ME 6105

SCARA Robot Design for Wafer Transport

Homework #2

Elaina Griffo 9/29/2011

Elaina Griffo Task 1: Identify the Decision Situation Based on my interests and work experience, I have decided to model a robotic system for semiconductor wafer handling. Ion implanters are used in the process of manufacturing semiconductor devices to add dopants to silicon wafers. Ion implanters are one step in the manufacturing process, and are typically located within an assembly line in larger factory environment. The semiconductor wafers, which are typically circular and 200mm or 300mm in diameter, travel through the factory in a sealed container known as a FOUP (Front Opening Unified Pod). From the FOUP, the wafers are loaded into and moved through the ion implanter using a series of robots. The system of interest for this simulation is a hypothetical robotic system designed to move a wafer between two pedestals. In this scenario, the overall tool architecture, the location of the pedestals, the environment, and the robot type have been determined. A SCARA-style robot will be used in the configuration illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. SCARA Robot Configuration with Pedestals

SCARA Robot Design for Wafer Transport

Elaina Griffo A DC brushless linear motor directly drives the body of the robot which is mounted to a pair of linear guide rails. Mounted to the linear drive are a pair of DC rotary motors. The lower motor rotates the arm, while the upper motor extends and retracts the arm using a pair of steel belts. A third, smaller rotary motor drives the wrist axis. Each rotary axis has a separate rotary encoder. The end effector is designed such that the prongs sit outboard of the pedestals, so the robot can directly lift the wafer from or lower the wafer onto the pedestal. The decision maker must select the motor sizes for the linear and two larger rotary motors, the resolution of the encoders used, the lengths and masses of the two links in the arm, and the stiffness of the belts. For this scenario, the decision maker is the mechanical engineer to whom this project was assigned. The engineer is only evaluating the performance of the robot within the constraints of the existing system. Since this engineer has the power to allocate resources in the form of design time, analysis, prototype procurement, and reliability testing, this decision scenario is scoped within the authority of the engineer. Task 2: Determine an Objectives Hierarchy The mechanical design of the robot will be evaluated within the context of the ion implanter as a whole. As is typical in industry, the fundamental objective of this design decision is to maximize profits for the company. A fundamental objectives hierarchy is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Fundamental Objectives Hierarchy

While profit maximization in the form of increased sales and margin is the main objective, it is not clear from this information alone how this objective relates to the design of the robot. A means objective network was created to aid in the implementation of this fundamental objective. Figure 3 shows the means objectives network. It should be noted that safety is not included in this network. While safety is an important part of the design process and a potentially purchase-limiting customer requirement, safety is typically defined in terms of success or failure to meet the specifications of regulatory agencies, so the safety of the tool cannot be maximized. In this design scenario, safety requirements will be SCARA Robot Design for Wafer Transport 2

Elaina Griffo considered to be within the context of design-limiting constraints on the system rather than a design objective.
Maximize Profits Minimize Operation Cost Maximize Customer Appeal Minimize Tool Down Time Maximize Reliability Minimize Component Cost Minimize Assembly Time

Minimize Power Consumed Maximize Positional Accuracy

Minimize Wafer Breakage

Minimize Production Cost

Minimize Maintenance Cost

Maximize Throughput Maximize Peak Acceleration

Maximize Motor Torque/Force Minimize Link Mass

Maximize Peak Velocity Minimize Joint Friction Minimize System Vibration

Minimize Link Moment of Inertia Maximize Robot Stiffness

Minimize Use of Custom-Made Components

Figure 3. Means Objective Network

Figure 3 indicates that while a handful of means objectives are related to decreasing the cost of the tool, the majority of the focus is on designing an ion implanter which appeals to the customer. The most important factors for the customer (as they directly relate to customer profits) are minimizing wafer breakage, minimizing tool down time, and maximizing throughput. A processed silicon wafer is valued at over $10,000, so errors in wafer handling which result in wafer breakage are not acceptable. Similarly, tool down time due to maintenance can be costly. Finally, customer revenue is limited by the throughput of the machine. Typical ion implanters, depending on the dopant species and other dosing parameters, will average between 200 and 500 wafers per hour. While it is possible to model every objective in the above network, it would be difficult to obtain an optimized solution as some objectives guide the design in opposing directions. For example, to minimize vibration the stiffness of the robotic arm should be maximized; however, increased stiffness is almost always accompanied by an increase in mass which contradicts the objective to minimize link mass for the purpose of maximizing acceleration. Additionally, not all of the objectives listed above can be evaluated in an energy-based model. Customer appeal, production cost and maintenance cost can all be easily measured and reported, but another tool would be required for analysis. Table 1 below contains a list of attributes which quantify some of the objectives.

SCARA Robot Design for Wafer Transport

Elaina Griffo
Table 1. Objective and Attribute Relations

Note: * Indicates a field which requires a closed-loop control model

From the list of objectives above, the following were selected as key objectives: maximize throughput, minimize operating cost, and maximize positional accuracy. These key objectives will be used more heavily in the robot design (velocity and acceleration will also be observed, but in the context of maximizing throughput). Task 3: Identify Design Alternatives In order to fit within the scope of this course, the number of design variables must be limited. The primary variables which will be considered in this design are: the stiffness of the drive belts in the two links of the robotic arm, the relative masses and lengths of the links, and the motor size for the linear and two larger rotary motors. The wrist motor will already be selected. If there is additional time, it would also be interesting to model the effects of encoder resolution; however, this may require the addition of a more complex control model which may be outside the scope of this mechanically-focused simulation. The level of detail required for the comparison of belt stiffnesses requires the modeling of end effector position and acceleration, as we expect a stiffer belt to track a high-acceleration move more accurately. Additionally, the bearing friction in each rotary joint should be modeled to account for differences in friction due to changes in radial bearing load. It should be noted that if this simulation requires simplification the bearing friction term is likely to be very small and can be neglected without a significant impact to the results.

SCARA Robot Design for Wafer Transport

Elaina Griffo By varying the masses and lengths of the two links it is possible to manipulate the position of both the center of mass of the cantilevered load and the moments of inertia about each rotary joint. Changes in these values should be reflected in the end effector acceleration and velocity profiles. The motors will be modeled to observe the interaction between motor size, motor type, and total wafer move time. The internal components: resistors, inductors and back EMFs will be modeled. It would also be interesting, although slightly more time consuming, to model three individual motor phases each with an offset (120 out of phase), sinusoidally commutated input current produced by a DC voltage bus. The motor model presents a clear conflict of design objectives. The objective of operating cost minimization will limit the motor size since more power will be required for larger motors, while the objective to maximize throughput suggests an increase in motor size. Finally, to model the following error observed in the system at different encoder resolutions it is necessary to create a model of an encoder. This encoder will provide positional feedback to the current control loop at a specified resolution. Task 4: Identify the Structure of the Design Problem In addition to design parameters and objectives, it is necessary to consider the effects of chance events on the profit outcome. Figure 4 below shows a number of chance events within the context of the design process and the determination of profits.
Belt Stiffnesses Peak Acceleration Total Move Time Link Masses Peak Velocity Link Lengths Wafer Breakage Customer Appeal Motor Size Following Error Competitor Tool Performance Profit Economic Climate Wafer Throughput

Encoder Resolution Signal Noise

Component Cost Tool Sale Price

Reliability

Maintenance Cost

Part Price

Random Failures

Customer Recipes Used

Figure 4. Influence Diagram for SCARA Robot

I will briefly discuss each of the chance events (shown by circles in the above figure) to provide additional details on specific meaning. It is expected that there will be a certain amount of following error due to signal noise, but the magnitude of this noise can be greatly reduced by shielding all electrical cables and by filtering if necessary. Part price may vary between suppliers and even between SCARA Robot Design for Wafer Transport 5

Elaina Griffo identical parts ordered from the same supplier based on quantity ordered. The dosing recipe and dopant type used by the customer can dictate mechanical wear in the system, as some recipes run more wafers per hour than others. At a higher level in the design process, the overall economic climate is an important factor in determining customer appeal. The semiconductor industry tends to cycle every ~3 years, so if the industry is in a slow phase customers are less likely to buy tools. Competitor tool performance is also a contributing factor to customer appeal. The markets in ion implant are fairly small, with only a handful of companies that manufacture each type of ion implantation machine. It is not uncommon for a customer to setup competitors machines side-by-side in a factory to determine which machine is better. Finally, random failures are a chance occurrence which could cause tool down time for maintenance. This down time, along with cost of a new part and labor adds to the overall maintenance cost. Task 5: Identify the Simulation Scenario for an Energy-Based System Model In the means objectives network, any of the objectives which contribute to the maximization of throughput could be related to the design alternatives through an energy-based model. This simulation will focus on the three key objectives (discussed in section 2 above), combining them in a single energybased model for the robot system. The maximization of throughput will be directly affected by the mass of the links and the motor size. It is expected that larger motors and lighter links would allow the system to accelerate faster, reach a higher peak velocity, and increase throughput. However, if the links are too light the robot may vibrate with amplitude large enough to displace a wafer from the end effector. The cost to operate the robot will be determined by the total power used by the motors and encoders. In order to minimize the total operating cost, the power used must be decreased. This decrease can be achieved with the use of smaller motors. Lastly, the positional accuracy will be dependent on all aspects of the system. The motion resolution of the motors, the encoder resolution, the motor sizes relative to the system mass and inertial properties and the belt stiffness combine to determine the positional accuracy of the end effector. The physical phenomenon I will model is simply the robot pickup of the wafer up from pedestal A and placement on pedestal B. In the creation of this model, two energy domains will be combined: mechanical and electrical. The robot controller will output a specified current. In the motors, the current will cause rotation or translation, transitioning the system into the mechanical domain. The joint actuation will cause link motion which will be affected by the link masses, lengths, and belt stiffnesses. Encoders will read the mechanical motion, converting it back to a current signal that is sent as feedback to the controller which will then specify a new output current. A number of assumptions will be made in this model for simplicity. For example, it is assumed that the wafer does not slide on the end effector. Clearly with a hard enough acceleration or deceleration it would be possible to cause the wafer to slip on the end effector surface. However, to model this interaction it is necessary to know the material properties, including coefficients of static and kinetic friction between the two surfaces. So, for the purposes of this model, once the wafer has been lifted from pedestal A it does not move relative to the end effector. This assumption also extends to vibration

SCARA Robot Design for Wafer Transport

Elaina Griffo of the robot arm. It may be necessary to perform a hand calculation in the future to verify that this assumption is reasonable given a set of robot mass and stiffness parameters. Additionally, many of the existing models in Dymola are based on their own set of fundamental assumptions. It is important to note and assess the validity of these assumptions as these components are built into the simulation. Task 6: Assess the Plan The largest source of uncertainty in this model is the simulation of the control loop. With my limited Dymola experience I cannot adequately gauge the complexity of this design. It is possible there is an existing model in the library with the capabilities I require. As mentioned previously, the development of a closed-loop control model is most critical in the encoder application since the measured attribute is following error. However, if necessary, I believe the encoder modeling can be neglected if the need to reduce model complexity arises, and that even without this aspect the overall simulation will still be meaningful and within the desired scope for this course. In addition, the scope of this project may be fairly large with the inclusion of sizing three separate motors and modeling a fourth. If the scope needs to be narrowed further, the wrist motor can be removed to simulate an r-theta type robot instead. Task 7: Articulate Learning Objectives The semiconductor industry is very fast-paced, and my company is extremely schedule-driven. This finalproduct focus can lead to a minimization of analyses performed, especially at a system level. Currently, no system-level design analysis is performed until a design fails in testing or at a customer site. From this course I hope to gain a better understanding of system-level modeling and analysis techniques. Over the course of the next three projects I hope to evaluate the feasibility of these methods for use in the concept phase of our design process. Additionally, I am excited to continue to learn the Modelica language and the Dymola software. I have used Simulink in the past but never had any formal training, and I believe a number of the modeling strategies are applicable and will allow me to create cleaner models consisting of logical, tested sub-systems. Finally, I am looking forward to developing simple hand-calculations for use in testing the sub-systems of my robot model.

SCARA Robot Design for Wafer Transport