Industry News, Trends and Technology, and Standards Updates

The Cimetrix Connectivity Group of PDF Solutions is happy to announce that Cimetrix CIMControlFramework^TM (CCF) version 6.0 is now available for download.

CCF is a software development kit (SDK) that enables users to design and implement a high-quality equipment control solution using provided components for supervisory control, material handling, operator interface, platform and process control, and automation requirements. CCF is built on the reliable Cimetrix connectivity products which provide GEM/GEM300/EDA interface functionality.

We have previously done a series of blog posts on the functionality of CCF. The same great functionality users have come to expect with CCF is still available, but in a cleaner, slicker, easier to use package.

Reorganized directory structure

In versions before CCF 6.0, core CCF packages (packages provided by CCF) were contained in the same directory as sample code and runtime files. This made it more difficult for CCF users to understand what code was required to be customized and what code was basic to CCF. (Note: you can still customize the basic CCF functionality, but it is not required.) In this release, we modified the directory structure to identify more clearly what is core CCF and what is sample or custom code. This is closer to the structure followed by CCF applications. The following diagram shows the new structure:

In addition to clarifying CCF components, the new structure allows us to easily develop samples for additional equipment types. New samples will be added in future versions of CCF.

New WPF framework

Since CCF started providing a Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) framework, we have received feedback on WPF features user would like added to the framework. Also, our engineers have continued to improve their WPF expertise, which has led to other improvements. CCF 6.0 includes the requested changes and best practice improvements in the new WPF framework. Some of these changes include:

• Simplified hierarchy which makes it easier to understand which objects to inherit from.

• Centralized style elements to allow users to change the look and feel (skin) of the operator interface to meet their needs.
• Enhanced controls library that provides common controls for use in creating equipment control.
• Increased E95 compliance, available with a configurable control panel.
• Accelerated screen creation is possible with the change in hierarchy organization and the enhanced control library.
• Richer set of native WPF screens. In earlier versions, CCF had several native WPF screens, but also had many screens created with WinForms and hosted in WPF. CCF 6.0 has all native WPF screens in the WPF sample operator interface. These screens can be reused, customized, or replaced. (Note: WinForms screens are also still available in CCF 6.0.)

The following image shows the main screen of the WPF operator interface for the CCF atmospheric equipment sample application. Most of the controls on the screen are available for use and customization by CCF developers.

Updated samples

CCF has contained fully functional atmospheric and vacuum sample applications for many years. Over the years, we have improved the functionality for scheduling, simulation, and device interface interaction. However, the samples had always remained the same. With CCF 6.0, the atmospheric and vacuum sample applications were updated to take advantage of the other changes that have been made in CCF. These changes to the samples make them more useful in illustrating the proper use of CCF and providing a better starting point for creating custom applications.

Spring cleaning

CCF was originally released the summer of 2011 making it 10 years-old. Over the years, CCF has had several methods, objects and devices become obsolete. They were not removed from the product for backward compatibility reasons, but they were marked as obsolete. Because CCF 6.0 is a major release, we took the opportunity to do some spring cleaning and remove the obsolete items. CCF is now cleaner and tighter, and using it is much clearer.

Training material and upgrade guide

All the PowerPoint slides, lab documents, and corresponding solutions used for training developers on CCF have been updated for CCF 6.0. We have already successfully used the new training materials with a few customers to help them get started with their equipment control application development.

As part of CCF 6.0, we provide a CCF 5.10 to CCF 6.0 Upgrade Guide that contains detailed instructions on how to migrate applications created using previous versions of CCF to CCF 6.0.

Conclusion

We have been looking forward to the CCF 6.0 release for a long time and are excited for developers to get started using it. We are confident existing users will like the changes and that new users will have a good springboard in getting started with their equipment control application needs. We look forward to working with you and hearing from you.

You may be familiar with the brain teaser that starts, “As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives.” As the poem continues, each wife has seven sacks, each sack has seven cats, etc. Eventually the question comes out, “How many were going to St. Ives?” The common misconception of this brain teaser is that to answer the question you must multiply all of the items together, resulting in a huge number.

Cimetrix has extensive experience in helping application developers integrate the Equipment Data Acquisition (EDA) / Interface A standards into their equipment control applications. Occasionally we encounter an equipment type that has a very large number of process modules and each process module has a very large number of exceptions. An exception in EDA Freeze II is represented by both an exception definition and an exception instance. What are the options for creating a model with a large number of exceptions?

Good

The most direct approach is to have one exception definition per exception instance as shown in the following EDA equipment model:However, with this approach, if each module has 5000 exceptions, 200 modules would result in 1 million exception instances with a corresponding 1 million exception definitions. The system resources required to deploy and maintain this model are very large.

Better

EDA allows multiple exception instances to refer to a single exception definition. The following model shows this approach:In this example, we can see that the process module has ten exception instances, but now there is only one set exception definition. Using this approach, if each module has 5000 exception instances, 200 modules would still result in 1 million exception instances, but we would now only have 200 exception definitions (one for each module). This is a significant reduction, but still quite large.

Best

The best approach for equipment with many process modules each with a large number of exceptions is to define only a few distinct exceptions per module, and then use a transient parameter (or data variable) to indicate the actual cause of the problem. The following model shows how this might look:The process module in the model above only has one exception. The transient parameter AlarmCode would contain the information about what caused the exception to be triggered. It is possible to have multiple exception parameters if additional information is necessary (sub error code, description, etc.)

The EDA standards reference four exception severity levels – Information, Warning, Error, and Fatal. If we create one exception definition for each of these severities and no more than four exception instances per module, we see that a model with 200 modules would have four exception definitions and an upper limit of 800 exception instances.

This approach to exception consolidation benefits equipment makers and factories alike by reducing model complexity and model size.

The answer to the brain teaser above is that only one person was going to St. Ives – me. You don’t have to spend a lot of time and effort trying to figure out how many people, cats, etc. were in the other party, because they were travelling in the opposite direction! Similarly, if you consolidate your exception handling in EDA, you don’t have to spend a lot of time and system resources trying to handle too many exceptions.

The Cimetrix CIMPortal^TM Plus software product allows users to achieve compliance with the SEMI Interface A standards. This includes E120, E125, E132, E134 and E164. A key element in enabling the data collection provided by Interface A is the equipment model, which has three main purposes:

1. It defines the structure and relationships of the components that make up equipment (E120)
2. It defines the data (parameters, events and exceptions) that are available to be used in data collection (E125)
3. It defines the supporting structures (state machines, parameter type definitions, logical elements, etc.) for creating objects throughout the life of the running equipment (E125)

Part of the CIMPortal Plus Software Development Kit (SDK) is an application called Equipment Model Developer (EMDeveloper for short) that uses a simple drag and drop interface to allow CIMPortal Plus users to create a fully EDA-compliant equipment model. This includes making the model compliant with the E164 (Specification for EDA Common Metadata) standard which incorporates best practices from many production EDA implementations by defining common structures and other important conventions for the equipment metadata.

While EMDeveloper makes it simple to create, validate and deploy a fully compliant equipment model, there are times when equipment manufacturers want to provide a more flexible way of creating the equipment model. For example, an equipment manufacturer may offer multiple configurations of a unit of equipment with different arrangements of load ports and/or process module combinations. It is possible for the equipment supplier to save multiple equipment models that are shipped with each equipment, but this opens the door for possible human error in deploying an incorrect model file. It is also possible to create a “master model” that has all possible components defined. When the model is deployed, the equipment developer can use DisableModelNode functionality to disable the components that are not present. However, this approach may also result in errors, and is in the “gray” area of the standards (i.e., it is possible, but not encouraged).

Wouldn’t it be convenient if there was a way to create a model that exactly matched the equipment configuration?

We wouldn’t have a blog post if we didn’t already a positive answer to this question! EMDeveloper uses an API provided by the CIMPortal Plus CxModelLibrary. It does not use any sleight of hand or backdoors to create the equipment model. If a CIMPortal Plus user had the desire to do it, they could recreate EMDeveloper on their own. The API provided by CxModelLibrary allows users to programmatically create an EDA-compliant equipment model that exactly matches the desired equipment configuration.

When using programmatic model building, Cimetrix recommends first becoming familiar with the available API and determining the model building approach that works best for your equipment. The Solutions Engineering team at Cimetrix provides a sample application (including source code) that shows how to programmatically build an equipment model. This sample builds an E164-compliant model. In other words, all the expected parameters, events and exceptions and associated structures required by the standards are included as part of the resulting model.

The EDA standards – and specifically E164 – define the types of data that are required for various components in the equipment. For example, each substrate location in the model is required to implement a SubstrateLocation state model. Moreover, this state model must appear within the equipment node in the model hierarchy that matches the physical structure of the equipment. This sample illustrates best practices in constructing model objects that can be reused based on the type of component. Programmatic model building may take a little more investment up front, but in the end, it can pay big dividends to those equipment providers that may need to change their equipment model on the fly depending on its configuration.

Once a model has been programmatically created/modified, Cimetrix also provides an API for validating the model, deploying the model to be used by an EDA client and creating an Access Control List (ACL) entry to allow a client to securely connect to the interface and gather data.

There is also a provision in the standard for addressing the concern that if the model is updated dynamically, an EDA client may have data collection plans (DCPs) that become out of sync with the modified model. In this case, the client is notified of model changes, and can also be designed to dynamically update the data collection plans based on the changes.

The Cimetrix CIMControlFramework (CCF) product makes use of this programmatic model building functionality. CCF dynamic model building is described in a blog post that you can find here.

To learn more about the EDA/Interface A standards, CIMPortal Plus or programmatic model building, click below and a Cimetrix expert will contact you. 

In the EDA Best Practices blog series, we have discussed choosing a commercial software platform, using that package to differentiate your data collection capabilities and how to choose what types of data to publish. In this post we will review why you should choose to provide an E164-compliant equipment model.

What is E164?

Equipment Data Acquisition (EDA) - also referred to as Interface A - offers semiconductor manufacturers the ability to collect a significant amount of data that is crucial to the manufacturing process. This data is represented on the equipment as a model, which is communicated to EDA clients as metadata sets. The metadata, based upon the SEMI E125 Specification for Equipment Self-Description, includes the equipment components, events, and exceptions, along with all the available data parameters.

Since the advent of the SEMI EDA standards, developers and fabs have recognized that equipment models, and the resulting metadata sets, can vary greatly. It is possible to create vastly different models for similar pieces of equipment and have both models be compliant with the EDA standards. This makes it difficult for the factories to know where to find the data they are interested in from one type of equipment to another.

Recognizing this issue, the early adopters of the EDA standards launched an initiative in to make the transition to EDA easier and ensure consistency of equipment models and metadata from equipment to equipment. This effort resulted in the E164 EDA Common Metadata standard, approved in July 2012. Another part of this initiative was the development of the Metadata Conformance Analyzer (MCA), which is a utility that tests conformance to this standard. With this specification, equipment modeling is more clearly defined and provides more consistent models between equipment suppliers. This makes it easier for EDA/Interface A users to navigate models and find the data they need.

Power of E164

The E164 standard requires strict name enforcement for events called out in the GEM300 SEMI standards. It also requires that all state machines contain all of the transitions and in the right order as those called out in the GEM300 standards. This includes state machines in E90 for substrate locations and in E157 for process management. The states and transition names in these state machines must match the names specified in the GEM300 standards.

These requirements may seem unnecessarily strict, but implementing the common metadata standard results in:

• Consistent implementations of GEM300
• Commonality across equipment types
• Automation of many data collection processes
• Less work to interpret collected data
• Ability for true “plug and play” applications
• Major increases in application software engineering efficiency

Knowing that a model is E164 compliant allows EDA client applications to easily and programmatically define data collection plans knowing that the compliant models must provide all of the specified data with the specified names. For example, the following application is able to track carrier arrival and slotmap information as well as movement of material through a piece of equipment and process data for that equipment.

This application will work for any GEM300 equipment that is E164 compliant. The client application developer can confidently create data collection plans for these state machines, knowing that an E164-compliant model must provide the needed state machines and data with the proscribed names.

Decide to be E164 compliant

A number of leading semiconductor manufacturers around the globe have seen the power of requiring their equipment suppliers to provide EDA/E164 on their equipment, and now require it in their purchase specifications.

If you are a semiconductor manufacturer, you should seriously consider doing the same because it will greatly simplify data collection from the equipment (and most of your candidate suppliers probably have an implementation available or underway.

If you are an equipment supplier and your factory customers have not required that your EDA models be E164 compliant, you should still seriously consider providing this capability anyway as a way to differentiate your equipment. Moveover, E164-compliant models are fully compliant with all other EDA standards. Finally, it is much easier and more cost effective to create E164-compliant models from the outset than it is to create non-compliant models and then convert to E164 when the factory requires it.

Conclusion

The purpose of the E164 specification is to encourage companies developing EDA/Interface A connections to implement a more common representation of equipment metadata. By following the E164 standard, equipment suppliers and factories can establish greater consistency from equipment to equipment and from factory to factory. That consistency will make it easier and faster for equipment suppliers to provide a consistent EDA interface, and for factories to develop EDA client applications.

Previous blog posts have discussed the merits of choosing a commercial software platform for implementing the equipment side of EDA (Equipment Data Acquisition) and how you would use that package to differentiate your equipment data collection capabilities from your competitors.

In this post, we discuss how to design the equipment model to contain enough information to make it useful without publishing so much data that it becomes cumbersome for your factory customers to find the data that is most important to them.

Data to Publish

• E164 (EDA Common Metadata) Values

The automation requirements for the most advanced fabs call for the latest versions (Freeze II) of all the standards in the EDA suite, including the EDA Common Metadata (SEMI E164) standard. In addition to providing an excellent foundation for a new equipment model, E164 enables consistent implementation of GEM300, commonality across equipment types, automation of many data collection processes, less work to interpret collected data, and true plug-and-play client applications—all of which contribute to major increases in engineering efficiency. These capabilities benefit both the equipment suppliers and their factory customers alike. Therefore, equipment models should make all E164-compliant data available.

To summarize, those who remember the complexity of implementing SECS-II before GEM came along (pre-1992) will understand this analogy: E164 is to EDA what GEM was to SECS-II.

• Fab-specified Data

The second blog post made the following statement:

“In effect, the metadata model IS the data collection 'contract' between the equipment supplier and the fab customer."

“This is why the most advanced fabs have been far more explicit in their automation purchase specifications with respect to equipment model content, going so far as to specify the level of detailed information they want to collect about process performance, equipment behavior, internal control parameters, setpoints and real-time response of common mechanisms.”

You only have to read the latest requirements specs for these fabs to get more specifics. Pick the one from your customer base that sets the bar highest and let that be your target.

Data to Avoid in the Model

It is easy to fall into the mindset that if publishing some data through the EDA interface is desirable, the more data we can publish, the better. This is not always the case. In his fascinating book, The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz makes the case that freedom is defined by one’s ability to choose, but more choice doesn’t mean more freedom. In fact, too many choices actually cripple one’s ability to choose. The same can be said of data published in an EDA interface. Making too much data available actually hinders the creation of EDA client applications.

We were recently working with a fab to perform a proof-of-concept where we connected an EDA client to a piece of equipment with an EDA interface. We were able to connect to the equipment in a matter of minutes, but finding suitable data to collect for our proof-of-concept took almost an hour because there was so much superfluous data published from the equipment.

Publishing everything including the kitchen sink reduces the ability to create an efficient EDA client application.

Some examples of data to avoid publishing in the model include:

• Parameters that have no value – If a parameter is available in the model, but the value is not published by the equipment control application, that parameter is just extra noise in the interface. Consider not adding it to the model.
• Parameters with values that do not change – If a parameter value does not change during the life of the application, it does not make sense to collect that parameter’s data. For example, if an application uses an equipment constant, it may not be necessary to publish that constant through the EDA model.
• Irrelevant data – If a parameter contains data that is irrelevant to data publication, it should not be added to the model. For example, having parameters in the model that contain the IP address or port number for connection are not very useful in the equipment model. This information is necessary in connecting with an EDA client, but is not relevant for data collection in the model.

The takeaway: Publish data required by E164 and additional fab-specified data, but carefully evaluate other data to be published to make sure it is relevant and useful for data collection.

If you have questions about Equipment Data Acquisition or would like a demo of the functionality described above, please contact Cimetrix to schedule a discussion. 

You can download an introduction to EDA White Paper any time.

As part of the CIMControlFramework (CCF) product for creating equipment control applications, Cimetrix developed a logging package. Our logging package has two parts – collecting the log messages and analysis of the messages.

The logging package allows you to assign a source and a type for each log message. The source specifies where the log message originated. The type is a category that can be used to route the log 

messages to specific output locations called log sinks. We have found the most useful log sink to be a text-based log file. The logging package can be configured for the types of messages to log. It can also be configured for how long to keep log files and how many to keep. This helps keep hard drives from getting too full.

The Interface A / EDA standards define powerful methods for collecting data from an equipment control application. The data collection can be as simple as querying values of a parameter or two, or as complex as gathering thousands of parameter values across multiple reports. EDA specifies the use of internet standard messaging protocols like HTTP, XML and SOAP messages for collecting this data.

It is possible to define so many data collection plans gathering so much data that the sheer amount of data causes network performance to degrade. To remedy this situation, the EDA standards provide ways of sending the data in “chunks,” which dramatically improves the performance of XML over HTTP.

Two methods for sending data in chunks are grouping and buffering.

Grouping

Grouping only applies to individual Trace Requests within a Data Collection Plan (DCP).  If I have a trace request with an interval of one second, a group size of 1 would generate a report every second and send it across the wire. If I change my group size to 10, a report would still be generated every second, but the report would not be sent across the wire until 10 reports have accumulated. Each report has its own timestamp and they are arranged in the order they occur. The following diagram shows a trace data collection report with a group size of 3.

Buffering

Buffering is different from grouping in that the buffer interval (in minutes) applies to an entire DCP rather than individual trace requests within that plan. For example, if I have a DCP with three trace requests and two event requests defined with a buffer interval of 1 (meaning one minute), the trace reports would still be generated at the specified trace interval. Event reports would be generated as the events are triggered. The reports are not sent to the EDA client until the buffer interval expires. At that point, all the data reports that were generated within that buffer interval time are packaged and sent to the EDA client.

Combining Grouping and Buffering

Grouping and buffering can be combined as well. Groups are still defined on a per trace basis. If a group size has not been met when the buffer interval expires, the group report will be in the next buffer report that is sent.

Summary

With the provision for transmitting data in blocks, using grouping for trace data reports and/or buffering for all data reports, EDA is well suited for collecting large amounts of data without having a negative effect on network performance.  

Generally, when I do a DIY (do-it-yourself) project around the house, I spend the majority of the time searching for my tools. The other day I was helping a friend with a project. He had a well-organized tool box and it seemed that the perfect tool was always at his fingertips. I was amazed at how fast the project went and how easy it was when the right tools were handy.

In April of 2016, we published a blog called OEM EDA Implementation Best Practices that outlined ten things to consider when designing an equipment-side EDA / Interface A solution to fit your needs. This blog post analyzes a few of those recommendations and looks at how using the Cimetrix EDA products CIMPortal Plus, ECCE Plus and EDATester (a well-stocked and organized tool box) makes it very easy to follow those recommendations.

The basic steps in creating a useful EDA implementation are:

1. Determine which data will be published
2. Build an equipment model
3. Deploy the model
4. Publish the data from the equipment control application
5. Set up a data collection application
6. Test the interface

The blog post mentioned above states, “Since the content of the equipment metadata model is effectively the data collection contract between the equipment supplier and the factory users, your customer’s ultimate satisfaction with the EDA interface depends on the content and structure of this model.” Before building your model, you need to determine what data the equipment will make available for collection. CIMPortal Plus has the concept of a Data Collection Interface Module (DCIM) that publishes this data to the EDA server. The engineer building the model will map the data from the DCIM into the equipment model.

Once the mapping of the data is complete, the engineer will need to put this data in a format understood by the server. CIMPortal Plus provides a utility called Equipment Model Developer (EMDeveloper – pictured below) that makes it easy to create the hierarchy of your equipment (SEMI E120) and embed the data from the DCIM into that model (SEMI E125). If you use the tools and best practices provided in EMDeveloper, your equipment model will conform to the SEMI E164 (EDA Common Metadata) standard as well. This can be very useful when writing data collection applications so conformance to E164 is being required by more and more fabs. The E164 standard was developed to encourage companies using Interface A connections to provide a more common representation of equipment metadata based upon the SEMI E125 Specification for Equipment Self-Description. This makes data collection more uniform across these pieces of equipment.

Once the model is created and validated, it is deployed to the CIMPortal Plus server. The server is the component that manages and tracks all data collection plans, reports, tasks, access control and timing. 

With the DCIM information embedded in the model (described above), it is easy for the equipment control application to push the data to be published to the EDA server for collection. This is done by using a simple API available on the DCIM interface.

In addition to CIMPortal Plus server capabilities, Cimetrix has other products available to help with client-side data collection. ECCE Plus is an industry approved method for manually testing EDA implementations. For users who need to create client-side data collection applications, Cimetrix also provides EDAConnect - a powerful library that handles all the connection details and allows developers to concentrate on the specific data collection and analysis tasks.

Fabs receive a wide variety of equipment with EDA implementations from numerous vendors. They want to use a single verification application to make sure that all EDA implementations are compliant to the EDA standards. That’s where EDATester comes in. EDATester is a new product that allows users to quickly and accurately verify EDA standards compliance by automating the test procedures ISMI EDA Evaluation Method that were defined specifically for this purpose. If you use Cimetrix products to implement your EDA interface, you are guaranteed to be compliant with the SEMI EDA standards. But whether you use Cimetrix products to implement your EDA interface or not, you (and your fab customer) want to rest assured that your implementation is fully compliant. Moreover, you’ll want to know that you’ve met the fab’s performance criteria for your equipment interface. To support this use case, the EDATester also allows users to quickly profile the performance of EDA data collection on a piece of equipment so that fabs and those using the data will know the boundaries within which they can successfully collect equipment data.

With the well-stocked EDA tool box provided by Cimetrix, following the EDA best practices in creating an efficient, standards-compliant EDA interface becomes a snap.

One of the habits outlined in Stephen R. Covey's book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, is to "Begin with the End in Mind." He goes on to explain that beginning with the end in mind means to "begin each day, task, or project with a clear vision of your desired direction and destination, and then continue by flexing your proactive muscles to make things happen.”

Beginning an equipment control project with a clear vision of your desired destination makes it much more likely that you will have a successful project. A blog post titled CIMControlFramework Work Breakdown dated March 15, 2016 outlined the tasks necessary to create a first-class equipment control application using CIMControlFramework (CCF). Since that initial blog post, Cimetrix has explored each of the tasks labeled in the work breakdown structure in greater depth in their own blog posts as follows:

• Integrate devices – Create Device Drivers Using CCF
• Material movement through the tool – Create a Scheduler Using CCF
• Implement the process module – Implementing Your Process Module Using CCF
• Create an operator interface (OI) – Create Operator Interface Screens Using CCF
• Simulation – Testing Your CCF Application without Waiting for Hardware
• Recipes – Designing Recipes in CCF
• I/O – Using CCF IO Helper Functionality
• Data collection and storage – Storing Data in a CCF Application
• Factory Automation – CCF Provides Fully Implemented GEM300 and EDA Interfaces
• Diagnostics and Testing – This information was provided previously in a two-part blog regarding the benefits of logging. Read Part 1 (Logging - enabling passionate support) and Part 2 (CIMControlFramework Logging Benefits).
• Errors and recovery – CCF provides an Alarms package for signaling of and recovery from error conditions.

Looking back from the successful completion of a CCF equipment control application makes it clear that the work breakdown vision from the beginning helped gain that success.

You can also reference the following blog posts related to CimControlFramework:

CIMControlFramework Dynamic Model Creation

Learning from Others

Build vs. Buy

WCF and CIMControlFramework

To learn more about CCF, visit the CIMControlFramework page on our website!

In Sir Arthur Conon Doyle’s A Scandal in Bohemia, Sherlock Holmes tells Watson, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

In a March 2016 blog post on CCF work breakdown Cimetrix listed eleven points to be taken into consideration when starting an equipment control application using CIMControlFramework (CCF). One of the tasks in the work breakdown is to determine what kind of data collection and storage is to be used in your CCF application and determine how that data is to be stored.

CCF provides several mechanisms for collecting and storing data. These include:

• History Objects

• Full GEM Interface

• Full EDA/Interface A Interface

• Centralized DataServer

The remainder of this blog post will look at each of these items in more detail.

History Objects

In early iterations of CCF, users noticed when using logging, there were certain messages that they wanted to be able to query without the overhead of having to search all log messages. To help accommodate this need, History objects were introduced. Some examples of these objects in CCF are EPT History, Wafer History and Alarm History. When an important event happens in the life of a history object, a log message is written to a database table (configured during CCF installation) that corresponds to that type of object. That database table can be queried for the specific historical information for only that type of data. 

Full GEM/GEM 300 Interface

As described in a CCF blog post from February 15, 2017, CCF comes standard with a fully implemented GEM and GEM 300 interface. The GEM standards allow users to set up trace and event reports for the collection of GEM data. No additional programming is required by the application developer to have access to the GEM data collection.

Full EDA/Interface A Interface

The same blog post of February 15th also states that CCF comes standard with a fully implemented Freeze II and E164 compliant EDA interface. EDA can be used to set up data collection plans based on Events, Exceptions and Traces. With the E157 standard and conditional trace triggers, EDA makes it easy to zero in on the data you want without having to collect all data and then sift through it later.

Centralized DataServer

In order to create, initialize, populate and pass data, CCF uses a centralized DataServer object. The DataServer is responsible for creating the dynamic EDA equipment modelas well as populating CIMConnect with Status Variables, Data Variables, Collection Events and Alarms. All this is done at tool startup so that the data available exactly matches the tool that is in use.

Data is routed to the DataServer which then updates the appropriate client – such as EDA, GEM or the Operator Interface. An equipment control application can register to receive an event from the data server when data changes. Users can key off of this event to capture that data and route it to a database as desired. Since all tool manufacturers have different requirements for which database to use and how data is written to that database, CCF leaves the actual SQL (or equivalent) commands for writing the data to the equipment application developer.

With CCF Data collection and storage is … Elementary.

To learn more about CCF, visit the CIMControlFramework page on our website!