Advertisement

Robots as a Potential Source of Particulate Contamination

  • K. May
  • T. Pfeifer
  • R. J. Schilling

Abstract

The replacement of human clean room operators by robots provides an opportunity to reduce a major source of airborne particulate contamination. However, robotic manipulators also generate particulates, albeit at a reduced rate. The detrimental effects of robot-induced contamination on product yield will become increasingly important as the minimum feature size of integrated circuits continues to shrink. This paper reports the results of an investigation of the airborne submicron particulate contamination generated by an Intelledex 660 robotic arm. Particles generated by the joints of the manipulator under various operating modes are examined. In addition, a comparison of the particulate contamination generated by several custom end-effectors designed for handling integrated circuit photomasks is presented.

Keywords

Particle Count Robotic Manipulator Clean Room Actuation Mechanism Background Particle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Iscoff, Robots in the clean room, Semiconductor Intl., 50-57 (Nov. 1984).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Chestnut, P.H. Singer, and K. Kearney, Robotic systems enhance manufacturing efficiency, Semiconductor Intl., 58-62 (October 1988).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. S. Burggraaf, Semiconductor factory automation: Current theories, Semiconductor Intl., 88-97 (October 1985).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. H. Singer, Automating inter-equipment transport, Semiconductor Intl., 56-61 (March 1985).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Dooley, Automated processing equipment, Semiconductor Intl., 120 (Nov. 1986).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Silberring, Put automation to work in assembly, Semiconductor Intl., 166-169 (April 1989).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. A. Hoenig and S. Daniel, Improved contamination control in semiconductor manufacturing facilities, Solid State Technol., 119-128 (March, 1986).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Peterson, Anatomy of a clean room robot, Semiconductor Intl., 58-62 (Nov. 1984).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Special Report: Process Equipment, Materials, and Automated Systems, Microcontamination, 42-56 (October 1987).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. S. Nagaraj, B. L. Owens and R. J. Miller, Particulate generation in devices used in clean manufacturing, in, “Particles in Gases and Liquids 1: Detection, Characterization and Control,” K. L. Mittal, editor, pp. 283–293, Plenum Press, New York, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Skidmore, A look at the past and a glimpse into the future, Semiconductor Intl., 68-75 (Dec. 1988).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. R. Monkowski, Particulate surface contamination and device failures, in, “Treatise on Clean Surface Technology,” K. L. Mittal, editor, Vol. 1, pp. 123–148, Plenum Press, New York, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. L. Morgan and J. R. Burnett, Concepts for world-class VLSI manufacturing plants, Semiconductor Intl., 136-147 (June 1984).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. R. Gulett, A practical method for predicting IC yields, Semiconductor Intl., 87-94 (March 1981).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. D. Helander, Certifying a Class 10 clean room using Federal Standard 209C, Microcontamination, 45-49, 76-78 (Sept. 1987).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. May
    • 1
  • T. Pfeifer
    • 1
  • R. J. Schilling
    • 1
  1. 1.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentClarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA

Personalised recommendations