Skip to main content
Log in

Throughput-driven condition-based maintenance for frequently reconfigured mass production equipment

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Heavily utilised reconfigurable production equipment has uneven deterioration rate caused by frequently changing configurations and complex subsystem interaction. Thus, traditional maintenance approaches that rely on reliability modelling are ineffective when applied on this class of equipment. This paper introduces a throughput-driven condition-based maintenance framework intended to perform predictive maintenance for heavily utilised reconfigurable production equipments. The effectiveness of the proposed method is experimentally validated using actual production records of the semiconductor test handlers. The primary benefit of the proposed framework is its prediction efficacy while accounting for the complex subsystem interaction through Bayesian statistics. It is low cost to implement because it only uses existing resources already available in most manufacturing plants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fouquin M, Guimbard H, Herzog C, Unal D (2010) CEPII World economic overview. CEPII, France. http://www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/bdd/chelem/panorama/panorama.pps. Accessed 09 June 2011

  2. Custer W (2009) Business outlook - global electronics industry. Custer Consulting Group. http://www.ttiinc.com/docs/IO/14314/20090322.pdf. Accessed 09 June 2011 http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=985912. Accessed 06 May 2011

  3. Texas Instruments (2011) TI to acquire national semiconductor. Texas Instruments. http://www.ti.com/ww/en/acquire/index.shtml. Accessed 08 May 2011

  4. Peng Y, Dong M, Zuo M (2010) Current status of machine prognostics in condition-based maintenance: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 50(1):297–313. doi:10.1007/s00170-009-2482-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liao W, Pan E, Xi L (2010) Preventive maintenance scheduling for repairable system with deterioration. J Intell Manuf 21(6):875–884. doi:10.1007/s10845-009-0264-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tu PYL, Yam R, Tse P, Sun AO (2001) An integrated maintenance management system for an advanced manufacturing company. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 17(9):692–703. doi:10.1007/s001700170135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Przytula KW, Choi A (2007) Reasoning framework for diagnosis and prognosis. Proceedings of 2007 IEEE Aerospace Conf, 3–10 Mar 2007, Big Sky, MT (USA), art. no. 416164

  8. Sheppard JW, Kaufman MA (2005) Bayesian diagnosis and prognosis using instrument uncertainty. Proceedings of AUTOTESTCON, 26–29 Sep 2005, Orlando, FL (USA), vol 2005, pp 417–423

  9. Kobbacy KAH, Murthy DNP, Budai G, Dekker R, Nicolai RP (2008) Maintenance and production: A review of planning models. In: Complex system maintenance handbook. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer London, pp 321–344. doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-011-7_13

  10. Aetrium Incorporated (2005) 55V16 component test handler operation and maintenance manual, 1010216 Revision D. (Chapters 6–14)

  11. Brotherton T, Jahns J, Jacobs J, Wroblewski D (2000) Prognosis of faults in gas turbine engines. Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conf, 18–25 Mar. 2000, Big Sky, MT (USA), vol 6, pp 163–171

  12. Garga AK, McClintic KT, Campbell RL, Yang CC, Lebold MS, Hay TA, Byington CS (2001) Hybrid reasoning for prognostic learning in CBM systems. Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conf, 10–17 Mar 2001, Big Sky, MT (USA), vol 6, pp 2957–2969

  13. Choi S (1995) Development of an on-line fuzzy expert system for integrated alarm processing in nuclear power plants. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 42(4):1406–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Frelicot C (1996) A fuzzy-based prognostic adaptive system. RAIRO-APIII-JESA. J Eur Sys Autom 30(2):281–299

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kobbacy KAH, Murthy DNP, Percy DF (2008) Preventive maintenance models for complex systems. In: Complex system maintenance handbook. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer London, pp 179-207. doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-011-7_8

  16. Luo J, Namburu M, Pattipati K, Liu Q, Kawamoto M, Chigusa S (2003) Model-based prognostic techniques [maintenance applications]. Proceedings of AUTOTESTCON, IEEE Sys Readiness Tech Conf, 22–25 Sep 2003, Anaheim, CA (USA), vol 22–25, pp 330–340

  17. Zhang S, Ganesan R (1997) Multivariable trend analysis using neural networks for intelligent diagnostics of rotating machinery. Trans ASME J Eng Gas Turbine Power 119:378–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yam RCM, Tse PW, Li L, Tu P (2001) Intelligent predictive decision support system for condition-based maintenance. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 17:383–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sheau-Chyi L (2007) IC handler throughput evaluation for test process optimization. Proceedings of 2007 IEEE Instrum and Measurement Tech Conf, 1–3 May 2007, Warsaw (Poland), pp 2423-2428

  20. SiliconFarEast (2005) Test equipment load boards/interface boards. SiliconFarEast. http://www.siliconfareast.com/loadbrds2.htm. Accessed 02 June 2011

  21. Bellman R (1961) Adaptive control processes: a guided tour. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Scott DW (1992) Multivariate density estimation: theory, practice, and visualization. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics Wiley. doi:citeulike-article-id:2226994

  23. Park SY, Bera AK (2009) Maximum entropy sutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity model. J Econometrics 150:219–230

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Mathworks (2011) Neural network toolbox trainlm algorithm. R2011b documentation. http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/nnet/ref/trainlm.html. Accessed 03 Jan 2012

  25. Mathworks (2011) Neural network toolbox dividerand function. R2011b documentation. http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/nnet/ref/dividerand.html. Accessed 03 Jan 2012

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ye Chow Kuang.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 A—Semiconductor production data records field summary

Field

Type

Description

Index time

Raw

Time between end of test of a unit and start of test of the next

Test time

Configuration

The test time depending on the test programme used

Jam time

Raw

The length of time that the equipment spends idle while jammed

Jam count

Raw

The number of jams that occur during the run

Lot run time

Raw

The time taken for the lot to complete its run

Lot size

Configuration

The size of the lot

Net units

Raw

Number of units that pass the test

Expected sites

Configuration

Number of test sites configured to be used during the run

Actual sites

Raw

Average number of test sites actually operating

MCBJ

Processed

Average number of units tested in between jams

MSE

Processed

Average percentage of working sites during individual runs

Yield

Processed

The percentage of units in a test lot that passes the test

PPH

Processed

The number of units tested within the window of 1 hour

Handler model

Configuration

The model of the test handler used

Tester model

Configuration

The model of the attached tester

Run type

Configuration

The run type of the lot run: Normal run, Retest rejects and Quality control run

Configuration parameters are the inputs. Raw parameters are outputs from each lot. Processed parameters are that which are calculated from raw values. This type of data is normally automatically logged by the semiconductor test equipment in the Standard Test Data Format (STDF), which is a format used by all major semiconductor test equipment companies such as Teradyne and Verigy. It should be noted that on a case by case basis, the records for a production plant that does not adopt STDF would likely have raw and post-processed data fields.

1.2 B—Artificial neural network setup for CBM

State-of-the-art neural network toolbox in MATLAB was used to build ANN for CBM. 10,000 ANNs were trained with randomly generated network architectures. For each handler, the best network was chosen for benchmarking trials according to the following 2 criteria:

  1. 1.

    Best correlation to corrective action

  2. 2.

    Lead time of more than 5 lots

These criteria are exactly the same as those in Table 3. A lead time of 5 lots advance is chosen as it provides just enough time for maintenance to be scheduled. The randomisation parameters for the network architecture are 1–2 hidden layers, 5–15 nodes per hidden layer and the transfer function used are positive linear/tangent sigmoid combination.

Each of the networks is trained by 500 production records that have known maintenance decisions. It is ensured that a ratio of 1:1 between records with ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ decisions is maintained in the training set to enable sufficient exposure to bad handler during training phase. Six inputs (IT, TT, Jam time, Site count, MCBJ, PPH) and one output (Yes/No maintenance action) are used for the training process. These variables were selected as they were understood to have influence the health of the handler earlier in Sections 3.2–3.3.

The neural networks are all trained with the Levenberg–Marquardt optimization (trainlm), back-propagation supervised-learning training algorithm [24]. By default, trainlm invokes MATLAB’s dividerand function, which segregates training data into 3 sets, with a ratio of 70 to 15 to 15 [25]. These sets are used in succession for training, validation and testing of the neural network.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guan, C.S., Kuang, Y.C. & Ooi, M.PL. Throughput-driven condition-based maintenance for frequently reconfigured mass production equipment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 65, 1349–1361 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4261-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4261-6

Keywords

Navigation