See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224342982

Levels of Capacity and Material Handling System Modeling for Factory

Integration Decision Making in Semiconductor Wafer Fabs

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing · December 2008

DOI: 10.1109/TSM.2008.2005368 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
37 663

3 authors:

Jesus Jimenez Gerald T. Mackulak

Texas State University Arizona State University
47 PUBLICATIONS   332 CITATIONS    98 PUBLICATIONS   1,235 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

J.W. Fowler
Arizona State University
288 PUBLICATIONS   7,001 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Master's Thesis View project

Optimization in Manufacturing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J.W. Fowler on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

600 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 21, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008
Levels of Capacity and Material Handling System
Modeling for Factory Integration Decision Making in
Semiconductor Wafer Fabs
Jesus A. Jimenez, Gerald T. Mackulak, and John W. Fowler
Abstract—As the costs of building a new wafer fab increase, a
detailed simulation model representing the production operations,
the tools, the automated material handling systems (AMHS), and
the tool–AMHS interactions is needed for accurately planning the
capacity of these facilities. The problem is that it currently takes
too long to build, experiment, and analyze a sufficiently detailed
model of a fab. The key for building accurate and computation-
ally efficient fab models is to decide on the right amount of model
details, specifically those details representing the equipment ca-
pacity and the AMHS. This paper identifies a method for classi-
fying a fab model by the level of capacity detail, the level of AMHS
detail, or the level of capacity/AMHS detail. Within the capacity/
AMHS modeling level, our method further differentiates between
detailed integrated capacity/AMHS models and abstract coupled
capacity/AMHS models. The proposed classification method serves
as the basis of a framework that helps users select the system com-
ponents to be modeled within a desired level of detail. This re-
search also provides a review of past-published literature summa-
rizing the work done at each of the proposed fab modeling levels. A
case study comparing the performance between an integrated ca-
pacity/AMHS model and a coupled capacity/AMHS model is pre-
sented. The study demonstrates that the coupled model generates
cycle time estimates that are not statistically different than those
generated by the integrated model. This paper also shows that the
coupled model can improve CPU time by approximately 98% in
relation to the integrated model.
Index Terms—Automated material handling systems (AMHS),
capacity planning, discrete-event simulation, modeling, wafer
fabrication.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE manufacture of 300-mm semiconductor wafers is
complex and increasingly fully automated. Thus, the
overall cost of a wafer fabrication facility (fab) is currently
about $3 billion dollars [1]. One of the key strategies used
for maximizing profit in such cost-intensive environments is
to design the fab capacity accurately in order to enable high
equipment utilizations and efficient production operations. This
is the reason why capacity design studies must include every
possible detail about the factory operations, the equipment,
Manuscript received September 30, 2005; revised June 23, 2008. Current ver-
sion published November 05, 2008.
J. A. Jimenez is with the Ingram School of Engineering, Texas State
University-San Marcos, San Marcos, TX 78666-4616 USA (e-mail:
Jesus.Jimenez@txstate.edu).
G. T. Mackulak and J. W. Fowler are with the Industrial Engineering
Department, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287–5906 USA (e-mail:
Mackulak@asu.edu; John.Fowler@asu.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSM.2008.2005368
0894-6507/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE
the automated material handling systems (AMHS), and the
equipment–AMHS interactions [2].
Simulation has been actively used by fab managers for con-
ducting capacity analysis and AMHS design; it is probably the
only available tool capable of carrying out capacity analysis of
the entire fab effectively. However, it currently takes too long to
design, build, experiment, and analyze a sufficiently detailed ca-
pacity model of a wafer fab using available simulation tools. The
reason is that these models need to represent complex system
configurations, consisting of a large number of tools, multiple
product types, several processing routes (each consisting of hun-
dreds of operations), very complex process characteristics, etc.
Furthermore, model complexity grows significantly in propor-
tion to how accurately the AMHS is represented. In practice,
most simulations currently model the AMHS separately from
the fab capacity model so that simulations can be relatively man-
ageable and efficient.
The choice of the level of capacity and AMHS modeling de-
termines the speed and the level of predictive accuracy of the
simulations. If a model contains the details necessary to make
it an accurate representation of the wafer fab, it may require too
much execution time to allow the desired level of experimenta-
tion and scenario testing in the time allocated for this activity.
On the other hand, if a model contains enough details to make
it execute fast, it may lack the capability to generate predictions
that are accurate enough for effective decision-making. Model
builders are tasked with determining the right amounts of model
detail within the capacity and AMHS constructs to produce rea-
sonable answers within a given time bound.
The current available work in modeling does not provide suf-
ficient support for selecting the right levels of capacity/AMHS
detail. In a study outside the context of wafer fab modeling,
Lee and Fishwick [3] formulated an integer programming (IP)
model that seeks to find the optimal abstraction level for a
steam-powered propulsion ship model. In their IP formulation,
the resulting optimal abstraction level must satisfy constraints
that specify expected project deadlines and solution accuracy
requirements. Therefore, the proposed IP model requires pre-
dicted values of simulation CPU times and solution accuracy
at each abstraction level under consideration prior to the opti-
mization effort. Unfortunately, the application of this IP-based
approach for the optimization of the level of fab modeling is
currently impractical because there is a lack of tools that can
make fair predictions of CPU times and solution accuracy. This
is why practitioners have traditionally used empirical methods
to determine adequate levels of Fab detail.
JIMENEZ et al.: LEVELS OF CAPACITY AND MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM MODELING
The empirical methods for selecting the level of Fab detail
consist primarily of modeling guidelines and generic simula-
tion models. These methods often use model builder’s exper-
tise to identify a reduced amount of model detail that can meet
the study requirements given by the user. The problem is that
those empirical methods that allow the selection of the level of
capacity detail do not give sufficient information to be able to
choose the level of AMHS detail and vice versa. Refer to [4] and
[5] for studies supporting the selection of the level of capacity
detail and [6] and [7] for studies supporting the selection of the
level of AMHS details. Because the production of a 300-mm
wafer is now strongly dependent on automation, there is an in-
creasing need for incorporating the AMHS into current model
development methodologies.
This paper describes a method for classifying fab models
by the level of capacity detail, the level of AMHS detail, or
the combined level of capacity/AMHS detail. This classifica-
tion method is used ultimately as a framework to identify rec-
ommended levels of detail for a variety of problems found in
capacity/AMHS design. The development of this framework is
based primarily on an extensive literature review of past pub-
lished simulation studies for each of the proposed levels of de-
tail. We analyze the data gathered from the literature review as
to cluster studies with similar model characteristics in terms of
the factors that affect the level of fab detail (i.e., the planning
horizon of the problem, the performance measures, model ar-
chitecture, etc.). For each level of capacity/AMHS detail that
we propose, we then specify which fab components should be
modeled so that the user can accomplish desired study goals
efficiently.
Among the levels of capacity/AMHS that we identify in this
paper, we further differentiate between an integrated capacity/
AMHS model (i.e., a detail model) and a coupled capacity/
AMHS model (i.e., an abstract model). Practitioners use these
models to represent the entire wafer fab and the AMHS. This
paper presents a case study to illustrate the tradeoffs between
solution accuracy and computational efficiency that can occur
by using an abstract modeling approach over a detailed mod-
eling approach.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II describes our
method for classifying fab models. Section III provides a re-
view of the current published literature. Section IV presents
the details of the case study and compares in detail the perfor-
mance of integrated capacity/AMHS models and coupled ca-
pacity/AMHS models. Section V proposes the levels of detail
for specific simulation objectives. Finally, Section VI states the
conclusions of this paper.
II. GENERATING AND CLASSIFYING LEVELS OF
WAFER FAB DETAIL
A. Description of Levels of Wafer Fab Detail
If the fab model (i.e., a model representing the wafer fab) is
separated into the level of detail of the capacity component and
the level of detail of the AMHS component, four basic fab mod-
eling levels then result, as shown in Fig. 1. This figure describes
the goals, problem types, planning horizons, solution quality,
etc. for each of the levels of detail.
601
Quadrant 1: This represents a very crude modeling level
that produces fast rough-cut capacity analysis, but without any
AMHS details. These models are often spreadsheet modeled.
As Fig. 1 explains, spreadsheet models are widely popular in
capacity planning due to its ease of use and fast analysis time.
However, this method does not typically yield high predictive
accuracy.
The modeling level described in Quadrant 2 gives a suffi-
ciently detailed representation of the AMHS, almost to the point
of emulating the actual flow of products throughout the material
handling system. The problem is that these models offer little in-
formation about the production of wafers. As it is shown in the
diagram in Fig. 2(a), the details of the production operations are
replaced by “From–To” material flow tables, which define the
rates at which materials are moved between two locations in the
fab. The AMHS simulations have the following sequence: 1) a
wafer lot moving between processes arrives to a “source” lo-
cation (e.g., stocker, tool port); 2) the lot requests a vehicle and
waits to be picked up at the “source” location; 3) an assigned ve-
hicle travels to the “source” location to pick up the lot; 4) upon
vehicle arrival, the lot is transferred into the vehicle, which then
delivers the material to a “destination” location; and 5) the lot
is transferred into the “destination” location, where it is termi-
nated from the simulation.
The modeling level in Quadrant 3 mimics the activities
involved in the fabrication of wafers, i.e.: 1) wafers arrive to a
process; 2) wait in queue for a free machine, auxiliary resource,
etc.; 3) start the processing step; and 4) move to the next
processing step in sequence. In the model, the details of these
manufacturing activities are grouped by category (i.e., product
description, stations, process description, storages, “From–To”
AMHS delivery times, etc.). As it can be seen in the diagram
in Fig. 2(b), these simulations provide little or no information
about the AMHS.
Traditionally, the modeling level in Quadrant 2 has been
widely used in AMHS design, whereas the modeling level in
Quadrant 3 has been popular in fab capacity planning. Most
capacity planning simulations are currently run separately from
AMHS design simulations. Simulating the AMHS and capacity
separately often works well because the AMHS is designed to
not be the bottleneck of the fab [8]. Although this approach
helps maintain relatively manageable models, it is more dif-
ficult to accurately predict how the tool–AMHS interactions
affect the overall fab performance.
The need for predicting system performance at a higher level
is the reason why the detailed levels of capacity and AMHS
modeling have been combined. The models in Quadrant 4, re-
ferred herein as the capacity/AMHS model, is capable of repre-
senting and predicting the performance of the actual wafer fab
and the material handling system very accurately. As one would
expect, it also takes significantly longer time to simulate these
models.
The key to managing the size of capacity/AMHS models,
and thus the execution time, is to interface the capacity model
and the AMHS model efficiently. There are currently two
model interfaces. In coupled capacity/AMHS models, a ca-
pacity model and an AMHS model are simulated separately
and sequentially for the entire simulation and are then united
by passing performance measures between them. As shown
in the diagram in Fig. 2(c), the capacity model first generates
602 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 21, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008

Fig. 1. Fab modeling levels based on four different combinations of capacity and AMHS detail.

Fig. 2. Fab models at different levels of detail. (a) AMHS Model—Quadrant 2. (b) Capacity Model—Quadrant 3. (c) Coupled Capacity/AMHS Model—Quadrant
4. (d) Integrated Capacity/AMHS Model—Quadrant 4.

“From–To” material flow requirements and passes this data
into the AMHS model. The AMHS model then generates and
passes “From–To” delivery times into the capacity model. On
the other hand, in integrated capacity/AMHS models, a capacity
model and an AMHS model are combined into a single and
unified simulation framework. As shown in the diagram in
Fig. 2(d), the capacity model triggers the AMHS model to
execute the succeeding material handling activities that follow
after a wafer completes a given production process. The AMHS
model simulates the wafer delivery to the next process, and it
then triggers the necessary production events in the capacity
model once the lot is delivered.
JIMENEZ et al.: LEVELS OF CAPACITY AND MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM MODELING 603

TABLE I
FACTORS THAT AFFECT LEVEL OF CAPACITY/AMHS DETAIL

B. Development of Classification Method for Levels of
Fab Modeling
There have been attempts to classify Fab models based
on the increasing levels of capacity detail. For instance, the
classification scheme presented in [9] differentiates between
spreadsheets, queuing networks (QN), and simulation models.
However, as was stated earlier, schemes like this do not
offer sufficient information to be able to differentiate specific
AMHS modeling elements. For example, they are incapable
of differentiating models with simple transportation delay
times and detailed representations of the interactions between
wafer lots, reticles, and AMHS movements. We have ex-
tended the original concept of classification to the level of
detail of the capacity component and the level of detail of the
AMHS component.
The classification method by the level of capacity/AMHS de-
tail was defined by using a procedure similar to that used in [10].
In general terms, this procedure consists of two major steps: 1)
development of a preliminary classification method and 2) eval-
uation and modification of the preliminary method until valida-
tion issues are resolved.
As a part of the development of this classification scheme, we
identify the factors affecting the levels of capacity/AMHS de-
tail, as shown in Table I. These are: modeling tool , model
type , factory level , AMHS model level , capacity
elements , AMHS elements , study goals , and per-
formance metrics . We define additional subfactors within
and to further specify capacity and AMHS modeling
components.
Note that in studies with strategic goals, decision-making has
a long-term projected impact on the system (usually reflected
in more than six months). Examples of studies with strategic
goals include: finding number of tools, analyzing product mix,
conducting ramp-up analysis, identifying bottleneck worksta-
tions, designing the AMHS, among others. On the other hand,
in studies with operational goals, decision-making has a short-
term projected impact on the system (usually reflected in less
604 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 21, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008

TABLE II
PROPOSED DIFFERENTIATING FACTORS FOR CAPACITY MODEL CLASSIFICATION

than six months). Examples of operational goals include: de-
termining lot sequencing rules, evaluating scheduling rules, an-
alyzing production operations concerning batching, setups, re-
work, lot sizes, reducing cycle times, and others.
To develop the preliminary classification method, we
analyzed approximately 30 published studies from the liter-
ature which report primarily the applications of simulation
to capacity planning and AMHS design. We coded each of
these studies by using a multidimensional coding scheme
describing what factors and subfactors are considered in
the study. See the column labeled “Codes” in Table I for a
reference to the factor values. In our coding scheme, a digit
and a digit represent the values taken by factor
and subfactor , respectively. The collection of all digits
constitutes the code.
The following represents an example of how our reviewed
studies are coded: Shikalgar et al. (2003).- (3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 0,
1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 2).
In the example shown above, the first four numbers describe
a simulation study of the fab capacity at the factory level, but
without representing the AMHS. The following 13 numbers in
this code summarize the capacity components simulated, which
include batching, dispatching rules, hot lots, order release poli-
cies, downtimes, secondary resources, setups, tool dedication
policies, and setups. The following eight numbers indicate none
of the AMHS elements are modeled. Finally, the last two num-
bers suggest that the study goals are strategic and the perfor-
mance measure under study is cycle time.
The value of the proposed coding system is that cluster
analysis methodologies can be applied to discover groups of
studies whose levels of detail are similar. The idea is to define
the levels of capacity/AMHS detail within the preliminary
classification method according to the resulting groupings. The
development of the preliminary classification method is ac-
complished through the following Agglomerative Hierarchical
Clustering Algorithm [11].
1) Initialization: Start with groups, each containing one
observation. An observation contains initially an individual
simulation study. Therefore, if there are 30 studies, there
are also groups. The factors affecting the level
of detail are the input variables to the analysis, thus each
observation has dimensions, where is the total
number of factors and subfactors. Groupings are formed on
the basis of similarities between input variables. As new
groups are formed, observations may contain more than
one study.
JIMENEZ et al.: LEVELS OF CAPACITY AND MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM MODELING 605

2) Computation of similarity matrix: An symmetric TABLE III

matrix is set up to indicate the similarity between pairs of PROPOSED DIFFERENTIATING FACTORS FOR AMHS MODEL CLASSIFICATION
groups. The similarity between two groups, say and
, is given by the Euclidean distance between their
-dimensional observations.
3) Combination of most similar groups in the similarity ma-
trix (i.e., Single Linkage Method): The pair of groups with
the minimum Euclidean distance is selected from the simi-
larity matrix. These groups are combined into a new group.
The similarity matrix is updated by deleting the records for
the selected groups and by adding a row and column indi-
cating the distances between the newly formed group and
the remaining groups.
4) Stopping rule: Steps 2 and 3 are repeated until an adequate
grouping of studies is formed. User judgment is required
to interpret the levels of capacity/AMHS detail from the
resulting groupings. The maximum number of repetitions
is times, which indicates that all studies will be in a
single group after the algorithm stops.
A clustering analysis is done by using the set of factors
, and (i.e., factors strongly related to the
levels of capacity detail). A second clustering analysis is done
by using the set of factors , and (i.e., factors
related to the level of AMHS detail). Conducting two separate
clustering analyses enables the development of a preliminary
classification scheme with an emphasis on a combined level of
capacity/AMHS detail, as proposed in Fig. 1. The results from
these clustering analyses suggest that the preliminary classifi-
cation method should consist of six levels of capacity detail,
six levels of AMHS detail, and two levels of capacity/AMHS
detail.
To assure the accuracy of the final method of classification by
the level of detail, further validation and modification of the pre-
liminary method is required. The modification process is done Winter Simulation Conference, among others. This literature
by an analysis of an additional set of 20 studies as follows. review has been restricted to publications dating from 1990 to
1) Individual studies are coded using our system for capacity/ 2005. The reason for this is because the applications of AMHS
AMHS model characteristics. to wafer fabs proliferated during this time period.
2) An individual study is assigned into one of the levels of
detail. If the study does not fit in an existing category, a
new level of detail is created to represent this model. III. RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW
Based on this validation analysis, we determined that the final
classification scheme consists of six levels of capacity detail, six A. Current State of Literature
levels of AMHS detail, and four levels of capacity/AMHS de-
A comprehensive list of our reviewed studies as classified
tail. The levels of capacity detail and the levels of AMHS de-
with our classification method by level of capacity/AMHS detail
tail are specified in Tables II and III, respectively. We used nu-
can be found in [13]. A summary of this information is presented
merical identifiers (i.e., 1-2-3-4-5-6) to represent the increasing
in Table IV. The numbers within each cell are the numbers of
levels of capacity detail, and alphanumerical identifiers (i.e.,
A-B-C-D-E-F) to represent the increasing levels of AMHS de- published articles fitting our classification scheme. This table is
tail. The levels of capacity/AMHS detail can be divided pri- not intended to represent every semiconductor manufacturing
marily into two groups, one representing integrated models and study published but instead to be a representative sample. In
the other representing coupled models. The factors shown in particular, many studies are available on pure capacity models
these tables represent the proposed framework for classifying (column in Quadrant 3) that we elected not to include in our
fab models by level of detail. classification since they provided little additional information.
The major publications that we referenced for this study A more comprehensive list of articles related to pure capacity
include the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR models can be found in [14] and [15].
MANUFACTURING, IIE Transactions, International Journal Some cells in Quadrant 4 contain two numbers to differentiate
of Production Research, Simulation, Robotics & Computer-In- between the model interfaces. The first number corresponds to
tegrated Manufacturing, and Semiconductor International. We the number of publications using the integrated interface, and
also referenced conference proceedings from the IEEE/SEMI the second number corresponds to those publications using the
Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference and the coupled interface.
606 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 21, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008

TABLE IV
CURRENT STATE OF LITERATURE ACCORDING TO CLASSIFICATION METHOD BY LEVEL OF CAPACITY AND AMHS DETAIL (I.E., 1-2-3-4-5-6 STANDS FOR
LEVELS OF CAPACITY DETAIL SHOWN IN TABLE II, AND A-B-C-D-E-F STANDS FOR LEVEL OF AMHS DETAIL SHOWN IN TABLE III)

What Table IV demonstrates is a lack for tools that allow
for the combination of detailed capacity models with detailed
AMHS models as illustrated by the small number of studies in
Quadrant 4. The major deterrents for such models are the large
amount of CPU time needed to get statistically usable results
and the difficulty in creating these detailed models.
The remaining part of this section presents a literature review
associated with and organized according to increasing levels of
capacity and AMHS detail. Our review seeks to explain, in gen-
eral terms, the relevant model characteristics that can potentially
affect the selection of the level of detail.
In Table IV, we show the current state of the literature ac-
cording to the classification method by level of capacity and
AMHS detail (i.e., 1-2-3-4-5-6 stands for the levels of capacity
detail shown in Table II, and A-B-C-D-E-F stands for the levels
of AMHS detail shown in Table III).
B. Spreadsheet Capacity Models
Spreadsheet models (classified as ) provide a static esti-
mation of the capacity of the fab by using performance metrics
such as throughput and equipment efficiency. The mathematical
models used within spreadsheets can be very accurate for some
capacity loss agents, such as downtimes, yields, and setups [5].
Yet, capacity predictions tend to be inflated because other more
complex capacity loss agents are modeled very crudely (as was
shown in [9] and [16]).
Despite their inaccuracy, spreadsheets are popular because
they provide fast computing times, ease of use, and ease of main-
tenance [3]. This tool is often the starting point for a more com-
plex fab modeling effort. In application, spreadsheets are often
used in strategic studies, especially if the time window allocated
for the project is small. In particular, these models help deter-
mine the adequate number of workstations in the fab (for ex-
ample, see [17]–[19]).
C. Queuing Network Models (QN)
Queuing network models (classified as ) estimate the fab
capacity by using time-dependent performance measures such
as cycle time and work-in-progress (WIP). Unlike spreadsheets,
QN models are capable of representing the variability in the
system. QN models are also computational efficient. However,
the capacity predictions generated with QN models can be only
used as approximations because queuing models cannot capture
the fab complexities accurately. QN models have been used in
strategic studies, especially for rough-cut capacity analysis (for
example, see [20]) and for optimizing the equipment portfolio
(for example, see [21] and [22]).
It is very unlikely that either spreadsheets or QN models can
account for the effects of the material handling system on ca-
pacity, as the AMHS is very dynamic and complex. This can
be noted by the lack of studies in this area, e.g., levels 2B-2E,
3B-3E.
D. Reduced Simulation-Based Capacity (RSC) Models
RSC models (classified as ) study high-utilized worksta-
tions without having to model the entire fab in detail. The work-
JIMENEZ et al.: LEVELS OF CAPACITY AND MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM MODELING
stations that add little value to total cycle time are reduced to the
lowest possible detail without losing too much model accuracy.
Thus, RSC models generate very accurate predictions of the CT
within the workstation that is modeled in detail. In general, RSC
simulations execute relatively fast, as was shown in [23]. They
are also easier to update and provide a starting point for building
more sophisticated simulation models [24]. In application, RSC
models are used in operational studies, especially for the anal-
ysis of system bottlenecks. Most of the related literature deals
with how to abstract unimportant workstations (for example, see
[23] and [25]–[27]).
E. Basic Simulation-Based Capacity (BSC) Models
BSC models (classified as ) simulate the basic and the
most representative capacity components, e.g., batching, setups,
downtimes, dispatching rules, and rework. Modeling the system
core with such constructs enables relatively accurate predictions
of the entire fab capacity, provided that the AMHS does not
cause any significant loss in capacity. However, the cycle time
will be generally underestimated, especially if these estimations
are compared to those produced by the capacity/AMHS model.
BSC models have traditionally supported the configuration and
scheduling of production processes (for example, see [28]–[30],
and [31]) and also the strategic analysis of wafer fabs (for ex-
ample, see [32] and [33]).
F. Full Simulation-Based Capacity (FSC) Models
FSC models (classified as ) have the necessary details to
virtually emulate the actual fab’s production operations, thus
they can predict capacity accurately. The use is suggested for
configuring complex production processes, such as those pro-
cesses involving complicated batching policies, lot sequencing
rules, time-bound process sequences, sequence-dependent
setups, reticles, etc. (for example, see [34]–[37], and [38]).
The downside is the significant amount of time required to
develop, validate, execute, analyze, and maintain these models.
However, the time to do this is significantly less than the times
required for the capacity/AMHS model.
G. Capacity Models With AMHS Time Delays
At this level of detail, the capacity model includes a delay
block to account for the transfer time of wafers between pro-
cesses. These models help address the same goals as those ad-
dressed by capacity models without the AMHS construct but
with higher solution quality and about the same computational
effort. Experiments have shown that the CT predictions can be
near to the predictions produced by the capacity/AMHS model
provided that the “From–To” delivery times are represented ac-
curately [39].
The supply of vehicles within a capacity model with AMHS
time delays can be assumed to be limited (i.e., level of detail
). An assumption like this implies that data such as
the time that lots spent waiting to be picked up by free vehicles
has to be specified in the model. The problem with assuming
a limited supply of vehicles is that lot-waiting time for vehi-
cles can only be computed crudely through a static model, so
model accuracy will suffer. Refer to [40] and [41] for exam-
ples of models within this level of detail. On the other hand, if
607
the supply of AMHS vehicles is assumed infinite (i.e., level of
detail ), the lot waiting time for vehicles can be ig-
nored. Thus, this approach helps reduce the simulation effort
because “From–To” delivery times can be calculated easily, i.e.,
by computing delivery times as a function of distances between
locations and the speed of the vehicles. Using such simple esti-
mation of delivery time will result in very optimistic predictions
of cycle time, which can then be used as lower bounds on the
actual fab cycle times.
The use of RSC models with AMHS time delays (classified
as ) has also been reported. In particular, they are used for
analyzing the operations of bottleneck workstations and for an-
alyzing the fab and AMHS very crudely [42].
H. AMHS Models
AMHS models measure key performance measures such as
transport times, lot-waiting times for free vehicles, delivery
times, stocker robot utilization, vehicle utilization, vehicle lost
capacity, etc. AMHS models execute very slowly. However,
these models produce quality predictions provided that the
“From–To” material flow requirements are represented accu-
rately [39]. Historical data or capacity models can be used to
estimate material flow requirements, yet model accuracy suffers
as these tools can only partially explain the AMHS dynamics
[43]. Previous experimentation has also demonstrated that
quality of prediction depends strongly on modeling the vari-
ability of the material flow requirements accurately by using
probability distributions explaining large variance components,
e.g., hyper-exponential distribution [44].
AMHS models (i.e., models) are used extensively
for AMHS design. More specifically, these models are used in
the design of AMHS layout (for example, see [8], [45], [46],
and [47]), the analysis of the hallway transportation system (for
example, see [7], [44], [48], and [49]), determination of vehicle
and storage capacities (for example, see [50] and [51]), anal-
ysis of transportation technology (for example, see [52]), evalu-
ation of vehicle control algorithms (for example, see [53]–[55]),
and the analysis of AMHS delivery paradigms (for example, see
[56]–[58]), among others.
I. RSC/Intra-Bay AMHS Models
RSC models with intra-bay AMHS models (classified as )
help analyze an entire processing area within the fab and its
intra-bay AMHS. These models provide a detailed analysis of
the factors affecting the tools–AMHS interactions (e.g., vehicle
capacity, tool buffer capacity, process area layout, etc.), so they
are therefore used widely in intra-bay AMHS design (for ex-
ample, see [59] and [60]). Unfortunately, up to this point, it is
unclear whether the time gains by using RSC/Intra-bay AMHS
models can offset the loss in predictive quality caused by the in-
accurate representations of the rest of the factory.
J. Capacity/AMHS Models
Capacity/AMHS models (level of detail ) contain
detailed modeling constructs for the production operations, the
production equipment, and the AMHS. The performance pre-
dictions produced by these models can be assumed to be repre-
sentative of the actual system performance, thus managers can
608 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 21, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008
potentially make more effective decisions. These models enable
higher level and integrated analysis of the equipment-AMHS
interactions [61]. For example, the contributions of inter-bay
AMHS technology on decreasing cycle time, delivery time, and
costs were analyzed in [62] and [63]. In addition, the effect of
lot sizes and priority lots on decreasing AMHS delivery times
was analyzed in [64].
The problem is that it takes too long to simulate and an-
alyze all of the desired system configurations within an inte-
grated model. The total computational time of an integrated ca-
pacity/AMHS model is proportional to the execution time of the
capacity model, the execution time of the AMHS model, and a
large overhead (i.e., time to manage longer simulation lists, time
to synchronize capacity model and AMHS model, etc.). To re-
duce the overhead times practitioners have proposed coupling a
capacity model with AMHS time delays and an AMHS model.
Experiments have shown that more computational efficient pre-
dictions are generated by coupling these two abstract models
(for example, see [1] and [65]). However, their validity depends
on using system assumptions that are consistent in both models,
thus each simulation module will probably need recalibration if
assumptions change. Simulation studies using coupled models
include [62], [65], and [66].
IV. ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY/AMHS MODELS
A. Description of Simulation Models
In this section, we will attempt to demonstrate via a sim-
ulation-based abstracting methodology that coupled capacity/
AMHS models can produce system predictions that are not sta-
tistically differentiable from those produced by the integrated
capacity/AMHS models. Thus, coupled models work more ef-
fectively in simulation studies with fixed budget and short anal-
ysis times, as their computational times are significantly lower
than those observed by executing the detailed integrated models.
Our objective in creating this methodology is to develop a fast
and accurate surrogate for a fully integrated capacity/AMHS fab
simulation model. It has been proposed that in many cases a
queuing approximation might be a likely alternative. While we
believe a queuing model might be capable of accurately pre-
dicting the cycle time of a capacity simulation, and that a similar
queuing approximation might also be developed for the AMHS
system, we do not see at this time how these two approximations
could be combined into an accurate predictor of a fully detailed
fab simulation model. This paper therefore restricts the method-
ological development to the improvement of simulation-based
analysis methods.
To carry out this experimentation, we used an existing simu-
lation model of a 300-mm wafer fab [67]; this model is currently
available at the SEMATECH website (www.sematech.org). The
SEMATECH 300-mm Fab Model consists of a capacity model
built in AutoSched AP [68] and an AMHS model built in Au-
toMod [69].
The capacity model includes ten lot types with each lot con-
taining 25 wafers. The processing route consists of approxi-
mately 316 operations. There are 60 workstations, each work-
station consisting of identical machines operating in parallel.
Interruptions due to breakdowns and preventive maintenance
are defined for these workstations. The time between failures
(TBF) and time to repair (TTR) are exponentially distributed.
Batching, setups, and reticles are also defined for the required
workstations. For planning purposes, the fab operates 24 hours
per day, 365 days per year. Lots are released at a constant rate.
The time between lot releases is deterministic.
The AMHS model represents the machines in a 24-bay
layout. There are two stockers with a capacity of 800 lots for
each bay, each consisting of two input–output ports. There is a
stocker robot for each stocker. There is one main transportation
loop responsible for the inter-bay AMHS and 24 bay loops
responsible for the intra-bay AMHS. In addition, there is one
transportation loop dedicated to deliver reticles. Each bay has
24 tool positions, each consisting of two I/O ports. Number,
speed, loading times, unloading times, TTR, and TBF are
defined for the vehicles in each transportation loop.
Users have the choice to run the SEMATECH Fab Model in
one of the following modes.
1) As a separate AutoSched AP (ASAP) Capacity Model.
2) As a separate AutoMod AMHS Model.
3) As a single Integrated Model consisting of the ASAP
Capacity Model and the AutoMod AMHS Model. These
models are combined by using Brook’s Model Commu-
nication Module; see [70] for the details on the Model
Communication Module (MCM).
4) As two Coupled Models consisting of the ASAP Model
and the AutoMod Model. These models are united by using
“From–To” Tables.
The coupling of ASAP/AutoMod models is achieved through
the following process.
1) pilot runs are done with a pure capacity model (i.e.,
a model without any AMHS simulation components) to
approximate the “From–To” number of wafer moves.
2) The resulting “From–To” Table with the number of moves
is fed into the AMHS Model.
3) pilot runs are done with the AMHS Model to produce
“From–To” delivery times.
4) The resulting “From–To” Delivery Time Table is input into
a delay simulation module within ASAP to simulate the
AMHS activities as a black box. This forms the abstract
coupled model.
In this paper, pilot runs. Each “From–To” Table
is thus based on the average of the five replications. It is as-
sumed that both the number of moves and the delivery times
are not stochastic, so the use of probability distributions is un-
necessary. This assumption works effectively for the parameter
settings used in this case study, but it could change if the coupled
model is run with parameters that produce greater variability in
the From–To data.
B. Experimentation and Analysis
To illustrate the accuracy and efficiency of abstract cou-
pled models in relation to the detailed integrated models, we
produced Cycle Time-Throughput (CT-TH) Curves for the
system described above. A CT-TH curve is a tool often used by
managers to determine the projected cycle time for a desired
throughput level. In these curves, throughput (TH) is often
represented in terms of bottleneck capacity. The relationship
between bottleneck capacity and TH is empirically determined
by running simulations at different points along the curve and
JIMENEZ et al.: LEVELS OF CAPACITY AND MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM MODELING
Fig. 3. Projected fab cycle times estimated by two different modeling methods.
noting utilizations of all equipment. Refer to [71] for more
details concerning CT-TH curves.
We produced cycle time (CT) estimates at the design points
% % % and % (i.e., percent capacity of the
system bottleneck that will generate a desired throughput
level). Each CT point is based on ten independent replications
of 100 simulation days; for each run, we cleared statistics after
the first 50 days to eliminate initialization bias. The results of
these simulations are depicted in Fig. 3. The points with the
symbol were generated from simulation experiments using the
integrated model, whereas the points with the symbol were
generated from simulation experiments using a coupled model.
Table V shows the relative difference and the 95% confidence
intervals of the mean difference between the CT estimates
produced by the coupled and integrated models (see [72] for
the technical details concerning confidence intervals).
Our results suggest that the coupled model and the integrated
model can produce cycle time estimations that are almost iden-
tical. Because the abstraction components used within coupled
capacity/AMHS models (i.e., “From–To” delivery times) will
typically underestimate system variability, the loss in predictive
accuracy observed by using this more abstract modeling tech-
nique increases slightly as the bottleneck utilization approaches
full capacity (i.e., from 0.09% at the 70% point to 0.59% at the
97% point). However, despite such small loss of accuracy, the
95% confidence intervals indicate that we cannot statistically
differentiate between coupled models and integrated models at
any of the four design points.
609
Table V also shows the computational time in seconds that
coupled models and integrated models take to run one simula-
tion replication of 100 simulation days. These results suggest
that the coupled capacity/AMHS models executes approxi-
mately 98% faster in relation to the integrated capacity/AMHS
model (i.e., column f in Table V). The computational time
gained by using this simulation method can significantly ex-
tend the capabilities of the experimentation. For instance, if
a simulation project is allocated with the time and budget to
estimate one point of the CT-TH curve with the integrated
capacity/AMHS model, then we could estimate between 65
to 87 points (i.e., column g in Table V) using the coupled
capacity/AMHS model within the same budget and time re-
quirements. With this larger experimental capacity, we could
analyze more system configurations by building more CT-TH
curves, or we could increase the accuracy of the estimates by
increasing the number of replications for each data point in the
curve.
The accuracy and computational efficiency observed in this
case study are specific to the SEMATECH Fab Model described
above. However, the SEMATECH Fab Model is a reasonably
accurate model of a somewhat simplified, generic fab and even
though the results do not exactly represent other fab models,
similar levels of accuracy and efficiency are expected if the pro-
posed procedures for coupling capacity/AMHS models are ap-
plied. In fact, more realistic fab models would contain greater
complication and applying our approach should therefore pro-
vide even greater time reductions.
610 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 21, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008

TABLE V
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS COMPARING ACCURACY AND COMPUTATIONAL EFFICIENCY BETWEEN COUPLED MODELS AND INTEGRATED MODELS

Fig. 4. Recommended levels of modeling for integrated capacity analysis and AMHS design.

In general, the coupling modeling procedure can be applied
effectively to any high-volume manufacturing system with an
AMHS. It would be impractical to model the capacity system
separately from the AMHS if the number of AMHS requests
is nominal, as in low-volume manufacturing systems. However,
the application of coupled models becomes significant as the
increase of AMHS transactions affects model complexity and
thus computational time.
The efficiency improvements obtained with the coupled
model are not exclusive to Brook’s ASAP and AutoMod. The
coupled modeling procedure could be easily implemented in
other simulation languages since the principle behind it is to
abstract CPU intensive modeling components into efficient and
accurate simulation modules that can be easily incorporated
into existing fab models.
V. RECOMMENDED LEVELS OF WAFER FAB MODELING
It can be assumed that refereed articles published in the liter-
ature have been carefully reviewed in terms of the capability
of the simulation model to accomplish the underlying study
goals efficiently and accurately. If this is the case, the pub-
lished literature becomes a reliable source for determining the
best matching level of capacity and AMHS modeling for typical
semiconductor wafer fab problems.
JIMENEZ et al.: LEVELS OF CAPACITY AND MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM MODELING
Fig. 5. Recommended levels of modeling for pure capacity analysis.
We summarized the information provided by our literature
review into the diagrams shown in Figs. 4 and 5. These flow di-
agrams present a series of questions that can be used to identify
the requirements of the simulation study (i.e., questions are in-
side boxes with solid borders). These questions are followed by
a recommended level of capacity and AMHS detail fitting the
identified study (i.e., recommended levels of detail are inside
boxes with dotted borders).
The diagram in Fig. 4 attempts to recommend the levels of
detail within the context of capacity analysis and AMHS de-
sign. As was demonstrated earlier in this paper, coupled ca-
pacity/AMHS models will be preferred in studies with fixed
budget and time constraints because they offer the same ac-
curacy and precision than detailed integrated models, but with
greater computational efficiency. This means that using cou-
pled capacity/AMHS models allow for more experimentation
and analysis within the time allocated for the study. However,
coupled capacity/AMHS models are not capable of estimating
any measures describing the performance of AMHS (i.e., de-
livery times, AMHS utilizations, traffic congestion, etc.). For
such cases, the use of detailed AMHS models is recommended.
Experimentation has demonstrated that AMHS models provide
results that are near to the results produced by the integrated ca-
pacity/AMHS model and the gain in computational time is sig-
nificant (see [1] for more details). On the other hand, the inte-
grated capacity/AMHS models should be used over abstractions
whenever the study demands greater precision and accuracy, and
at the same time, the budget and time allocated to carry out the
analysis are nearly unlimited.
The diagram in Fig. 5 depicts the recommended levels of de-
tail in the context of a pure capacity analysis (i.e., the AMHS is
611
not modeled). For studies seeking rough approximations (e.g.,
within 25% of the actual value) and little computational time
(e.g., less than an hour), the literature recommends using spread-
sheet models if throughput, equipment utilization, availability,
etc., will be measured, or QN models if cycle time and WIP
need to be estimated. On the other hand, BSC models should
be used instead if higher quality predictions are sought. Exper-
imentation has shown that in some problem instances pure ca-
pacity models produce results that are approximately 15% less
accurate than the integrated capacity/AMHS model (see [13] for
more details). In some cases, the accuracy of BSC models is
not always sufficient to estimate production performance, espe-
cially when the fab capacity is constrained by complex manufac-
turing processes (i.e., processes involving reticles, complicated
batching policies, time-bound production sequences, etc.). For
such complex system conditions, the use of FSC models is rec-
ommended, as this level of detail represents the system more
accurately.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we described a method for classifying wafer
fab models by their level of model detail. The six levels of
detail of the capacity construct (i.e., material flow requirements,
spreadsheet models, queuing network models, RSC models,
BSC models, FSC models) and the six levels of detail of the
AMHS construct (i.e., no AMHS elements, AMHS delay times
with limited supply of AMHS vehicles, AMHS times with
unlimited supply of AMHS vehicles, AMHS models without
vehicle interference, AMHS models with vehicle interference,
full AMHS model) that we proposed were developed from past
published simulation studies. While it was designed for wafer
612 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 21, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008
fab systems, our classification framework by the level of detail
can be applied in a more general context to other manufacturing
settings, especially those that use any sort of AMHS.
An extensive literature review effort indicates that sufficiently
detailed fab models have not been frequently used due to the
significant amount of time that it takes to run these models.
This review also indicates that the use of fab model abstrac-
tions has been also very limited. The case study presented in
this paper demonstrated that working with a coupled capacity/
AMHS model generated predictions that are not statistically dif-
ferent than those generated by a detailed integrated capacity/
AMHS model, and the savings in computational time are very
significant. Thus, coupled models have been shown to be poten-
tially efficient and accurate. It is our hope that the results ob-
tained in this paper motivate further the development and use of
abstraction methodologies.
For future work, we plan to use the classification method by
the level of capacity/AMHS detail in a methodology that will
help model builders find an optimal abstraction level. As was
discussed in [3], this work requires the development of an IP
model using binary decision variables to represent whether a
level of capacity/AMHS detail is selected. The objective func-
tion will minimize the total loss in result accuracy subject to
constraints specifying expected project deadlines. The key for
this research is to create the algorithms that will predict sim-
ulation CPU times and solution accuracy for each level of fab
detail under consideration. With an optimal level of detail, it will
hopefully take less time to build and execute fab models.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Shelton, “Fabless vision,” Future Fab Int. vol. 14, Nov.
2003 [Online]. Available: http://www.future-fab.com/docu-
ments.asp?grID=208&d_ID=1635#, [Online]. Available:
[2] J. S. Pettinato, “An ITRS view on future factory integration, de-
sign, and capabilities,” Future Fab Int. vol. 16, Feb. 2004 [Online].
Available: http://www.future-fab.com/documents.asp?d_ID=3016,
[Online]. Available:
[3] K. Lee and P. A. Fishwick, “OOPM/RT: A multimodeling method-
ology for real-time simulation,” ACM Trans. Modeling and Computer
Simulation, vol. 9, pp. 141–170, Apr. 1999.
[4] F. Chance, J. K. Robinson, and J. W. Fowler, “Supporting manufac-
turing with simulation: Model design, development, and deployment,”
in Proc. 1996 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 114–121.
[5] J. Robinson, J. Fowler, and E. Neacy, Capacity loss factors in semicon-
ductor manufacturing. FabTime CA, Mar. 2003 [Online]. Available:
http://www.fabtime.com/files/CapPlan.pdf, [Online]. Available:
[6] G. Nadoli and D. Pillai, “Simulation in automated material handling
systems design for semiconductor manufacturing,” in Proc. 1994
Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 892–899.
[7] G. T. Mackulak, F. P. Lawrence, and T. Colvin, “Effective simulation
model reuse: A case study for AMHS modeling,” in Proc. 1998 Winter
Simulation Conf., pp. 979–984.
[8] G. T. Mackulak and P. Savory, “A simulation-based experiment for
comparing AMHS performance in a semiconductor fabrication fa-
cility,” IEEE Trans. Semiconduct. Manuf., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 273–280,
Aug. 2001.
[9] M. Baudin, V. Mehrotra, B. Tullis, D. Yeaman, and R. A. Hughes,
“From spreadsheets to simulations: A comparison of analysis methods
for IC manufacturing performance,” in Proc. 1992 IEEE/SEMI Int.
Semiconduct. Manuf. Science Symp., pp. 94–99.
[10] N. E. Ozdemirel, G. T. Mackulak, and J. K. Cochran, “A group tech-
nology classification and coding scheme for discrete manufacturing
simulation models,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 31, pp. 579–601, 1993.
[11] R. A. Johnson and D. W. Wichern, Applied Multivariate Statistical
Analysis, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall, 2002, pp.
679–694.
[12] R. Uzsoy, C. Y. Lee, and L. A. Martín-Vega, “A review of production
planning and scheduling models in the semiconductor industry part I:
System characteristics, performance evaluation and production plan-
ning,” IEE Trans., vol. 24, pp. 47–60, Sep. 1992.
[13] J. Jimenez, Simulation Modeling Levels to Support Integrated Capacity
and AMHS Decision Making in Semiconductor Wafer Fabs.. Tempe:
Arizona State Univ., to be published.
[14] F. Chance and J. Robinson, FabTime’s Bibliography. FabTime. , CA,
2005 [Online]. Available: http://www.fabtime.com/bibliogr.shtml,
[Online]. Available:
[15] J. W. Fowler, J. K. Cochran, and S. M. Horng, in Abstract MASMLAB
Bibliography Website. Arizona State Univ., Tempe, AZ, May 2003 [On-
line]. Available: http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/Biblio.html, [On-
line]. Available:
[16] S. S. Johal, “Non-linearity and randomness in a semiconductor wafer
fab,” in Proc. 1996 IEEE/SEMI Adv. Semiconductor Manufacturing
Conf., pp. 17–22.
[17] J. D. Witte, “Using capacity modeling techniques in semiconductor
manufacturing,” in Proc. 1996 IEEE/SEMI Adv. Semiconductor Man-
ufacturing Conf., pp. 31–35.
[18] J. Neudorff, “Static capacity analysis using microsoft visual basic,” in
Proc. Int. Conf. Semiconductor Manufacturing Oper. Modeling and
Simulation, 1999, pp. 207–212.
[19] Y.-C. Chou and R.-C. You, “A resource portfolio planning method-
ology for semiconductor manufacturing,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.,
vol. 18, pp. 12–19, 2001.
[20] H. Chen, J. M. Harrison, A. Mandelbaum, A. V. Ackere, and L. M.
Wein, “Empirical evaluation for a semiconductor manufacturing wafer
fabrication,” Oper. Res., vol. 36, pp. 202–215, Mar.-Apr. 1988.
[21] D. P. Connors, G. E. Feigin, and D. D. Yao, “A queuing network
model for semiconductor manufacturing,” IEEE Trans. Semicond.
Manuf., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 412–427, Aug. 1996.
[22] W. J. Hopp, M. L. Spearman, S. Chayet, K. L. Donohue, and E. S.
Gel, “Using an optimized queuing network model to support wafer fab
design,” IIE Trans., vol. 34, pp. 119–130, 2002.
[23] Y. F. Hung and R. C. Leachman, “Reduced simulation models of wafer
fabrication facilities,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 37, pp. 2685–2701, 1999.
[24] Y. Shen, “Robust capacity modeling in semiconductor manu-
facturing,” Semiconduct. Intl. Jul. 2002 [Online]. Available:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/semiconductor/index.asp?layout=ar-
ticle&articleid=CA231596&pubdate=7/1/2002&spacedesc=webex,
[Online]. Available:
[25] O. Rose, “WIP evolution of a semiconductor factory after a bottleneck
workcenter breakdown,” in Proc. 1998 Winter Simulation Conf., pp.
997–1003.
[26] O. Rose, “Estimation of the cycle time distribution of a wafer fab by a
simple model,” in Proc. 1999 SMOMS, pp. 133–138.
[27] O. Rose, “Why do simple wafer fab models fail in certain scenarios?,”
in Proc. 2000 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 1481–1490.
[28] L. M. Wein, “Scheduling semiconductor wafer fabrication,” IEEE
Trans. Semicond. Manuf. , vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 115–130, Aug. 1988.
[29] S. Brown, F. Chance, J. W. Fowler, and J. Robinson, “A centralized
approach to factory simulation,” Fut. Fab Int., vol. 1, pp. 83–86, 1997.
[30] J. W. Fowler, S. Brown, H. Gold, and A. Shoeming, “Measurable im-
provements in cycle-time-constrained capacity,” in Proc. 1997 IEEE/
UCS/SEMI Int. Symp. Semiconductor Manufacturing, pp. 21–24.
[31] M. Janakiram and J. R. Morrison, “Capacity planning and study of
scheduling policies using simulation at Motorola’s ACT fab,” in Proc.
Int. Conf. Semiconductor Manufacturing Oper. Modeling Simulation,
1999, pp. 201–206.
[32] N. S. Grewal, T. M. Wulf, A. C. Bruska, and J. K. Robinson, “Inte-
grating targeted cycle time reduction into the capital planning process,”
in Proc. 1998 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 1005–1010.
[33] R. Stafford and J. Rimington, “Use of goal seeking for capacity analysis
with semiconductor simulation models,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Semicon-
ductor Manufacturing Oper. Modeling Simulation, 1999, pp. 213–218.
[34] N. S. Grewal, T. M. Wulf, A. C. Bruska, and J. K. Robinson, “Val-
idating simulation model cycle time at Seagate technology,” in Proc.
1999 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 843–849.
[35] L. Mönch, M. Prause, and V. Schmalfuss, “Simulation-based solution
of load-balancing problems in the photolithography area of a semi-
conductor wafer fabrication facility,” in Proc. 2001 Winter Simulation
Conf., pp. 1170–1177.
[36] L. Mönch, O. Rose, and R. Sturm, “A simulation framework for the per-
formance assessment of shop-floor control systems,” Simulation, vol.
79, pp. 163–170, Mar. 2003.
[37] L. W. Schruben and T. M. Roeder, “Fast simulations of large-scale
highly congested systems,” Simulation, vol. 79, pp. 115–125, Mar.
2003.
[38] S. Shikalgar, D. Fronckowiak, and E. MacNair, “Application of cluster
tool modeling to a 300 mm fab simulation,” in Proc. 2003 Winter Sim-
ulation Conf., pp. 1394–1397.
[39] N. G. Pierce and R. Stafford, “Simulating AMHS performance for
semiconductor wafer fabrication,” in Proc. 1995 Int. Symp. Semicon-
ductor Manufacturing, pp. 165–170.
[40] R. Wright, C. Cunningham, K. Benhayoune, E. Campbell, V. Swami-
nathan, and R. White, “300 mm factory layout and automated materials
handling,” Solid State Technol., vol. 42, pp. 35–42, Dec. 1999.
JIMENEZ et al.: LEVELS OF CAPACITY AND MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM MODELING
[41] J. Hunter, D. Delp, D. Collins, and J. Si, “Understanding a semicon-
ductor process using a full-scale model,” IIE Trans. Semiconduct.
Manuf., vol. 15, pp. 285–289, May 2002.
[42] A. Peikert, S. Brown, and J. Thoma, “A rapid modeling technique
for measurable improvements in factory performance,” in Proc. 1998
Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 1011–1015.
[43] S. Wu, J. Rayter, I. Paprotny, G. T. Mackulak, and J. Yngve, “Increasing
first pass accuracy of AMHS simulation output using legacy data,” in
Proc. 1999 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 784–789.
[44] S. Sokhan-Sanj, G. Gaxiola, G. T. Mackulak, and F. B. Malmgren, “A
comparison of the exponential and the hyperexponential distributions
for modeling move requests in a semiconductor fab,” in Proc. 1999
Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 774–778.
[45] T. D. Colvin and G. T. Mackulak, “A concurrent engineering approach
for semiconductor handling system design: A case study,” in Proc. Int.
Conf. Ind. Eng. Applications, 1997, pp. 123–128.
[46] T. D. Colvin, F. P. Lawrence, and G. T. Mackulak, “Soft simulation
crucial for new automated fab decisions,” Solid State Technol., vol. 41,
pp. 161–168, Jun. 1998.
[47] T. D. Colvin, A. R. Jones, L. S. Hennessy, and G. T. Mackulak, “Fab
design for 300 mm wafer handling,” Eur. Semiconduct., pp. 25–27,
May 1998.
[48] G. Nadoli and M. Rangaswami, “An integrated modeling methodology
for material handling systems design,” in Proc. 1993 Winter Simulation
Conf., pp. 785–789.
[49] I. Paprotny, W. Zhao, and G. T. Mackulak, “Reducing model creation
cycle time by automated conversion of a CAD AMHS layout,” in Proc.
1999 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 779–783.
[50] G. Cardarelli and P. M. Pelagagge, “Simulation tool for design and
management optimization of automated interbay material handling and
storage systems for large wafer fabs,” IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf.,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 44–49, Feb. 1995.
[51] G. Cardarelli, P. M. Pelagagge, and A. Granito, “Performance analysis
of automated interbay material handling and storage systems for large
wafer fabs,” Robot. Comp. Integr. Manuf., vol. 12, pp. 227–234, 1996.
[52] I. Paprotny, J.-Y. Shiau, Y. Huh, and G. T. Mackulak, “Simulation
based comparison of semiconductor AMHS alternatives: Continuous
flow vs. overhead monorail,” in Proc. 2000 Winter Simulation Conf.,
pp. 1333–1338.
[53] N. Bahri and R. J. Gaskins, “Automated material handling system
traffic control by means of node balancing,” in Proc. 2000 Winter
Simulation Conf., pp. 1344–1346.
[54] J. T. Lin, F.-K. Wang, and P.-Y. Yen, “Simulation analysis of dis-
patching rules for an automated interbay material handling system in
wafer fab,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 39, pp. 1221–1238, 2001.
[55] M. Fukunari, S. Rajanna, R. J. Gaskins, and M. E. Sparrow, “Data-
based node penalties in a path-finding algorithm in an automated ma-
terial handling system,” in Proc. 2002 Winter Simulation Conf., pp.
1383–1386.
[56] N. Bahri, J. Reiss, and B. Doherty, “A comparison of unified vs. segre-
gated automated material handling systems for 300 mm fabs,” in Proc.
2001 IEEE Int. Semiconductor Manufacturing Symp., pp. 3–6.
[57] T. Inoue, “A comparison of AMHS delivery models in the fab of
the future,” Fut. Fab Int. vol. 13, pp. 185–187, Aug. 2002 [Online].
Available: http://www.future-fab.com/documents.asp?d_ID=1319#,
[Online]. Available:
[58] J. T. Lin, F.-K. Wang, and C.-K. Wu, “Simulation analysis of the
connecting transport AMHS in a wafer fab,” IEEE Trans. Semicond.
Manuf., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 555–564, Aug. 2003.
[59] T. Jefferson, M. Rangaswami, and G. Stoner, “Simulation in the design
of ground-based intrabay automation systems,” in Proc. 1996 Winter
Simulation Conf., pp. 1008–1013.
[60] G. T. Mackulak, F. P. Lawrence, and J. Rayter, “Simulation analysis
of 300 mm intrabay automation vehicle capacity alternatives,” in Proc.
1998 IEEE/SEMI Adv. Semiconduct. Manuf. Conf., pp. 445–450.
[61] R. Sturm, F. Frauenhoffer, J. Dorner, and T. Kaufmann, “Implementing
manufacturing strategies for advanced capacity analysis and material
handling design in the planning process of a wafer fab,” in Proc. Int.
Conf. Semiconductor Manufacturing Oper. Modeling and Simulation,
1999, pp. 92–97.
[62] S. Murray, G. T. Mackulak, J. W. Fowler, and T. Colvin, “A simula-
tion-based cost modeling methodology for evaluation of interbay ma-
terial handling in a semiconductor wafer fab,” in Proc. 2000 Winter
Simulation Conf., pp. 1510–1517.
[63] M. Schulz, T. Stanley, B. Renelt, R. Sturm, and O. Schwertschlager,
“Simulation based decision support for future 300 mm automated mate-
rial handling,” in Proc. 2000 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 1518–1522.
[64] S. Shikalgar, D. Fronckowiak, and E. MacNair, “300 mm wafer fabri-
cation line simulation model,” in Proc. 2002 Winter Simulation Conf.,
pp. 1365–1368.
View publication stats
613
[65] C. D. DeJong and S. A. Fischbein, “Integrating dynamic fab capacity
and automation models for 300 mm semiconductor manufacturing,” in
Proc. 2000 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 1505–1509.
[66] C. D. DeJong and S. P. Wu, “Simulating the transport and scheduling
of priority lots in semiconductor factories,” in Proc. 2002 Winter Sim-
ulation Conf., pp. 1387–1391.
[67] SEMATECH (2002). Fab Simulation Modeling Software [On-
line]. Available: http://ismi.sematech.org/modeling/simulation/index.
htm#models [Online]. Available:
[68] “Brooks-pri automation,” in AutoSched AP 7.2 User’s Guide, Salt Lake
City, UT, Oct. 2002.
[69] “Brooks automation,” in AutoMod User’s Manual, Salt Lake City, UT,
Mar. 2001, vol. 1–2.
[70] “Brooks-pri automation,” in AutoSched AP 7.2 Customization Guide,
Salt Lake City, UT, Oct. 2002.
[71] J. W. Fowler, S. Park, G. T. Mackulak, and D. L. Shunk, “Efficient
cycle time-throughput curve generation using a fixed sample size pro-
cedure,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 39, pp. 2595–2613, 2001.
[72] D. C. Montgomery, G. C. Runger, and N. F. Hubele, Eng. Stat., 3rd
ed. New York: Wiley, 2004, pp. 198–260.
Jesus A. Jimenez received the B.S. and M.S. de-
grees in industrial engineering from The University
of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, in 1997 and 1999,
respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in industrial
engineering from Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ, in 2006.
He is an Assistant Professor in the Industrial Engi-
neering program of the Ingram School of Engineering
at Texas State University-San Marcos, San Marcos,
TX. His research interests are in the modeling and
analysis of manufacturing systems, especially semi-
conductor manufacturing; automated material handling systems; the develop-
ment of manufacturing applications of operations research, computer simula-
tion, and statistics; and the reduction of time required to build, experiment, and
analyze complex computer simulation models.
Dr. Jimenez is member of the Institute for Operations Research and the Man-
agement Sciences (INFORMS) and the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE).
Gerald T. Mackulak received the B.Sc., M.Sc., and
Ph.D. degrees industrial engineering, from Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
He is an Associate Professor of Engineering
in the Department of Industrial Engineering at
Arizona State University. His primary area of
research is simulation methodology with a focus
on model abstraction, execution speed and output
analysis. He has just completed work on a grant
from SRC/International SEMATECH as part of the
FORCE II program related to creating a simulation
on demand environment.
Dr. Mackulak is has received several Engineering Teaching Excellence Award
nominations and is a Senior Member of the Institute of Industrial Engineering.
John W. Fowler is a Professor of Industrial Engineering at Arizona State
University (ASU) and was previously the Center Director for the Factory Op-
erations Research Center that was jointly funded by International SEMATECH
and the Semiconductor Research Corporation. His research interests include
modeling, analysis, and control of semiconductor manufacturing systems.
Dr. Fowler is a member of IIE, INFORMS, and SCS. He is an Area Editor for
SIMULATION: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation Inter-
national and an Associate Editor of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR
MANUFACTURING.
Dr. Fowler is an IIE Fellow and is on the Winter Simulation Conference Board
of Directors.