ProSys Inc.

Baton Rouge, LA, United States

ProSys Inc.

Baton Rouge, LA, United States
Time filter
Source Type

Dussault D.,ProSys Inc. | Fournel F.,CEA Grenoble | Dragoi V.,EV Group
ECS Transactions | Year: 2012

The increased complexity of microelectronic and sensor applications that have emerged over the past decade have driven wafer bonding to mature as a production technology for both MEMS and 3D stacked die manufacturing. The use of CMOS device wafers has restricted the types of viable bonding processes to low temperature fusion bonding, adhesive bonding and metal bonding. Due to the specific requirements of CMOS technology the allowed bonding processes had to be adapted in order to fulfill the specific CMOS-compatibility demands. This paper presents a novel single wafer Megasonic based cleaning method with enhanced process control capabilities. This cleaning process is integrated in low temperature fusion bonding process and enables higher bonding yields and a reduction in process fluid usage. © The Electrochemical Society.

Dussault D.,ProSys Inc. | Liebscher E.,ProSys Inc. | Fournel F.,CEA Grenoble | Dragoi V.,EV Group
Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering | Year: 2013

A pre-bond cleaning process was developed utilizing a unique, radially uniform, large area proximity type Megasonic transducer. In prior work this new cleaning method was investigated for PRE (particle removal efficiency) as well as particle neutrality. These tests yielded higher values than those achieved with the processes of record. Subsequently, this process was integrated into an industrial volume low temperature fusion bonding process and enabled higher bonding yields. In the above process flow the process fluid was dispensed to fill the gap between the Megasonic transducer surface and the substrate using an atmospheric free flow stream applied to the substrate. Current work describes development, testing and operational verification of a process fluid management device used in conjunction with the wide area proximity Megasonic transducer. The goals of this development were reduction of process fluid amount required, increase the operating substrate rotation speed, and provide better control of process fluid parameters. The design criteria and process flow as well as test results demonstrating the benefits of the new system are presented. © 2013 SPIE.

Logerot D.E.,ProSys Inc.
ISA Process Control and Safety Symposium and Exhibition 2016 | Year: 2016

Avoid the falses - don't alarm console operator actions, avoid multiple alarms · Obey the trues - provide a unified, sensible alarm configuration · Pre-alarm · First Out · Failure modes · Honor IPLs · Summarize rules in Alarm Philosophy.

Dussault D.,ProSys Inc. | Rothballer J.,EV Group | Kurz F.,EV Group | Reichardt M.,EV Group | Dragoi V.,EV Group
ECS Transactions | Year: 2016

Substrate cleaning is a very important process step in direct wafer bonding. Current work describes development, testing and verification of a single wafer megasonic cleaning method utilizing a transducer design that meets the extreme particle neutrality, Particle Removal Efficiency (PRE), and repeatability requirements of production scale wafer bonding and other applications requiring extremely low particle levels. The results were obtained using 300 mm diameter Si wafer which were processed as received, without any wet bench cleaning process. These experiments simulated real case production scenario in which the particle counts on incoming wafers are typically 0.1 LPD/cm2 and lower. © 2016 The Electrochemical Society.

Logerot D.,ProSys Inc.
AFPM Annual Meeting 2012 | Year: 2012

Sulfur Recovery in a Refinery entails collecting sour vent gases (containing H2S) from a number of process sources, including Hydrotreating Units, Hydrocracking Units, Crude Units, and others, then converting the H2S to a more useable form such as sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur. The feed rates and compositions to the Sulfur Recovery Units (SRUs) are not controllable at the SRU. In addition, most Refineries employ multiple SRUs operating in parallel. This gives rise to a number of process control challenges, including: Load balancing among the various units Response to changing loads (total feed load cannot be controlled) Response to variable compositions Air/Oxygen load controls Response to one SRU shutdown (rapid load increase for the remaining SRUs) This paper will present the ramifications of these control problems along with the methodology used for successful implementation of the advanced control scheme for each.

Beebe D.,ProSys Inc. | Ferrer S.,ProSys Inc. | Logerot D.,ProSys Inc.
Process Safety Spotlights 2015 - Topical Conference at the 2015 AIChE Spring Meeting and 11th Global Congress on Process Safety | Year: 2015

Alarm floods remain a significant safety issue for many process plants. During set up of modern systems, it is much cheaper to set up an alarm than going through the process of deciding if it is needed or not. Therefore, many unnecessary alarms are configured. Many plants have tried to address alarm floods through static alarm rationalization - some more than once. The results however, typically show improvements in average rates but a large majority fall short of any real improvement in alarm floods. In fact, static rationalization can make alarm flooding worse because alarms are set up for the full run condition. When an upset or other process mode change occurs, even more alarms will annunciate which can create an alarm flood out of a collection of nuisance alarms that are established in the control system for a full run condition. Some plants, as a part of their LOPA or other safety reviews, have claimed credit for operator response to alarms as a valid protection to reduce the probability of an undesirable event occurring. Alarm floods may invalidate the claimed credit by masking the true issue among a long list of useless alarms. Alarm floods can cause an operator to miss a critical alarm. This is particularly important when the priority of the alarm is critical and the time for operator response is relatively short or the risk is high. Depending on the number of alarms in the flood, the operator may never know there was a critical alarm because that alarm scrolled off the summary screen while it was being populated with meaningless nuisance alarms. In other cases, the operator can become so busy acknowledging and diagnosing alarms that he/she is not able to perform other duties in a timely manner. It does not matter which of these events occur, the operator is in a no win situation and is forced to play catch up and possibly experience more missed alarms. As this scenario repeats itself, the opportunity for a critical alarm to be missed increases as does the chance for operator error. Likewise, the opportunity for loss of containment events, damage to equipment and personal injury or worse can also increase. Capital spending on many projects may be rooted in an event that was the direct result of an alarm flood. Competent operators have been dismissed because they allowed a piece of equipment to suffer damage in the middle of an alarm flood. OSHA now considers ISA 18.2-2009 Management of Alarm Systems for the Process Industries to be RAGAGEP. This standard defines an alarm flood to be more than 10 alarms in a 10 minute period per board operator. OSHA has now included alarm performance questions into their base question set for their interviews with operators and discussion during site visits. Plants should be able to prove they comply with the Target Metrics in ISA 18.2. Splitting the high priority alarms into a separate list or annunciating with a unique sound does not relieve management of the responsibility to meet OSHA directives and have the ability to prove it over time.

Beebe D.,ProSys Inc. | Ferrer S.,ProSys Inc. | Logerot D.,ProSys Inc.
Process Safety Progress | Year: 2013

Even after several years of trying, many plants still struggle with controlling alarm floods. Static rationalization can reduce your average number of alarms but without controlling the alarm floods, there is no help for the operator when he needs it the most. This session will cover the justification for alarm management from the safety and environmental as well as economic perspective. © 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

Ferrer S.,ProSys Inc. | Logerot D.,ProSys Inc. | Nolan T.,ProSys Inc. | Persac K.,ProSys Inc.
Process Safety Spotlights 2014 - Topical Conference at the 2014 AIChE Spring Meeting and 10th Global Congress on Process Safety | Year: 2014

Evidence has shown that errors by operators account for the highest average dollar loss per major incident. The J & H Marsh & McLennan company reports that operator errors account for the largest average loss of over $80 million dollars per major incident and number two on the list is not even close. The Chemical Safety Topical Committee sponsored by the U.S DOE tells us that there is an average of one chemical incident per day with a cost of over $2 million per incident to comply with requirements. This cost estimate does not account for other direct or indirect costs such as repairs to equipment, facilities, injuries to personnel, or interruptions of service and production limitations in quality or pounds. A significant number of the issues identified as responsible for many of the operator errors are those that we make for ourselves. The prolific configuration of alarms that annunciate at critical times is one of the ways these operator errors occur. Unfortunately, the large majority of these annunciating alarms are redundant or unnecessary. Many of the errors that remain can be attributed to using operator graphics that forces the operator to juggle multiple faceplates. These items add significantly to the workload and end up confusing the operator at critical times. This leads to errors. This presentation will discuss these two key causes of operator error and what can be done to minimize their impact.

Beebe D.,ProSys Inc. | Harleaux K.,ProSys Inc.
Global Congress on Process Safety 2012 - Topical Conference at the 2012 AIChE Spring Meeting and 8th Global Congress on Process Safety | Year: 2012

This presentation illustrates the need and solution for operators viewing and making changes to set points and outputs in context. It shows the penalty and risks of operators shifting focus to faceplates and performing other window management tasks when trying to operate an industrial process. In-situ (In Place) modification improves the speed of operator response, reduces entry errors and operator loading. For the industrial process, this means fewer spurious trips due to operator entry and more reliable and efficient plant operation. The presentation will cover how to incorporate items normally displayed in the faceplate directly into the operator display. The illustrated examples will be running ProSys' Interface Dynamics display library, but concepts in the presentation are applicable to any industrial HMI and can be achieved in almost any control system.

ProSys Inc. | Date: 2014-01-22

Industrial process control software. Engineering services in the field of industrial process control.

Loading ProSys Inc. collaborators
Loading ProSys Inc. collaborators