Post on 17-Apr-2020
transcript
Call for Participation
and Prioritization In MEMS
iNEMI Initiatives
July 16th 2012
Bill Bader
CEO of iNEMI
1
Agenda
• Focus and Outcomes from INEMI MEMS
Workshop held in Pittsburgh
• Status and Direction of the two Active iNEMI
Collaborative R&D Teams
• Additional collaboration needs identified at the
workshop
• Next Steps
• Inputs plus Q&A.
MEMS Workshop in Pittsburgh
June 2012
3
Workshop Participants
Key Representatives from the Following:
AM Fitzgerald Analog Devices
CEA/LETI Coventor
Fairchild DiPaola Consulting
Fraunhofer IPMS HP
iNEMI MIG
MEMS Journal MEMSTAR Limited
Micrel NIST
Okmetic RIT
SMART Microsystems Teledyne DALSA
4
Focus of This Workshop
Two Breakout Teams: One Team focused on building more clarity on two existing iNEMI Initiatives that were underway: • MEMS Test Methods and Capabilities
• MEMS Reliability Methodologies
• Both These Teams are Moving Forward; We are soliciting additional Participants
Second Team worked the identification of key additional gaps where future collaboration may be organized and driven: • Options will be shared today, survey will follow to
determine priority level and participation interest
MEMS Reliability Methodologies
Statement of Work
Development
July 2012
6
MEMS Reliability Methodologies
Name Organization Organization Email Phone Country Region
Steve Greathouse Plexus* EMS steve.greathouse@plexus.com +1-208 898-1274 USA Americas
Dr Rick Oden Texas Instruments* Device OEM p-oden1@ti.com +1-214-567-2680 USA Americas
Art Morris Wispry* Device OEM art.morris@wispry.com +1-919-818-0389 USA Americas
Michael Aldrich Analog Devices Device OEM mike.aldrich@analog.com +1 (781) 937-1583 USA Americas
Andrew Holland CSR Device OEM andrew.holland@csr.com +44 12 23 69 22 42 UK Europe
Siamak Akhlaghi Micralyne Foundry siamak@micralyne.com Canada Americas
Iain Hyslop SMC – UK University Iain.hyslop@ee.ed.ac.uk +44 13 16 50 74 74 UK Europe
Vincent Gaff Tronics Microsystems Foundry vincent.gaff@tronisgroup.com +33 4 76 97 29 60 France Europe
Markku Lahti VTT Research markku.lahti@vtt.fi +35 84 07 05 12 62 Finland Europe
Brad Factor ASE Packaging bradford.factor@aseeu.com +33 1 55 43 98 13 France Europe
Jeroen De Coster IMEC Research jeroen.decoster@imec.be +32 16 28 83 62 Belgium Europe
J-P Polizzi LETI Research jean-philippe.polizzi@cea.fr +33 4 38 78 20 22 France Europe
Kaz Ono NTK Ceramics Packaging ka-ono@mg.ngkntk.co.jp +81-568-76-1222 Japan Asia
This initiative will investigate the development of generic reliability testing
specifications / methods for integrated MEMS devices that enable
specification conformance and effectively propagate key device failure
mechanisms
* Prospective Co-Chairs
7
MEMS Reliability Methodologies
• Issues:
Dispositioning of rejects can be problematic (not always clear cut,
e.g. failures due to stiction, temp cycling, ...)
Currently there are no standardized methods for evaluation of failures
OCMs and User community rely on experience of technicians
• Desired Outcomes:
Develop a set of predefined flows for failure analysis to prevent data
loss
Develop / identify a common terminology list or definitions
Create Guidelines on how to proceed with failure analysis
Create a map where failures occur with associated risk elements
• Problem # 1: Failure Analysis Methodology – Goal: Develop a “cookbook”
approach to the testing and evaluation of failed MEMS devices without
destroying base information.
8
MEMS Reliability Methodologies
Problem # 2: MEMS Reliability Testing is based on semiconductor testing standards,
however MEMS process technologies and packaging have their own unique test
requirements. Thus reliability testing of MEMS lack appropriate and efficient standards.
Issues:
Reliability testing is typically a standard “macro” set of Semiconductor test suites.
MEMS devices and process steps have their own unique set of testing requirements and failure mechanisms
Thus we lack an efficient and effective bought into set of reliability testing requirements
Desired Outcomes:
Initial Focus will be on inertial MEMS sensors including Gyros and Accelerometers
Compilation of end use environments and requirements. Compilation of reliability testing being performed and issues seen.
Develop industry consensus guidelines on efficient and comprehensive reliability testing
Deliver a report to identified standard bodies on recommendations on the qualification of new inertial MEMS devices and their associated process steps
Project Proposal
MEMS Test Methods and Capabilities
Initiative Direction and Status
10
MEMS Test Methods and Capabilities
Name Organization Organization
Type Email Phone Country
Michael Gaitan NIST* Research gaitan@nist.gov +1-301-975-2070 USA
Herbert Bennett NIST Research herbert.bennett@nist.gov +1-301-975-2079 USA
Mike Aldrich Analog Devices Device OCM mike.aldrich@analog.com +1-781-937-1583 USA
Siva Mohandass ASMPT Equipment siva@asmpt.com +65 6750 3164 Singapore
Stevan Hunter On Semi Power Semiconductors
stevan.hunter@onsemi.com +1-208-233-4690 x6160
USA
Siamak Akhlaghi Micralyne Foundry siamak@micralyne.com Canada
Dr Rick Oden Texas Instruments* Device OEM p-oden1@ti.com +1-214-567-2680 USA
John Huggins UC Berkeley Research jhuggins@eecs.berkeley.edu +1 510-847-7687 USA
Jeff Kennedy Celestica Foundry/EMS kennedj@celestica.com +1-612-902-6259 USA
Bill Bosch LAM Research Equipment bill.bosch@lamrc.com +1-510-572-6321 USA
Thiery Lazerand Plasma Therm Equipment thierry.lazerand@plasmatherm.com +1-727 577-4999 x2421
USA
Dave Monk Freescale Semiconductors dave.monk@freescale.com +1-480-413-8053 USA
Christian Rembe Polytec Gmbh Equipment C.Rembe@polytec.de +49 7243 604-189 Germany
Art Morris WiSpry Device OCM art.morris@wispry.com USA
Ivan Puchades Rochester Institute of Technology
Research ixpeme@rit.edu USA
11
• There is a lack of uniformity of tests and terminology for
specifying device performance in the data sheets.
– System and component integrators must retest devices
to understand and compare device performance
between manufacturers.
– Device manufacturers must (re)test and report the
performance of their products to meet the custom
requirements of their customers who often have no in-
house expertise in MEMS.
– Net effect is test methods for MEMS are not well
defined and are inefficient and often times inadequate.
Problem Statement
12
Phase 1 Scope of Work
• Identify a common set of practices required to improve communication between the device manufacturers and their customers through the common definition of performance specifications & testing
• The Phase 1 project will focus on Inertial Sensors, including MEMS accelerometers, MEMS gyroscopes and inertial measurement units (IMUs).
• The project will:
– Survey what specifications are reported (e.g., sensitivity, noise, temperature coefficient, offset, etc.), & how the specifications are defined,
– The protocols used to measure the performance metric
• Identify the opportunities and gaps that must be addressed to develop a uniform set of standardized tests and terminology for specifying device performance in data sheets.
13
Project Participation
The inclusion of the right participants will be crucial to
make this project successful. Customers, suppliers and
manufacturers are included.
Test Equipment:
Teradyne Fraunhofer
Solidus Technologies Sentera Technologies
Acutronic
Sensor Manufacturers:
Summit Instruments Analog Devices
Kionics MEMSIC
Rhom Semiconductors ST Microelectronics
Honeywell Freescale
Bosch Endevco
Customers (OEM):
Movea Delphi
Qualcomm Apple
14
Current Status
• The teams are actively defining the Scope of Work for
both of these future projects.
• Clearly impact can be very large for the industry.
• We need your help and inputs -
Get Involved!!
Workshop Identified Collaboration Needs Not in Priority Order
Next Areas of Collaboration to Enable Rapid Market
Growth
1A) Bought Into Roadmap of the critical applications and devices that
constitute the mass of the volume for the next 10 years:
– Accelerometers
– Gyros
– Pressure Sensors
– Etc
1B) Effect a structure and system that brings key industry players together
to identify key/common process modules required to support these
applications:
– Modules should include process scope, materials, equipment and metrology
– Start with process performance specs and envelope definition
– Wafer level, chip scale integration, package development, test processes
– Key Players Include (but not limited to): TSMC, Intel, Global Foundries, Hankeng, ST,
Bosch, ADI, TI, Silex, Other Foundries, Samsung, Major Equipment Players Assembly
and Test
1C) And……develop a collaborative approach to work towards MEMS
module integration (MH, ESD, Automation, Communication Interfaces)
16
Additional Collaborative Opportunities
2.) Develop next generation of simulation tools that can create
virtual data sheets:
– Simulation Tool Vendors, EDA Vendors, Foundry, & Device OEM
collaboration needed
3.) Work collectively to create intelligent accurate models for
integrating ASICS and MEMS (not necessarily monolithically).
4.) Identify critical industry players needed to define communication
and SW standard for MEMS devices.
5.) Standardize transferring of MEMS layouts to foundries via
adoption of improved and approved layout formats.
17
Other Needs To Facilitate FAST Industry Growth
• Government funding support to education and research in
support of MEMS.
• Curriculum development and deployment for rapidly
growing MEMS workforce:
– Technician level focused programs in multiple geographic
hubs. Lorrain CC can be the model to follow
• University investments, supported by industry partners, in
developing higher level engineering/scientist workforce
needed to design and manufacture the fastest ramping
products and processes:
– Partnering of industry with schools on curriculum
development and updates is key.
18
Thoughts and Next Steps
• Roadmap development of future devices is being worked
by MANCEF, ITRS, and iNEMI.
• Goal will be to get an integrated approach and set of
outcomes by the end of 2012.
• Next Step will be to form a working group on next steps
(1B and then 1C) and priorities.
• iNEMI will formulate a survey requesting your interest in
the proposed potential iNEMI Collaborative R&D Projects.
• I expect we will send that survey out by the end of July.
• Both iNEMI and MIG will market this and we request broad
sets of inputs and interest.
• Based on interest levels we will define next steps for
collaboration.
19
Thank You
Inputs
Questions and Answers
20
www.inemi.org Email contacts:
Bill Bader
bill.bader@inemi.org
Bob Pfahl
bob.pfahl@inemi.org
Grace O’Malley - Europe
gomalley@inemi.org
Haley Fu - Asia
haley.fu@inemi.org