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