International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 6340(Print), ISSN

N 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013) IAEME AND TECHNOLOGY (IJMET)
ISSN 0976 6340 (Print) ISSN 0976 6359 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), pp. 152-161 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijmet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.7731 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJMET
IAEME

MODELING OF ASSEMBLY LINE BALANCING FOR OPTIMIZED NUMBER OF STATIONS AND TIME

Anoop Kumar Elia1, Dr. D.Choudhary2

1,2

Guru Nanak Dev Engg.College, Bidar.585401

ABSTRACT In this work, the Buxey 29 tasks problem is solved for minimum number of stations and cycle time. The precedence matrix is presented for the 29 tasks. The classification of ALB problem and their solution procedure are presented. Single model ALB and equivalent multi model ALB are treated as similar model and common solution procedure is presented. The number of stations required for the feasible solutions are varied and cycle time are computed. The algorithm used in the derivation of the feasible solutions is presented. The advantages of using a certain number of stations are discussed. Finally important conclusions are drawn and future work is defined. Keywords: Number of stations, Number of feasible solutions, Cycle Time, Optimum Stations and Time. INTRODUCTION An assembly line is formed of a finite set of work elements which are also referred to as tasks. Each task is identified by a processing time for the operation it represents and a set of relationships for precedence, which specifies the allowable ordering of the tasks. Assembly line balancing (ALB) is defined as a process in which a group of tasks to be performed are allocated on an ordered sequence of assembly line. Systematic design of assembly lines is not a simple and easy task for the designers. Manufacturers and Designers have to deal with their existing factory layout in the initial phase. The Cost associated and reliability of the system, complexities involved in tasks, selection of equipment, operating criteria of assembly line, multiple constraints, scheduling methodologies, allocation of stations, control of inventory, buffer allocation are the most important area of concern.
152

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013) IAEME

The parameters that include in ALB is: (l) precedence relationships; (2) number of workstations; (3) cycle time. The number of stations cannot be less than the number of tasks. The cycle time must be greater than or equal to the maximum of time of any workstation and the time of any task. In other words, the workstation time should not have the time higher than the cycle time. Tendencies in the design and orientation of assembly lines in the manufacturing are linked to line evolution. Information need to be collected by designers in this step about the tendencies of the line which need to be implemented. Balancing as well as sequencing problems depends on the types of assembly lines. For example, single model line delivers a single product on the line. Layout of the facility, changes required in tools, workstation indexes remains almost constant. Batch model lines deliver small number of different products over the line but in batches. In mixedmodel case, different variations of a generic product are delivered at the same time but in a mixed scenario. Consideration of the problems associated with work transport system is also a design requirement. In addition to manual work transport over the line, continuous transfer also exists with three types of mechanized work transport systems, namely, synchronous transfer, intermittent transfer, and asynchronous transfer [1]. Different orientations of the line need to be studied by the designer since it varies widely according to the floor layout of the production unit. Generally, straight, parallel, Ushaped [2] are applied. Several design factors are important to assess and consider with the assembly line design and balancing. The solution variations which are to be decided depend on the factors like production approaches, objective functions and constraints. A few of the design constraints related to assembly line balancing are precedence constraints, zoning constraints and capacity constraints [3]. Efficient formulation of line design problem depends on the database enrichment. To collect assembly line data, knowledge related to several performance indices and workstation indices are essential for a line designer. Assembly line design model and methodology for solution combine the model stage. Design tools are formulated and modeled once the input data is collected and verified. Modeling of design tools includes the output data, interaction between different modules and methods required for solution. Wide range of heuristic as Branch and Bound search, Positional weight method, Kilbridge and Wester Heuristic, Moodie-Young Method, Immediate Update First-Fit (IUFF), Hoffman Precedence Matrix [4] and meta-heuristic based solution strategies as Genetic Algorithm GA [5], Tabu Search TS, Ant Colony Optimization ACO [3], Simulated Annealing SA [6] for assembly line problems are taken for study in industrial and research level. Verification of the developed models is a result of performance towards the objectives defined for that particular line. Line performances of assembly line design are a measure of multi-objective characteristics.

153

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013) IAEME

Figure 1: Classification of ALB Solution Procedures. Several solution procedures that are available in the literature are presented in Fig. 1. Variable objective functions are taken into account for assembly line [7]. Goal of the designer is to design a line for higher efficiency, lesser delay in balance, smoother production, and optimized time for processing, cost effectiveness, overall labor efficiency and just in time production. The aim is to develop a line by considering the best of the design methods which may deal in actual fact with user preferences. Design evaluation refers to a user friendly developed interface where all necessary assembly data is accessible extracted from different database. Most of the solutions for assembly line balancing problems explore one final optimized solution. However, it is important to look for the alternative solutions [8]. Validation and verification of several algorithms and methods is combined and incorporated into different design packages [9]. In this work, the Buxey 29 tasks problem is solved for minimum number of stations and cycle time. The precedence matrix and solutions are presented for the 29 tasks. The classification of ALB problem and their solution procedure are also presented. 2.0 CLASSIFICATION OF ALB PROBLEMS Assembly Line Balancing problem can be classified into two categories, namely, Problem based on objective functions. Problem based on problem structure.

154

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013) IAEME

Figure 2: Classification of ALB problems. Problem based on objective functions: Type 1: Cycle time is known, and objective is to minimize number of stations. Type 2: Number of stations are known, and objective is to minimize cycle time. Type 3: Objective is maximization of workload smoothness. Type 4: Objective is maximization of work relatedness. Type 5: Objective is maximization of multiple objectives with type 3 and 4. Type E: Objective is maximization of line efficiency by minimizing both cycle time and number of stations. Type F: Objective is feasibility of line balance for a given combination of number of stations and cycle. Problem based on problem structure: SMALB: Single model ALB problems, where only single product is produced. MuMALBP: Multi model ALB problems, where multiple products are produced in batches. MMALBP: Mixed model ALB problems, where generic products are produced on the line in a mixed situation. SALBP: Simple ALB balancing problems, where the objective is to minimize the cycle time for a fixed number of workstation and vice versa. GALBP: A general ALB problem includes those problems which are not included in SALBP.

155

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013) IAEME

3.0 EQUIVALENT SINGLE MODEL Tasks of several models are combined into an equivalent single model. Combined precedence diagram need to be derived from all the single model diagram along with the average task times. The objective of balancing is to optimize the number of workstations with a pre-decided fixed cycle time. The fixed cycle time is treated as the solution lower bound, for determining desired station numbers, is increased by 1 sec per iteration. Solution lower bound is found with minimum cycle time [10] as: For equivalent single models, the algorithm is defined below. The algorithm delivers number of feasible solutions. Assign a new station STATION[1] with a cycle time T = MINCYCLETIME Determine all the tasks that do not have the predecessor TASKSWOPRED = { i, j,., n} Assign one task in TASKSWOPRED to STATION[1] Remove the taks that is assigned to STATION[1] from the graph and update it as TASKSWOPRED = { j,k,.,n }. Update the station cycle time as T = MINCYCLETIME - ti Repeat steps 3 to 5, until T is positive and update the T and TASKSWOPRED each time. When T turns negative, look for any other tasks in TASKSWOPRED to fit in STATION[1], but the T should remain positive. When T turns zero or negative for all the tasks in TASKSWOPRED, create a new station as STATION[2]. Repeat steps 3 to 8. Repeat step 3 to 9 for all feasible solutions. Try the solutions for a pre-decided number of stations. If the solutions derived are not feasible, repeat 3 to 9 after update the T as MINCYCLETIME+1. When all the feasible solutions are obtained, store the updated T.

4.0 SIMULATION RESULTS For experimental; purpose, Buxey 29 tasks Problem [11] is chosen. The precedence diagram for the Buxey is presented in Fig. 3. In case of multiple models, the equivalent task diagram can be derived in the form shown in Fig. 3. For the sake of simplicity, a single model precedence diagram is shown and solved in this work. The Buxey problem has a total of 29 tasks and the associated tasks are shown above each task in Fig. 3.

156

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013) IAEME

Figure 3: Buxey 29 tasks precedence diagram. Table 1 shows the precedence matrix for the Buxey 29 tasks problem. In the matrix, the columns and rows represent the task number. It shows the precedence relation between the tasks. For example, in row 2 and column 6, it is indicated as 1 in the matrix, which means the task 6 is preceded by task 2. If the value is zero, it means there is no precedence relationship in the diagram. The last row of the Table 1 shows the time associated with each task. Table 1: Precedence matrix for the Buxey 29 Tasks problem

157

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013) IAEME

There are different parameters in this problem which can vary to derive a best possible solutions using design of experiments. However, in this case on one parameter is varied to find out the feasible solutions. The parameter that is varies in the work is number of stations. The number of solutions is varied from 8 to 9 and 10. For each case, the number feasible solutions are computed and the cycle time is determined. Also, the total time consumed by each station is also computed. Table 2: Feasible solutions for 8 stations for the Buxey 29 Tasks problem

By running the algorithm mention Sec.3, nine feasible solutions are obtained. The Table 2 shows the assigned stations for each task under each solution. For example, in solution 2, task 1 is assigned to station 2, task 2 is assigned to station 1 etc. Table 2 can be modified into different for all the tasks that is assigned to each station under each feasible solution, which is not presented here. Table 3: Total time taken by each station for the Buxey 29 Tasks problem

Table 3 shows the total time taken by each station under each solution. Of all the solutions, Solution 1 and 2 provides the best cycle time of 324 sec. depending upon the complexity of tasks and ease of operation, either Solution 1 or Solution 2 can be chosen. The cycle time for both these solutions is 41 sec.

158

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013) IAEME

Table 4: Feasible solutions for 9 stations for the Buxey 29 Tasks problem.

Again, the number of stations are varied from 8 to 9 and the algorithm as mentioned in Sec. 3 is run. In this case, there are 16 feasible solutions are obtained as shown in Table 4. By increasing the number stations, there is a significant increase in the number of solutions. However, the best solution for practical implementation to be chosen based on the minimum cycle time and the complexity involved in transportation and assignment of tasks to these stations. The cost of other resources also should be considered when choosing the best feasible solution. Table 5: Total time taken by each station for the Buxey 29 Tasks problem.

Here again, the solution 1 yields the best possible solution since the cycle time is minimum of all. Solution 1 takes a total time of 324 sec which is same as in the case of 8 station model. The cycle time in this case is 38 sec. If the cost of installation of the stations is given priority, it is the 8 station model, which suits best for this problem over 9 station model.
159

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013) IAEME

Table 6: Feasible solutions for 10 stations for the Buxey 29 Tasks Problem.

Again, by increasing the number of stations from 9 to 10, 16 feasible solutions are obtained. From Table7 the best solution yields 324 sec of total time and a cycle time of 34 sec. By increasing the number of stations, there in change in the number of feasible solutions and the same kind behavior is noticed when the number of stations further increased to 11, 12 and so on. Although the cost of installation of stations increases when the number of stations is increased, it provides the best flexibility in maintenance of the stations. Table 7: Total time taken by each station for the Buxey 29 Tasks problem

CONCLUSIONS In this work, the single model assembly line problem or equivalent model of multi model assembly line problem are solved for minimum number of stations and minimum cycle time. The number of stations are varied from 8 to 10 and the feasible solutions for each case are derived. By increasing the number of stations from 8 to 10, the total time remain as 324 sec for solution 1 and the cycle time has decreased from 41 sec to 34 sec. The number of feasible solutions increased from 9 to 16 when the number stations are changed from 8 to 9, but there is no improvement after that. Depending up the resources available, one can choose
160

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013) IAEME

the number of stations as 8 or 9. Eight stations model yield less installation and maintenance cost, whereas the 9 station model provides best ease maintenance and operation. As future work, the models can be tried with multi models as an extension and optimization of cycle time and smoothening of the task assignment can be tried. REFERNCES [1] Papadopoulos, H.T; Heavey, C. & Browne, J. (1993). Queuing Theory in Manufacturing Systems Analysis and Design; Chapman & Hall, ISBN 0412387204, London, UK [2] Becker, C. & Scholl, A. (2006). A survey on problems and methods in generalized assemblyline balancing, European journal of operational research, Vol. 168, Issue. 3 (February, 2006), pp. (694715), ISSN 0377-2217. [3] Vilarinho, P.M. & Simaria, A.S. (2006). ANTBAL: An ant colony optimization algorithm for balancing mixed-model assembly lines with parallel workstations, International journal of production research, Vol 44, Issue 2, pp. 291303, ISSN ISSN: 1366-588 0020-7543 [4] Ponnambalam, S.G., Aravindan, P. & Naidu, G.M. (1999). A comparative evaluation of assembly line balancing heuristics. International journal of advanced manufacturing technology, Vol. 15, No. 8 (July 1999), pp. (577-586), ISSN: 0268-3768 [5] Sabuncuoglu, I., Erel, E. & Tanyer, M. (1998). Assembly line balancing using genetic algorithms. Journal of intelligent manufacturing, Vol. 11, No. 3 (June, 2000), pp. (295-310), ISSN: 0956-5515 [6] Suresh, G. & Sahu, S. (1994). Stochastic assembly line balancing using simulated annealing, International journal of production research, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. (1801-1810), ISSN: 1366-588X (electronic) 0020-7543 (paper) [7] Tasan, S.O. & Tunali, S. (2006). A review of current application of genetic algorithms in assembly line balancing, Journal of intelligent manufacturing, Vol. 19, No. 1 (February, 2008), pp. (49-69), ISSN: 0956-5515 [8]Boysen, N., Fliedner, M. & Scholl, A. (2006). A classification of assembly line balancing problems. European journal of operational research, Elsevier, Vol 183, No. 2 (December, 2007), pp. (674693) [9] Rekiek, B. & Delchambre, A. (2006). Assembly line design, the balancing of mixedmodel hybrid assembly lines using genetic algorithm; Springer series in advance manufacturing, ISBN-10: 1846281121, Cardiff, UK. [10] Gu, L., Hennequin, S., Sava, A., & Xie, X. (2007). Assembly line balancing problem solved by estimation of distribution, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual IEEE conference on automation science and engineering scottsdale, AZ, USA. [11] Scholl, A. (1993). Data of assembly line balancing problems. Retrieved from http://www.wiwi.uni-jena.de/Entscheidung/alb/, last accessed: 07 February 2008. [12] S.K. Gupta, Dr. V.K. Mahna, Dr. R.V. Singh and Rajender Kumar, Mixed Model Assembly Line Balancing: Strategic Tool to Improve Line Efficiency in Real World International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 58 - 66, ISSN Online: 0976 - 6979, ISSN Print: 0976 6987.

161