508 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 30, NO.

4, NOVEMBER 2017

Evaluation of Preventive Maintenance

Segregation: A Multi Factorial Study
Adar A. Kalir , Kosta Rozen, and James R. Morrison

AbstractRecently, several papers on preventive mainte-
nance (PM) have shown that segregation of PMs can be beneficial
when it comes to improving factory performance. However, these
were limited to either cases of equal PM segregation and/or with-
out consideration of other factors and operating conditions such
as incurred setup or the number of tools in the toolset. In this
paper, we extend previous work in this area in two major respects.
First, we consider the more realistic case of PM segregation into
equal or unequal portions and second, we evaluate the impact of
PM segregation under various operating conditions via simula-
tion. Our simulation experiments provide insight and guidelines
for practitioners in planning the PM activity such that the overall
performance is improved.
Index TermsPreventive maintenance, productivity, simula-
tion, segregation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
REVENTIVE Maintenance (PM) is a scheduled mainte-
P nance activity that is typically initiated based on statistical
parameters (e.g., average time or usage) to determine when
the maintenance activity is needed, prior to entering the
risk zone in which probability of random failure increases.
Evaluation of the PM policy (PM activity content and fre-
quency) is most needed in order to ensure higher resource
utilization, minimal unexpected downtime and higher avail-
ability. Preventive Maintenance plays an essential role in
any manufacturing process, in keeping the equipment in
control and performing within desired specifications in the
long term and is a better strategy then reactive, fire-fighting
maintenance [1]. It has a positive impact on cost, quality and
strong delivery performance [2], [3]. Evaluation of PM strate-
gies and recommendation of an optimal strategy has been
a subject of extensive research [4][6].
In advanced manufacturing environments, such as semicon-
ductor manufacturing, PM activities become more complex
in nature and consist of many tasks, subsequently increasing
PM duration. Well-planned PMs increase overall equipment
Manuscript received June 12, 2017; revised September 5, 2017; accepted
September 18, 2017. Date of publication September 21, 2017; date of current
version October 27, 2017. (Corresponding author: Adar A. Kalir.)
A. A. Kalir and K. Rozen are with the Intel Corporation, Fab/Sort
Manufacturing, Qiriat-Gat 82109, Israel, and also with Ben-Gurion
University, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel (e-mail: adar.kalir@intel.com;
kosta.rozen@intel.com).
J. R. Morrison is with the Industrial and Systems Engineering Department,
KAIST, Yuseong 305-701, South Korea (e-mail: james.morrison@kaist.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSM.2017.2755178
0894-6507 c 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
availability and reliability at the expense of planned downtime.
Reducing the PM duration usually leads to reduced variability
and reduced cycle time. Hence, there is an incentive to reduce
PM duration, perhaps even at the expense of increased PM
frequency and overall downtime duration [7][9].
One way to reduce the PM duration is by segregating it
into different groups of tasks, each performed separately, such
that instead of being batched together to form a long PM in
duration (with a lower frequency of recurrence), smaller PM
portions are done at a higher frequency. As will be reviewed
in the literature survey, this has been proven effective in semi-
conductor manufacturing to the extent that the performance
of a toolset (i.e., a group of identical tools or machines per-
forming the same set of operations in the process,) or even the
entire factory, in terms of their cycle time is, in many cases,
improved.
Only a handful of papers were published to date that offer
a systematic approach or a formulation to address the PM
planning and PM segregation (or splitting) problem. In this
paper, we continue previous work that has been conducted
in this area. Particularly, we extend it with respect to segre-
gating PMs into equal and unequal portions of the original
PM. We leverage simulation and a comprehensive design of
experiments to explore the impact of unequal PM segrega-
tion under various settings and factors, such as the equipment
loading level (or utilization); single versus re-entrant flows;
and different PM and setup durations.
The contribution of the current paper emanates from the fact
that it addresses a pertinent aspect of the problem that was not
addressed integrally in the research thus far, particularly the
aspect of how to segregate PM content under different opera-
tional settings, including cases in which the PM work cannot
be divided into equal chunks of work. Clearly, in practice, the
tasks to be performed within a PM are not always such that
can be divided into equal portions, or even nearly equal por-
tions. Consider for example the trivial case where a PM of
12 hours is comprised of three tasks with the following dura-
tions: 4.5 hours for the first task; 4.5 hours for the second task;
and 3 hours for the third task. Even if the tasks are indepen-
dent (i.e., can be carried out in any sequence), there is no way
to segregate the original PM work equally, into two portions
of 6 hours each, in this case. At best, it can be segregated
into two unequal portions of the original PM, with 4.5 hours
for one part and 7.5 hours for the other. In that case, the
original PM is segregated into a (37.5%, 62.5%) proportion.
This triggers a basic question with respect to planning the PM
work, which is: under what operating conditions would PM
KALIR et al.: EVALUATION OF PM SEGREGATION: MULTI FACTORIAL STUDY
segregation have a positive impact on performance? This, in
turn, triggers a few additional questions which we attempt
to address in this paper:
Does the impact change (i.e., is amplified or diminished)
in the presence of certain factors, such as equipment
loading? Number of tools in the toolset?
If the impact is significant, what are the main contributing
factors for a meaningful PM segregation?
If the PM cannot be segregated into equal portions, would
it still be worthwhile segregating it? And, how much of an
impact does unequal PM segregation make versus equal
PM segregation?
This paper is organized as follows. We first review the exist-
ing literature in Section II. Then, in Section III, fundamentals
of the basic model for PM segregation are outlined. Section IV
defines the factors of the study and a factorial design of
experiments (DOE) scheme. In Section V, results of the
experiments are reviewed and discussed. Lastly, conclusions,
recommendations, and directions are offered in Section VI.
II. L ITERATURE R EVIEW
PM segregation in semiconductor manufacturing has been
proposed and analyzed for the first time in [10], where a single
toolset with a single major PM is considered. PM segregation
is evaluated via a local optimization framework with an objec-
tive function of minimum total cycle time (or mean flow time)
at the toolset. It is shown that it would be desirable to segre-
gate PMs, even in the presence of setup, and in both the case
of fully reliable PM performance as well as the case of par-
tially reliable PM performance where a repair may be needed
post the PM.
Extension of the PM plan optimization to several different
PMs is detailed in [11]. The goal of the optimization there
is similar, i.e., to minimize the mean cycle time for a G/G/m
queue with PMs, by selecting the mean time between PM
events. In their work, there may be any number of different
PMs that the tool (machine) requires. For example, the tool
may require three different PMs with different durations, e.g.,
a monthly PM, a quarterly PM and a yearly PM. An approx-
imate method to combine these separate downtime durations
into a single one is provided and the net mean time between
PMs is used. The G/G/1 mean cycle time approximation pro-
vided in [12] is used as well as a practical extension for G/G/m
systems.
Existing PM planning methods are extended in [13] to allow
for four categories of PM models. The four categories are four
classes of queueing models for failure-prone tools that were
identified based on the manner in which the failures occur:
1) TB/P (Time-Based Preemptive),
2) RB/P (Run-Based Preemptive),
3) TB/NP (Time-Based Non-Preemptive), and
4) RB/NP (Run-Based Non-Preemptive).
They study the quality of these PM models and the resulting
best PM plans via simulation. Their results suggest that good
PM plans are relatively insensitive to which of the four PM
models are selected. A related work [9], proposes a segmen-
tation strategy of the maintenance tasks to reduce the overall
509
variability generated by the PMs at each toolset and show that
this can enhance tool level and factory performance.
Prior work is further extended in [14] to examine not just
the toolset level impact of PM segregation projects, but the
fab-wide impact, to reveal critical factors that allow practi-
tioners to identify toolsets with the most potential to improve
overall fab cycle time. Finally, in [15] extensions are pro-
posed toward PM planning optimization for tools connected
in a network. This is done with an optimization model for
PM planning that seeks to minimize the total cycle time of
customers in a network of G/G/m queues. To do this, they inte-
grate PM planning optimization and mean CT approximations
for queueing networks.
III. T HE BASIC M ODEL
The notation used in this paper is summarized below.
Notation and Abbreviations
CT Mean Cycle Time
QT Mean Queue Time
PM Duration of Preventive Maintenance
m Number of identical machines (tools) in a work-
station (or group)
PT Mean Process Time
EPT Effective Process Time. EPT = PT/A
U Busy/Blocked time (as a fraction of overall time)
A Availability (as a fraction of overall time)
Utilization (or occupancy rate) out of availability
of the workstation. = U/A
CAR Coefficient of variation of the inter-arrival times
CEPT Coefficient of variation of the effective pro-
cess (service) time
MTTR Mean Time To Repair, the average downtime
duration
MTBPM Mean Time Between PMs.
C0 Coefficient of variation of the (inherent) process
time
Cr Coefficient of variation of the repair times
N Number of segregated PMs considered for the
original PM
SU Incurred setup time required prior to each PM
activity (whether a full PM or a portion of PM
after segregation.)
W Total duration from the end of overall PM to end
of next overall PM
g The required (pre-determined) slack (or gap)
between the toolsets availability (A) and its
utilization (U). g = A U
R PM segregation ratio
IAT Inter-arrival Time.
In this section we offer a brief summary of the method pro-
posed in Kalir [7] for optimizing the segregation of PM work
in the case of equal PM segregation. This serves as the base-
line for the exploration of the more general case of unequal
PM segregation in Section IV.
For the general case of m identical machines (tools) in
a workstation (or group), with general distributions of arrival
510 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 30, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2017

and service rates, i.e., a G/G/m system, there exists a fairly a function of N (and SU).
accurate formula for the CT of the station, based on approxi-  
2 + C2 (A(N), MTTR(N))
CAR EPT
mations provided in Hopp and Spearman [16]. The formula is CT
given in (1) where G/G/m is applied to the toolset (or 2
  
workstation). (N) 2(m+1)1
    + 1 EPT(N) (8)
2 + C2
CAR 2(m+1)1 m(1 (N))
EPT
CT(G/G/m) + 1 EPT
2 m(1 ) In (8), A(N), MTTR(N) and EPT(N) reflect the dependency
(1) of A, MTTR and EPT on N, the number of equally segregated
PMs considered for the original PM. Thus, it can be solved
Additionally, the squared coefficient of variation of EPT can for optimality via a linear or binary search over values of N.
be approximated by (2), also from [16]. The main findings from the case of equal PM segregation
  based on this optimized model, as highlighted in Kalir [7], are
MTTR
CEPT C0 + A(1 A)
2 2
(1 + Cr2 ) (2) that the benefit on CT is significant, and especially if setup
PT is negligible compared to the PM content. Furthermore, the
These approximations are limited to the case of run-based benefit increases when the coefficient of variation is higher.
preemptive PMs. For the case of time-based non-preemptive However, this model is limited to the case of equal PM seg-
PMs, the reader may refer to Wu [12]. regation and therefore it is desirable to examine the more
As devised in Kalir [7], using MTTR for the duration of realistic case of when PM work content can be segregated
a major PM, then for a single major PM, we can substitute but only in unequal portions. We discuss this more general
the following in (2): case next.

MTTR = PM (3) IV. FACTORS OF C URRENT S TUDY AND

However, if the major PM is segregated into N smaller PMs,
with a setup (SU) incurred on each, then MTTR becomes:
PM
MTTR = + SU (4)
N fore employ simulation in order to examine the more generic
In the last two equations, it is implied that the original PM
or the segregated PMs are non-preemptive. It is also implied
that once the original PM has been segregated, each part of
the PM is performed with the same (or very similar) elapsed
D ESIGN OF E XPERIMENTS
For the case of unequal segregation, the model discussed in
the previous section cannot be applied, as the basic assumption
is that all the segregated PMs are equal in duration. We there-
case of unequal PM segregation and extend it to also determine
the gain from PM segregation on a toolset, for the following
factors:
Toolset loading

time as in the original PM. Note also that as the major PM is Number of tools (machines)

broken down to smaller PMs with incurred setups, the overall PM duration (MTTR)

availability is impacted as well. The following formula pro- Number of operations (re-entrance), and

vides the availability as a function of N and SU, given W, the Incurred setups.

overall elapsed time between two complete PMs, including To date, the impact of re-entrance (multiple operations), was
the PM duration. only considered in [14] and within the network model in [15].
Unequal PM segregation has not been considered in earlier
W PM (N 1)SU PM + (N 1)SU
A(N) = =1 work to date. With respect to unequal PM segregation, we
W W shall refer to a PM Segregation Ratio as follows:
(5)
Min{PM 1 , PM 2 }
R= (9)
Since the availability (A) is a function of N and SU, the fol- PM
lowing components of Equation (1) for CT become a function where PM1 , PM2 are the respective PM durations of the
of N and SU as well. original PM after segregation.
PT For each factor, several typical values were selected and
EPT(N) = (6) examined. These values are listed in Table I. For each com-
A(N)
bination of values, 6 simulation experiments were executed,
And: examining 5 options for PM segregation, including one for the
1 PM+(N1)SU
g toolset performance with the original (unsegregated) PM (i.e.,
W
(N) = (7) R = 0%). All other toolset parameters, like processing time,
A(N)
unscheduled downtime, etc. are held constant in all experi-
where the numerator in (7) represents the utilization as the ments, so the only change between the experiments is in the
original availability with a single major PM minus the slack values of the examined factors.
(or gap) to required utilization. By substituting equations (4) A total of 120 experiments were executed, as follows:
and (5) in (2) for the coefficient of variation of EPT, and then 72 experiments (2x3x2x6) for all combinations of , m,
substituting equations (2), (6) and (7) in (1), we get CT as MTTR, and R.
KALIR et al.: EVALUATION OF PM SEGREGATION: MULTI FACTORIAL STUDY
TABLE I
S ELECTED VALUES OF E ACH FACTOR
TABLE II
E XAMINED PM D URATIONS FOR E ACH S EGREGATION R ATIO
24 experiments (2x2x6) for the case of 5 operations
(1 tool with all combinations of , m, MTTR, and R.)
24 experiments (2x2x6) for the case of PM setups
2 setup durations for 1 tool with 30 hours MTTR and
all combinations of and R.
For the setup cases, 2 durations for the setups were exam-
ined: 10% of PM duration and 20% of PM duration. As an
example, in the 20% setup scenario, the 30 hours of mean
PM duration is comprised of 6 hours of setup activities and
24 hours of PM activities. When segregated, only the PM
activity duration is divided, while the setup duration remains
unchanged, so a 50% segregation ratio turns a 30-hour PM
into 2 PMs of 18 hours each. The rationale behind choosing
the upper bound of 20% setup duration is the fundamental
understanding that longer setups would make PM segrega-
tion non-beneficial across all the scenarios, backed-up by
preliminary sensitivity analysis on the setup duration.
Table II lists PM durations used in the different experiments.
For example, in a PM of 30 hours with no setup, a 10% segre-
gation ratio results in 2 PMs: one PM of 3 hours and another
PM of 27 hours.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
A. Simulation Model
The simulation model, depicted in Figure 1, exhibits a single
toolset, comprised of 1 to 6 identical tools in parallel, with
a stream of incoming lots at a rate that is adjusted based on the
specific scenario (i.e., the toolset loading, the number of tools,
and the number of operations). As an example, the inter-arrival
time of incoming lots is set to 0.585 hours for the experiment
511
with 95% loading, 2 tools and 1 operation (given 90% toolset
availability and a mean of 1 hour of process time per lot),
calculated as follows:
PT 1
IAT = = = 0.585 (10)
mA 2 0.9 0.95
Mean time between PMs was calculated so that PM down-
time impact would be 5% (e.g., MTBPM of 600 hours for
a 30-hour PM and 200 hours for a 10-hour PM). Additionally,
the following modeling assumptions were made, in line with
typical real fab operation:
PMs modeled as time-based high-priority non-preemptive
events.
PM inter-arrival times (IAT) and durations distributed
uniformly within 10% around the mean.
Toolset subject to unscheduled downtime, accounting for
an additional 5% downtime and resulting in 90% overall
toolset availability. These downtime events were modeled
with exponentially-distributed MTTR and MTBPM.
Incoming WIP to the toolset is distributed exponentially
and processing time has a triangular distribution between
50 and 70 minutes, with a mean of 60 minutes (1 hour).
We utilized the Arena simulation software (version 15.00),
by Rockwell Automation and the experiments were executed
on a Core i5-4300U CPU at 1.9 GHz. Each experiment simu-
lated 10 years of steady-state post a warm-up period, and was
replicated 300 times. The warmup period for the experiments
was set to 1 year, based on sensitivity analysis that has shown
sufficiency and insensitivity to longer warmup periods. The
simulated duration of 10 years is longer than the largest value
of MTBPM by two orders of magnitude, hence the experi-
ment length is sufficient for observing the long-term effect
that PM segregation and the examined factors have on cycle
time performance. Run-time of each replication took up to ten
seconds, and thus made it possible to perform the required
number of replications for a 95% confidence interval with an
average half-width of 1% (for all experiments) and maximal
half-width of 2% (for experiments with 1 tool at 95% loading,
which had the largest variance.)
B. Simulation Model Results
Table III contains the results. Toolset performance is eval-
uated on the basis of average queue time (QT), which is the
waiting time of an average lot. This statistic can be easily
converted into mean cycle time (CT), by adding the mean
process time to it (set to one hour in all experiments.) For
each experiment, the gain from PM segregation is calculated
as the difference between the QT with the original PM dura-
tion and the QT with the segregated PM. This difference is
depicted as a value normalized to the QT of the original PM
duration.
C. Simulation Results Analysis
The results are depicted in Figures 2 to 7, for the gain
with different tool quantities, different toolset loading, MTTR,
setups and number of operations. Several valuable insights can
be drawn based on the results.
512 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 30, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2017
Fig. 1. Simulation Model in Arena (1 operation scenario).
TABLE III
N ORMALIZED Q UEUE T IME G AIN P ERCENTAGE ( VS . O RIGINAL PM)
We start by examining the single operation experiments (i.e.,
no re-entrance). Unequal (PM) segregation makes a significant
impact on the mean CT of the toolset. Interestingly, the impact
Fig. 2. Normalized QT gain for different tool quantities, averaged across
various values of loading and MTTR.
Fig. 3. Normalized QT gain for different tool quantities and loadings,
averaged across various MTTR values.
of unequal segregation, when it makes an impact, is a concave
asymptotic function between 0% and 50%, therefore most of
the gain is attained already at 30%, implying that it is not
necessary to segregate PMs only when it is possible to do
that evenly or closely so.
Fig. 2 clearly shows that the number of tools is a major
contributing factor. A single tool has the most gain, closely
followed by two tools, while for six tools the gain dimin-
ishes such that, statistically, there is no significant gain. This
conclusion is expected, since the larger the number of tools in
a toolset, the higher is the likelihood that different tools would
cancel each other in terms of extreme availability states (i.e.,
a single tool can either be in an up or down state, consti-
tuting high variance; but two tools can be in 4 different states,
with more states in between, constituting less variance overall).
This principle is explained in more detail in [16], denoted as
Variability Pooling and proven in [17]. A toolset with fewer
tools has a relatively higher variance and consequently incre-
mental reduction of that variance has a larger impact on QT,
KALIR et al.: EVALUATION OF PM SEGREGATION: MULTI FACTORIAL STUDY
Fig. 4. Normalized QT gain for different tool quantities and MTTR, averaged
across various loadings. The largest gain is for largest MTTR.
Fig. 5. Impact of re-entrance for 1 tool: Normalized QT gain for different
tool quantities, averaged across various loadings.
whereas in the case of a toolset with many tools the variance
is lower resulting in a smaller margin for improvement. It is
for this reason that in the subsequent analyses we shall disre-
gard experiments with six tools, as they have negligible gains.
Hence, figures 3 to 7 only capture results for m = 1, 2.
Fig. 3 shows the impact of tool quantity and loading:
the largest normalized gain is for the 80% loading scenar-
ios, and for each loading level, the gain is clearly larger for
a single tool.
Fig. 4 shows that both cases of PM durations respond pos-
itively to unequal segregation. However, the larger the PM
duration (MTTR, or MTTR to PT ratio), the more significant
is the impact, especially for a single tool.
Fig. 5 demonstrates the impact of re-entrance (or multiple
operations). In most cases, the gain from segregation is higher
in case of multiple operations, but in case of high loading
with long MTTR the normalized gain is lower, as it is divided
by a larger denominator. Nevertheless, it can be observed that
513
Fig. 6. Impact of PM Setups for 1 tool with 80% loading and 30 hours
MTTR.
Fig. 7. Impact of PM Setups for 1 tool with 95% loading and 30 hours
MTTR.
PM segregation is beneficial in both cases: single and multiple
operations.
In Fig. 6 and 7, the impact of incurred setups is consid-
ered. At 80% loading, PM setups have a negative effect, but
for a PM segregation ratio R 20%, there is still a posi-
tive gain, especially when the setup is contained at 10% (i.e.,
3 hours). For a constrained toolset at 95% loading, the neg-
ative effect of PM setups is much stronger such that even
R= 50% does not produce gain. This difference between the
impact in the case of constrained versus non-constrained tools
can be explained as follows: a non-constrained tool has suffi-
cient excess capacity to contain the extra downtime incurred by
setups without significant increase in CT, while for a constraint
tool even small additional downtime has a major nonlinear
impact on cycle time, which is not sufficiently compensated
by reduction in variance gained from PM segregation. For
all the scenarios, there is no gain in segregating extremely
unequally when setups are incurred, which is perfectly rea-
sonable. For example, segregating a 30-hour PM with 6 hours
of setup into two PMs of 27.6 and 8.4 hours (10% segrega-
tion: 2.4+6 hours for short PM and 21.6+6 for long one) only
514 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 30, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2017
reduces the longest PM from 30 to 27.6 hours on the expense
of additional 8.4 hours of downtime.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we extended prior work in the area of PM seg-
regation and its benefits in terms of performance enhancement
of the manufacturing operation. We provided a quantitative
modeling framework of the case of equal PM segregation
and then extended it via simulation to the more generic case
of unequal PM segregation. We evaluated the impact of PM
segregation for different PM durations, toolset loadings, tool
quantities and setup durations. Our simulation experiments
provide insight and guidelines for practitioners for improving
the operation in such cases. Particularly, we have shown that
in many realistic cases PM segregation, even highly uneven,
can make a significant improvement on the mean CT of the
toolset. Somewhat counter intuitively, the impact appears to be
a concave asymptotic function, implying that most of the gain
is attained even if the unequal segregation is much lower than
the 50% split of equal segregation. Furthermore, the impact
is higher for toolsets with a small number of tools and/or
when the PM duration is long, and/or when the toolset is not
a constraint. With regards to constraint utilization, it is impor-
tant to note that even when fab utilization is high, most of the
toolsets still have utilization significantly below 95% (i.e., they
are non-constraints) and therefore, most - if not all - of these
toolsets can benefit significantly from deploying the proposed
PM segregation. Particularly if they are small in fleet.
When the toolset has multiple operations (re-entrance) and
short setups for PMs, the gain of segregation is higher so PM
segregation remains a viable path for pursuit for the case of
a small fleet. Even if the PM requires setup, PM segregation
can be beneficial in case of non-constraint toolset with a few
tools and relatively high segregation ratio.
We have made an attempt in this paper to address the biggest
gap to date in the exploration of PM segregation for cycle
time improvement at a toolset. Nevertheless, there are still
some opportunities for further work. Particularly of interest
is the evaluation of the impact of PM segregation on a full
production system with a series of toolsets, as in this work the
focus has been on studying the effects at the toolset level only.
R EFERENCES
[1] L. Swanson, Linking maintenance strategies to performance, Int.
J. Prod. Econ., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 237244, Apr. 2001.
[2] K. E. McKone, R. G. Schroeder, and K. O. Cua, The impact of total pro-
ductive maintenance practices on manufacturing performance, J. Oper.
Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 3958, Jan. 2001.
[3] A. W. Mackelprang and A. Nair, Relationship between just-in-time
manufacturing practices and performance: A meta-analytic investiga-
tion, J. Oper. Manag., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 283302, Jul. 2010.
[4] P. A. Scarf, On the application of mathematical models in mainte-
nance, Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 493506, Jun. 1997.
[5] J. P. Gilbert and B. J. Finch, Maintenance management: Keeping up
with productions changing trends and technologies, J. Oper. Manag.,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 112, Nov. 1985.
[6] R. Dekker, Applications of maintenance optimization models: A review
and analysis, Rel. Eng. Syst. Safety, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 229240,
Mar. 1996.
[7] A. A. Kalir, Segregating preventive maintenance work for cycle
time optimization, IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf., vol. 26, no. 1,
pp. 125131, Feb. 2013.
[8] I. Tirkel, The effectiveness of variability reduction in decreasing wafer
fabrication cycle time, in Proc. MASM WSC, Washington, DC, USA,
2013, pp. 37963805.
[9] I. Regev and D. Benson-Karhi, Segmentation of the expected dura-
tion of maintenance activities in semiconductor fabs, in Proc. ASMC,
Saratoga Springs, NY, USA, 2015, pp. 280285.
[10] A. Kalir, Optimizing preventive maintenance for factory performance,
in Proc. CASE, Seoul, South Korea, 2012, pp. 642645.
[11] J. R. Morrison, H. Kim, and A. A. Kalir, Mean cycle time optimiza-
tion in semiconductor tool sets via PM planning with different cycles:
A G/G/m queueing and nonlinear programming approach, in Proc.
MASM WSC, Savannah, GA, USA, 2014, pp. 24662477.
[12] K. Wu, Classification of queueing models for a workstation with
interruptions: A review, Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 902917,
Feb. 2014.
[13] M. Lee, J. R. Morrison, and A. A. Kalir, Simulation studies on
model selection in PM planning optimization, in Proc. MASM WSC,
Huntington Beach, CA, USA, 2015, pp. 29292940.
[14] K. Rozen and N. M. Byrne, Using simulation to improve semiconductor
factory cycle time by segregation of preventive maintenance activities,
in Proc. MASM WSC, Washington, DC, USA, 2016, pp. 26762684.
[15] J. Shin, J. R. Morrison, and A. Kalir, Optimization of preventive main-
tenance plans in G/G/m queueing networks and numerical study with
models based on semiconductor wafer fabs, Int. J. Ind. Eng. Theory
Appl. Pract., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 302317, 2016.
[16] W. J. Hopp and M. L. Spearman, Factory Physics: Foundations of
Manufacturing Management, 2nd ed. Boston, MA, USA: McGraw-Hill,
2000.
[17] K. Wu, Y. Zhou, and N. Zhao, Variability and the fundamental prop-
erties of production lines, Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 99, pp. 364371,
Sep. 2016.
Adar A. Kalir received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees in industrial engineering and management
from Tel-Aviv University, Israel, and the Ph.D.
degree in industrial and systems engineering from
Virginia Tech. He is a Senior Principal Engineer
with the Fab/Sort Manufacturing Network, Intel
Corporation, responsible for the application of oper-
ational optimization in high volume manufacturing
across Intels factories, driving improvements in
WIP management, production capacity and cycle
time, and equipment and capital productivity. He
is also an Adjunct Professor with Ben-Gurion University, Israel and
serves as a Co-Chair of the IEEE Technical Committee on Semiconductor
Manufacturing Automation.
Kosta Rozen received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in
industrial engineering and management from Ben-
Gurion University, Israel, in 2005. He is currently
a Senior Simulation Engineer with Intel Corporation,
Qiriat-Gat, Israel. In his position, he is responsible
for tactical and strategic full fab simulations, and
making recommendations to senior management.
He is also an Adjunct Lecturer with Ben-Gurion
University, Israel.
James R. Morrison received the B.S. degree in
electrical engineering and mathematics from the
University of Maryland and the M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in electrical and computer engineering from
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He
is an Associate Professor with the Industrial and
Systems Engineering Department, KAIST, Daejeon,
South Korea. He serves as the Co-Chair of
the IEEE Technical Committee on Semiconductor
Manufacturing Automation.