on developing a standard for measuring seal leak rates. This standard will define test methods for evaluating a seal’s ability to maintain pressure under vacuum. Although there are well-established standard for testing seal CSR (compressive stress relaxation) in the aerospace industry, there’s no such standard for the semiconductor industry. So originally, the Seals Valves Group tried to tackle that challenge by developing a similar standard for SEMI’s constituents. However, a more practical and immediate parametric challenge turned out to be seal leakage rates.Installed seals are exposed to high temperatures and harsh chemistries in the semiconductor fabrication process. The Seals Valves Group decided to develop a test method that would determine how well seals perform over time with respect to leakage rates as the seals are exposed to cyclic harsh conditions. The goal is to simulate the working conditions for these seals, as closely as possible and in a repeatable manner.There are, of course, some challenges associated with this work. For example, IDMs and equipment OEMs don’t want to reveal their exact process conditions as they are proprietary. So the Seals Valves Group took a step back and focused on developing a test method based solely on exposure to elevated temperatures.Development of this thermal test requires the design of a standardized test jig to help ensure consistent, repeatable tests, shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Elastomer seal test jig developed by the SCIS Seals Valves Group.The seal under test, shown in red in Figure 1, sits at the center of the jig. A second seal, shown in green, is used to seal the actual test environment. Two thermocouples in the jig’s top and bottom monitor of the temperature inside of the jig. There are gas and purge lines for controlling the ambient pressures on either side of the seal under test.Figure 2 illustrates how the jig is connected to the gas sources. Figure 2: The Seals Test Jig is connected to helium and nitrogen gas sources and to a calibrated leak (vacuum) line. The seals leak test is based on a helium leak test. Helium is one of the smallest atoms so it will leak through just about any small gap and, with time, permeate through the material as well. In addition, helium is inert, and testing for helium using a mass spectrometer is a well-established technique for leak testing. Helium leak testing can be one thousand to one million times more sensitive than using mechanical, pressure-decay test techniques. The jig’s nitrogen lines serve to purge the test chambers of helium between leak tests.Developing just a test jig is not sufficient. The Seals Valves Group also developed a test sequence for using the jig. There were no existing standard, so the group needed to use its knowledge of the seals’ composition and operating conditions to develop certain test parameters. For example, the group elected to use 200°C as the maximum temperature for the high-temperature portion of the test because FFKM seals start to degrade at 250°C.At this point, the Seals Valves Group has gone through several iterations of a proposed test sequence. There was some initial reluctance to provide detailed inputs, but after a few iterations of the proposed method (and an understanding that this would become an industry standard to hold suppliers accountable), inputs have become more forthcoming.This is an excellent example that demonstrates why it’s so important for SCIS working groups to get chipmakers, IDMs, component vendors, and even feedstock materials vendors to participate in these standardization efforts. Standards are far more useful if they’re based on real-world conditions.Currently, the SCIS Seals Valves Group is working towards finalizing the seals-leak test sequence. The jig has been designed in AutoCAD and a prototype will soon be manufactured. Although the test and jig have been developed with significant industry participation, the validity of the test has yet to be determined. The validity will be verified though Alpha testing before the jig design and test method are incorporated into a standard.However, SEMI is not a test house. It’s a facilitator. The testing will therefore be performed by a neutral third party capable of carrying out the test under fab-like conditions. SEMI’s role is to work with different testing entities such as SUNY Polytechnic Institute in Utica, New York or IMEC in Belgium.SEMI will solicit bids for this work through its SCIS Executive Advisory Committee, which consists of C-level executives from device makers, semiconductor capital equipment OEMs, and major critical component suppliers. This project has leveraged many of the relationships that SEMI has developed over the years and has broken new ground in standards making for SCIS and for SEMI.For those looking to learn more about SCIS or engage in ongoing efforts, please contact Paul Trio, senior manager of Strategic Initiatives at SEMI, at [email protected].

The Single Device Traceability Task Force emerged from SEMI CAST’s identification of the need for device traceability through the supply chain — not just traceability for devices but for component parts such as semiconductor die, lead frames, epoxy, bond wires, and printed circuit boards. Eventually the work led to a draft document and preparation for SEMI’s standardization process.The Single Device Traceability Task Force’s charter is “To develop standards enabling traceable device-level identification (ID) throughout the IC manufacturing, test, and assembly processes to the point of use in the final system.” The scope of this work is to develop standard(s) focusing on key concepts, behaviors, and requirements as well as standards for enabling device ID and traceability, with considerations for various types of implementations. In addition, the Single Device Traceability Task Force is looking at anti-counterfeiting, which is closely associated with traceability.The motivation for this particular traceability standard comes from systems companies that purchase and use semiconductors in boards and systems. These companies need the ability to track devices through the supply chain for various reasons. They do not want an ad hoc situation where each system vendor develops its own requirements and specifications for device traceability. They want a standard to reduce traceability’s cost and complexity.In effect, customers want a standard that can be cited in a purchase order to their suppliers. This will require the supplier to mark (ECID, 2D code, RFID, etc.) their products with an ID unique for that supplier. The customer will verify the ability to read the ID and will reject devices that cannot be read, or disagree with the shipping information. This arrangement should propagate throughout the supply chain. As a result, the traceability draft standard developed by the Single Device Traceability Task Force looks at traceability from a system integrator’s perspective.Figure 1 captures the business problem for device traceability. Figure 1: Single Device Identification and Traceability Needs Permeate the Semiconductor Industry.Each time that a company ships product to the next company in the supply chain, it’s desirable to have traceability for the products being shipped while preserving the security of the information associated with those products. Initially, the only information that should be transferred is the device identification. In other words, the device traceability ID should not identify what the device is, nor should it provide any additional information relating to the device or its manufacture. In addition, the Traceability ID should not specify the number of devices shipped, the lot number associated with the devices, or any other information that might be of value to hackers or competitors. There is quite justifiable paranoia about the security of this information based on lessons learned.However, the whole point of traceability is to be able to backtrack a device through the supply chain when there’s a problem. Ultimately, any QA effort will need to know where the device was manufactured, when it was manufactured, the conditions under which it was manufactured, and other details that might help to discover the root cause of any problems.To get the additional information needed to troubleshoot a quality or manufacturing problem, a business relationship and NDAs (shown in Figure 1) must be in place between the various member companies in the supply chain. Traceability IDs based on the Single Device Identification and Traceability Standard will not carry that sort of information. They will simply allow analytic data to be obtained through appropriate business relationships.Figure 2 illustrates the types of fact finding that a Single Device Identification and Traceability standard would enable. Figure 2: Types of fact finding enabled by a Single Device Identification and Traceability standard. In this example, a Fabless or System manufacturer (shown in the center of the figure) might make an assembly that incorporates an MCM (multi-chip module) obtained from an OSAT (outsourced assembly and test) vendor. The MCM would bear a traceability ID on or inside the package. If a failure occurs in the MCM, the Fabless vendor contacts the OSAT, using an existing business relationship and NDA, and requests a comprehensive manufacturing report for the specific device using the traceability ID to identify the device in question. The OSAT then supplies a report to the Fabless company that provides the requested manufacturing data and any additional traceability IDs for the component parts in the MCM.The component traceability IDs in the OSAT’s report provide the Fabless vendor with the ability to track the MCM’s component die and package back to the semiconductor foundries and packaging vendor where these components were manufactured. These traceability IDs allow the Fabless vendor to request manufacturing reports for the components in question from the supplying foundries and the package vendor. Note that the reason that the reports go directly from the semiconductor foundries to the Fabless vendor as shown in Figure 2 is that the OSAT may not have comprehensive information about the function of these die and the Fabless vendor may want to keep that information private.The proposed new standard is called the “Specification for Single Device Traceability for the Supply Chain” and is SEMI Draft Document #6450. It addresses the first part of the systems integrators’ desire of being able to hold their suppliers accountable for having an established traceability scheme that would permit data analysis should the need arises. As of the end of November, the ballot proposal passed Technical Committee review and will undergo a procedural review process as part of the SEMI Standards development requirements. Once, these approval requirements are met, the specification will be prepared for publication and ready for industry adoption. Meanwhile, SEMI’s CAST Working Group and Standards Task Force will continue standardization efforts for device security and anti-counterfeiting. To join SEMI Standards activity, visit SEMI Standards or go directly to the Standards Membership Application.Dave Huntley is in business development at PDF Solutions.

Gas plasmas have become a fundamental building block in many semiconductor manufacturing processes. Plasma torches used to create these gas plasmas have three components: an induction coil, a plasma confinement tube, and a gas distributor or torch head that introduces multiple gases into the torch. RF generators supply the high-frequency electrical energy needed to transform the plasma-forming gases flowing through the torch, typically oxygen or a fluorine-bearing gas, into a plasma. The RF generators used for semiconductor manufacturing typically operate in the low megahertz or tens of megahertz frequency range and are expected to output high RF power at those frequencies for long periods. For example, ALD and CVD processes use RF generators with output powers on the order of a few kilowatts.About three years ago, a major semiconductor device maker experienced a recurring problem with its RF generators. The company found that more than half of the RF generators it deployed in its manufacturing lines were failing within the first two years of service. Further, the same model RF generators obtained from the same RF generator vendor simply were not behaving similarly when used for exactly the same processes under exactly the same conditions. Nor were these supposedly identical generators operating for consistent lengths of time before failing. Clearly there was variation from one generator to the next, even within the same model.A further complication occurred during procurement of these RF generators. Procurement people were acquiring generators using general specification requirements and these requirements were, at times, opaque to the intended process application. In some cases, equipment was being purchased in bulk quantities and then assigned to different processes on the semiconductor manufacturing lines. When these generators were deployed, they had not been designed or optimized for the specific task to which they were assigned, exacerbating the reliability problem.The RF generator suppliers felt that they would be able to supply more reliable generators if they could collaborate with their customers so that they could purpose-build their generators for the intended uses. However, the semiconductor makers preferred to keep the specifics of the manufacturing process applications for these generators proprietary, for obvious reasons. To make matters worse, customers did not always return failed units to RF generator vendors for analysis. Instead, the RF generators were sometimes sent out to be refurbished by third parties or repair depots, and then redeployed. As a result, failure analysis proved challenging to obtain.This is exactly the type of situation that SEMI’s Semiconductor Component, Instrument and Subsystem (SCIS) technical community exists to address. SCIS develops test methods aimed at measuring component defects for the greater semiconductor manufacturing community. SCIS tackled this RF generator problem and developed a standard test method for measuring specific RF generator characteristics. Using this test method, RF generator manufacturers can publish results for their generators in a standardized way that allows their customers to make fair, application-specific comparisons among models and vendors.Many aspects of an RF generator needed to be considered. A key aspect that interested integrated device makers (IDMs) and capital equipment OEMs was a transient-response test for RF generators.A transient-response test standard established by the SEMI-E135 standard did exist, but its tests were run only with 50-ohm RF output loads. SCIS decided to expand this transient-response test by adding high- and low-impedance load tests to the existing 50-ohm load test.The initial response to this plan was not enthusiastic. The semiconductor makers feared that this simple expansion of an existing test standard would not produce a test regimen that would help solve what they considered to be the real problem: RF generator reliability. However, a major semiconductor equipment OEM differed, and felt that the two additional load conditions would provide a much better understanding of an RF generator’s capabilities. A second major semiconductor equipment OEM also got involved by providing additional, valuable feedback on the developing RF generator testing standard.In the end, the general feeling in the community is that this newly revised standard levels the playing field and makes it easier for customers to compare RF generators from different generator vendors. Now that this revised SEMI-E135 standard with the additional output load resistances has been published, the SCIS technical community has gained broader support and is now digging into the creation of a reliability test standard for RF generators to meet the greater semiconductor manufacturing community’s strong need for such a standard.How SEMI Standards are MadeThis sequence of events illustrates how standards are developed at SEMI. The SCIS technical community (or some other technical community within SEMI) develops and incubates test methods until a document is ready for standardization. At that point, a SEMI Standards task force is created. Companies within SCIS work with the task force (or become the task force) to ready the document for standardization. For the SEMI-E135 revision, the list of participating companies encompassed the entire semiconductor manufacturing community including RF generator suppliers, semiconductor capital equipment OEMs, and IDMs. All stakeholders participate.Figure 1 illustrates the sequence of events that occurred during the revision of the SEMI-E135 standard, after the test methods had been developed by SCIS as discussed above. Figure 1: Timeline for SEMI-E135 RF generator test standard revision after SCIS had developed the new load tests. Balloting, as illustrated in Figure 1, is the main way that SEMI obtains global consensus in the standards-making process. To achieve this, SEMI sends out the standard ballot proposal, or in this case a major revision of an existing standard. The changes to SEMI-E135 were sufficiently extensive that it was treated as a complete rewrite to this standard.On first ballot, the revised SEMI-E135 standard received several rejection votes, which also included suggested modifications that would remove the objections. These ballot rejections caused the proposed standard to be further revised, with both technical as well as editorial changes, triggering a SEMI Standards process called a Ratification Ballot. This approach takes less time than starting the balloting process over again. The final revised standard was published in September 2018.Having all stakeholders participate in the early development of the revised standard helped move the standard through the balloting process immensely, but customer participation was especially important. In the end, the semiconductor device makers and equipment OEMs are the ultimate beneficiaries of a standard like SEMI-E135. When end customers help to drive a standard’s development, there’s added pressure to move the standard along in the standardization process and the standard is far more likely to be useful for their purposes.And that’s a very good thing.For those looking to learn more about SCIS or engage in ongoing efforts, please contact Paul Trio, senior manager of Strategic Initiatives at SEMI, at [email protected].

Advances in areas from materials, packaging and testing to devices, equipment and standards must come together to enable smart factories and new capabilities in the microelectronics manufacturing supply chain. The secure transfer of information between factories is an important part of creating the “digital thread” that will give rise to higher yield, faster cycle times and reduced cost. At SEMICON West 2018, Tom Salmon, Vice President of Collaborative Technology Initiatives at SEMI, discusses his group’s work across the supply chain – including semiconductor front-end, packaging and test, as well as PCB and final product assembly – to accelerate the development of smart manufacturing. Ariana Raftopoulos is a marketing manager at SEMI.