Stability and performance analysis of mixed product run-to-run control

Abstract Run-to-run control has been widely used in batch manufacturing processes to reduce variations. However, in batch processes, many different products are fabricated on the same set of process tool with different recipes. Two intuitive ways of defining a control scheme for such a mixed production mode are (i) each run of different products is used to estimate a common tool disturbance parameter, i.e., a “tool-based” approach, (ii) only a single disturbance parameter that describe the combined effect of both tool and product is estimated by results of runs of a particular product on a specific tool, i.e., a “product-based” approach. In this study, a model two-product plant was developed to investigate the “tool-based” and “product-based” approaches. The closed-loop responses are derived analytically and control performances are evaluated. We found that a “tool-based” approach is unstable when the plant is non-stationary and the plant-model mismatches are different for different products. A “product-based” control is stable but its performance will be inferior to single product control when the drift is significant. While the controller for frequent products can be tuned in a similar manner as in single product control, a more active controller should be used for the infrequent products which experience a larger drift between runs. The results were substantiated for a larger system with multiple products, multiple plants and random production schedule.

[1]  Edward L Cussler,et al.  Chemical Product Design , 2003 .

[2]  M. Hankinson,et al.  Run-to-run critical dimension and sidewall angle lithography control using the PROLITH simulator , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing.

[3]  Jinn-Yi Yeh,et al.  An adaptive run-to-run optimizing controller for linear and nonlinear semiconductor processes , 1998, ICMTS 1998.

[4]  W. J. Campbell,et al.  Just-in-time adaptive disturbance estimation for run-to-run control of semiconductor processes , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing.

[5]  Nan-Jung Hsu,et al.  Sample-size determination for achieving asymptotic stability of a double EWMA control scheme , 2005 .

[6]  Edward L Cussler,et al.  Chemical product design , 2001 .

[7]  Christopher A. Bode,et al.  Automatic control in microelectronics manufacturing: Practices, challenges, and possibilities , 2000, Autom..

[8]  James Moyne,et al.  Run-to-Run Control in Semiconductor Manufacturing , 2000 .

[9]  Thomas F. Edgar,et al.  Just-in-time adaptive disturbance estimation for run-to-run control of photolithography overlay , 2002, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[10]  Ruey-Shan Guo,et al.  Age-based double EWMA controller and its application to CMP processes , 2001 .

[11]  Armann Ingolfsson,et al.  Stability and Sensitivity of an EWMA Controller , 1993 .

[12]  Thomas F. Edgar,et al.  Process Dynamics and Control , 1989 .

[13]  Nital S. Patel,et al.  Device dependent control of chemical-mechanical polishing of dielectric films , 2000 .

[14]  James Moyne,et al.  A multilevel approach to the control of a chemical-mechanical planarization process , 1996 .

[15]  Sheng-Tsaing Tseng,et al.  Statistical design of double EWMA controller , 2002 .

[16]  Enrique Del Castillo Statistical Process Adjustment for Quality Control , 2002 .

[17]  S. J. Qin,et al.  Stability analysis of double EWMA run-to-run control with metrology delay , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 American Control Conference (IEEE Cat. No.CH37301).

[18]  S.J. Qin,et al.  Recursive least squares estimation for run-to-run control with metrology delay and its application to STI etch process , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing.