MIXED MODEL

ASSEMBLY LINE
BALANCING
(SAYAN CHAKRABORTY)

1. Introduction:
Layout decisions in a typical factory consist of the determination of placement of various
departments, work groups within the department, workstations, and machines within a production
facility. The basic objective of optimizing facility layout is to arrange the above mentioned elements
in a manner so that the operational output can be maximised and bottlenecks can be eliminated. A
good layout has immense importance on reducing bottlenecks in moving people or material,
minimizing material handling costs and improvement of resource utilization. It is also important in
order to achieve flexibility, resource utilization and improving safety in a production plant.
There are basically three basic types of layout (process layout, product layout, and fixed-position
layout) and one hybrid type (group technology or cellular layout) layout.
1.1. Process Layout:
A process layout or job- shop layout or functional layout is a layout in which similar equipment
are grouped together, Process layouts are designed to increase economies of scale, allowing
individual processes to function more efficiently by pooling resources and is ideal for large
volume productions.

Fig: 1 Process layout

1.2. Product layout:
Product layout groups different workstations together, and have the advantage of keeping
specific production jobs relatively contained. This is advantageous for low-volume goods that
require a good deal of communication between workers at different stations. In a fixed-position
layout, the product remains at one location. Manufacturing equipment is moved to the product,
and useful for bulky product making industry like ship, aeroplane industries.

Fig: 2 Product layout

1.3. cellular layout:
In the hybrid type or cellular layout, dissimilar machines are grouped together to work on the
products having similar shapes or processing requirements.

Fig: 3 Cellular layout

The basic difference between a product layout and process layout is the pattern of workflow. In
product layout, equipment or departments are dedicated to a particular product line, duplicate
equipment is employed to avoid backtracking, and a straight-line flow of material movement is
achievable.

2. Definition of Assembly lines:

Since Henry Fords introduction of Assembly lines in the year 1913, the assembly line balancing
problem (ALBP) has been of significant industrial importance. In general sense, the assembly lines
are a special type of product layouts, developed specially for mass production. The term assembly
line refers to a progressive assembly linked by some kind of material handling device. Line balancing
is very useful in dividing a complex work structures into number of elemental tasks and removing
bottlenecks. The basic objective of line balancing is to arrange the individual processing and
assembly tasks at the workstations so that the total time required at each workstation is
approximately the same.

Fig: 4 Assembly Lines

3. Types of Assembly line balancing:

Assembly line balancing can be classified into three general models. These models are i) Single
model assembly lines and ii) Mixed model assembly lines and iii) Multi model assembly line.
i.

Single model assembly line: If only a single model is assembled in the line, then the system is
defined as single model assembly line.

ii.

Mixed model Assembly line: In mixed model assembly lines, all models which are variation of
the same base product but different in attributes are assembled.

iii.

Multi model assembly line: In this system, the assembled products are not homogeneous
and more than one type of models is assembled in the line.

4. Application of Assembly line:

A single model assembly line is useful when many units of one product are required, and there is no
variety among the products. This is typically applicable to products with very high demand. Batch
model line and mixed model line are produced to more than one model. The difference lies between
batch model line and mixed model line is that for the batch model line, product variety is more
significant than mixed model line. Hence A batch model line produces each model in batches. After
one batch of the product is produced, change in the setup of the assembly line is incorporated in
order to facilitate the production of new model variety. Sequence of tasks is usually different
between models and tools used at a given workstation for the last model might not be the same as
those required for the next model. For these reason, newer setup is required before production of
each batches so production time lost is evident on batch assembly line.
This problem can be rectified by using mixed assembly line where product variety is relatively low as
the models are not produced in batches; instead, they are simultaneously produced on the same
line. Two different models can be worked in two subsequent workstations in mixed assembly line
problem. The major example of mixed model assembly line is seen in automobile industries. In
mixed product assembly line, each workstation is capable of producing multiple tasks required over
a range of models.
Due to this advantage, mixed assembly line problem eliminates the drawbacks of lost production
times and high inventories associated with batch line assembly. But designing the mixed assembly
line is much complex as to determine the sequencing the models to the workstations and getting the
right part to each workstations at the required time is a difficult task.
Line type

Product Variety

Single

None

Batch

Substantial Product variety

Mixed

Small Differences

5. Mixed model assembly line balancing:

The concept of mixed model assembly line balancing evolved when any particular item does not
have sufficient demand to initiate a separate assembly line but may be part family of separate
products can. Just-in time manufacturing concept brings significant focus on producing variety of
items on the same assembly line. So the need of mixed model assembly line evolves. As the cost of
building an assembly line is very high, it is preferable to simultaneously produce one model with
different features or several models on a single line for cost effectiveness. The mixed assembly line
balancing problem (MALBP) can ensure smooth production and cost effectiveness when more than
one product or model is manufactured on an assembly line.

6. Background of the problem:

In order to meet the growing demand of the market, it is essential to reach the customers in a short
lead time. Also, when the product life cycles are short and the variety is high, different models of
product must be produced in a small lot size with adequate flexibility. Also, assembly systems must
achieve high productivity, uniform and good quality with low cost.(Thomopoulos,1967) Mixed model
assembly line balancing can efficiently handle variety in productions, but if the variety goes very high
than overall system performance is degraded along with the quality and productivity of the system.
(Hadi et Al, 1997)

7. Review of the past researches:

General mixed model assembly line balancing problem
Author (Year)

Objective

Solution approach

Major assumptions

Thomopoulos Nick. T

Development of a

Each model in the

In order to solve the

(1967)

heuristic for solving

MALP problem is

sequencing problem,

MALP problem adopting

considered separately

work delay and labour

single assembly line

and the line balancing

skills are not taken into

balancing technique.

and model sequencing

account.

of the system is
considered
individually.
Sequencing is used to
increase the efficiency
of the line.
Hadi et Al. (1997)

For a number of given

An integer

WIP is not allowed and

models, assigning the

programming model is

common tasks of

tasks to an ordered

developed that can be

different models are

sequence of stations

used to solve the

assigned to the same

such that the

MALP problem.

station. Also, parallel

precedence relations are

stations are not

satisfied and

allowed and all the

performance measures

tasks have the same

are optimized.

predecessor and
successor.

Erdal et Al. (1999)

Shortest route

The mixed-model

Set of common tasks

formulation of the

version of the problem

across the models are

mixed-model assembly

is transformed into a

assumed to exist.

line balancing problem

single-model version

that leads to the optimal

with a combined

solution.

precedence diagram.

Computer assisted mixed model assembly line problem

Author (Year)

Objective

Solution approach

Major Assumptions

Macaskill et

Assembly of different models of

Balance efficiency

List of task available for

Al. (1972)

the same general product on

and speed of

assignment is constant

one production line and

computation is

over time and work in

allocation of even work to

considered. A

different stations are

operators to increase model

balance problem is

independent.

sequence efficiency.

formulated and the

associated
difficulties are
noted.

DePuy et Al.

Scheduling the individual

COMSOAL

Resource is constant over

(2000)

activities of a project to

(Computer Method

time and known.

minimize the overall completion

of Sequencing

time of the project.

Operations for
Assembly Lines)

Mixed model assembly line balancing operating under JIT concept

Author (Year)

Objective

Solution approach

Major Assumptions

Miltenburg

Determine the optimal JIT

Dynamic

Rate of assembly process is

(1990)

production schedule for a mixed

Programming

always constant.

model facility.

approach,
heuristics.

Bard (1989)

Develop an algorithm to

Dynamic

Task times are always

effectively solve assembly line

programming

constant.

balancing problem where both

approach.

stations and tasks are paralleled,

taking into account the
unproductive time at the
workshop.
Miltenburg et

Make the parts usage of the

Scheduling

All products do not have

Al. (1989)

whole line constant in order to

algorithm &

same operation time and

meet JIT philosophy.

heuristics.

few tasks have relatively

long operation time.

Sequencing Scheduling and Mixed-model Assembly Line Balancing

Author (Year)

Objective

Solution approach

Major Assumptions

Merengo et Al.

Minimizing the rate of

Balancing

Every model has a single

(1999)

incomplete jobs and probability

methodology

non-cyclical precedence

of starvation and WIP in

heuristics and

diagram. Processing time

simulation based

for each task is constant and

tests for effective

known.

solution to the
sequencing
problem.
David (1995)

Maximize the workstation

Dynamic

Assembly times are

throughput or minimize the

programming

assumed to be increasing as

number of workstations.

approach,

the operation is delayed.

sequence
heuristics.
Raouf et Al.

Prioritize the elements in the

Heuristic method

The work element time is

(1980)

assembly line to determine

executed by

considered to be invariant.

minimum number of

FORTRAN program.

workstations under a
predetermined cycle time.
Nevins (1972)

Minimizing the number of

Best bud heuristics,

Relative parameters are

workstation needed in order to

branch & bound

constant and known over

meet production rate by

technique.

time.

evaluation of relative merits of

alternative paths for the
sequencing problem.

Mixed-model Assembly Line Balancing in the context of setup cost minimization

Author (Year)

Objective

Solution approach

Major Assumptions

Trvino Et Al.

Minimize the setup cost

A general equation

Relationships between the

(1993)

considering inventory carrying

is drawn and goal

parameters are known and

cost, setup cost, storage cost,

programming

analyst can provide the values

setup time reduction cost and

approach is

directly.

quality cost.

adopted.

Setup time and lot size

Goal programming

All the models are of the same

reduction

approach.

general product, current lot

Lee (1994)

size is enough to meet market

demand. Model changeover is
possible without any WIP.

Mixed-model Assembly Line Balancing by alternative approach

Pedro

Et

(1994)

Al. Minimize

of Simulated

Planning horizon is fixed and

workstations along the line, for annealing

each model has its own set of

a given cycle time, and to approach

precedence relationships.

balance

the

number

the

between

workloads

and

within

workstations.
Mirzapour et Al. Installation of a bypass sub-line Hybrid
(2009)

algorithm Stations are balanced i.e.

which processes a portion of based on Genetic number of stations are known.

assembly

operations

of Algorithm (GA).

products with relatively longer

assembly times.
Kara

et

(2011)

Al. Duplication of common task in Fuzzy

order to improve efficiency of a programming
mixed assembly line.

Sekar
(2013)

et

completion time is known.

approach.

Al. Minimize work overload and Weighted

station to station work flow.

goal Common tasks exist and task

objective

multi There can be parallel machine

based in some stations

Optimization
Method

10

8. Solving a Mixed model Assembly line problem:

The manual mixed model assembly line can be discussed in the context of three technical issues. The
issues are
1) Determination of the number of workers
2) Solving of line balancing problem
3) Model launching.
8.1. Determining the number of workers:
It is useful to compute a theoretical minimum number of workers that will be required on the
assembly line to produce a product with known work content time.(total time of all work
elements that must be performed on the line to make one unit of the product(
production rate (

), and

).

Steps to determine the theoretical minimum number of worker:

Step 1: Total workload/hour. (WL) to be calculated

Step 2: Calculate the available time/ hour/worker. (AT)

Step 3: Theoretical minimum number of worker is

Where WL = workload (min/hr.);

= production rate of model j (pc/hr.]:

= work content

time of model j (min/pc); P = the number of models to be produced during the period: and j is
used to identify the model, j = 1, 2 , P. repositioning efficiency is
is

and line balance efficiency

11

Example 1: The hourly production rate and work content time for two models to be produced
on a mixed model assembly line are given in the table below. Also given is that line efficiency E =
0.96 and manning level is 1. Determine the theoretical minimum number of workers required on
the assembly line.

Model

Required Production unit/ hour

Total work content time

27.0

25.0

Solution:
i)

Calculate the Total workload/hour:

ii)

Or,

WL = (4*27) + (6*25) min/ hour

Or,

WL = 258 min/ hour

Calculate the Available time/ hour:

Line efficiency is given as .96, Manning level is given one worker each station.
So, Available time (AT) = 60 * .96 = 57.6 min/hour/worker
iii)

Calculate the theoretical minimum number of workers:

0r,

Or,

So, theoretical minimum number of workers = 5

12

8.2. Mixed Model Line Balancing:

The algorithms used to solve line balancing problem for mixed assembly line balancing are
usually adaptation of methods developed for Single model lines. In single model line balancing,
work element times are utilized to balance the line, whereas in mixed model assembly line
balancing, total work element times per shift or per hour are used. The objective function can be
expressed as follows:

Or,

Where W is number of work stations, AT= available time in the period of interest, WL = work
load to be achieved during same period (min), and

is total service time at station i to

perform its assigned portion of the workload (min).

Steps for Mixed model Line balancing:
Step 1: Respective precedence diagrams for all the models to be drawn.
Step 2: All the precedence diagrams to be combined into one precedence diagram.
Step 3: Total time required for each element in each model to be calculated and summed.

Where

= total time within the workload that must be allocated to element k for all products

(min).
Step 4: Compute new required production rate (Rp) by summing required production rate of
each elements.
Step 5: Cycle time (Tc) for the combined assembly line to be computed.
Minute
Step 6: Total available time

) is to be computed.

Step 7: Elements are to be allocated to workstations by any single line balancing algorithm.

13

Example 2: For the two models Y and Z, hourly production rates are: 4 units/hour and 6
units/hour for Y & Z respectively. Most of the work elements arc common to the two models,
but in some cases the elements take longer for one model than for the other. The elements,
times, and precedence requirements are given in the following Table. Also given: E = 0.96 %,
repositioning time Tr = 0.15 min. and manning level is one.
(a) Construct the precedence diagram for each model and for both models combined into one
diagram.
(b) Use the Kilbridge and Wesler method to solve the line balancing problem.
(c) Determine the balance efficiency.

Work element

Time on model Y

Preceded by

Time on model Z

Preceded by

5,6

(K)

14

Solution:
Step 1: Draw the precedence diagram for model Y

6
D

Precedence diagram for model Y

Step 2: Draw the precedence diagram for model Z

4
B
3

Precedence diagram for model Z

15

Step 3: combine the precedence diagram for Y & Z

YZ
B
YZ

Y
E

YZ

YZ

YZ

YZ

Precedence diagram for the combined model

Step 4: Compute the total time required for each element in each model
Total time required,

Element (K)

4*3 = 12

6*3 = 18

12 + 18 = 30

4*4 = 16

6*4 = 24

16 + 24 = 40

4*2 = 8

6*3 = 18

8 + 18 = 26

4*6 = 24

6*5 = 30

16 + 30 = 54

4*2 = 8

6*0 = 0

8+0=8

4*4 = 16

6*2 = 12

16 + 12 = 28

4*0 = 0

6*4 = 24

0 + 24 = 24

4*5 = 20

6*4 = 24

20 + 24 = 44

16

Step 5: Arrange the elements in column according to the combined precedence diagram.

Element

Column

TTk

Preceded by

30

II

40

II

26

II

54

III

III

28

III

24

IV

44

Step 6: Compute the new required production rate, cycle time and available time.
New required production rate is (6 + 4) = 10 units/hour

Step 7: Compute the new cycle time and available time.

Cycle time is given as

Or,

= 5.76 min.

Repositioning time is given as 0.15 minute.

So,
Service time (TTS) = cycle time (TC) repositioning time (Tr)
Or, service time = 5.76 0.15 = 5.61 minute
17

So
Repositioning efficiency = Service time (TTS) / Cycle time (TC) = 5.61 / 5.76 = 0.974
Hence, the total available time (AT) can be calculated as-

Or,

Step 8: Solve the problem using the Kilbridge and Wesler method

Workstation

Element

TTk (minute)

30

26

56

54

54

40

12

28

24

52

44

44

TTsi(minute)

3
52

258
Step 9: Compute the balance efficiency
The balance efficiency is determined by Max {TTsi} = 56 minute.
So, balance efficiency,

18

8.3. Model launching in Mixed model lines:

Launching of base parts at the beginning of the line is relatively a simple process in a single
model line as the time interval is constant and set equal to the cycle time,

. But in a mixed

model line, it is more complicated as each of the models may have a different work content
time, which translates into different station service time. Hence, the time interval between
launches and the selection of which model to launch are interdependent for mixed model line.
For the mixed model line, the solution of the model launching and line balancing problems are
closely related. The solution of the model launching problem depends on the solution of line
balancing problem. The model sequence must be same that of the line balancing problem.
Time interval between successive launches is called launching discipline in mixed model line.
There are two alternative launching disciplines available. They are;
I) variable rate launching
II) Fixed rate launching.
I.

Variable rate launching:

The advantage of variable rate launching is that units can be launched in any order without
causing idle time or congestion at workstations. In this method, the time difference between
two successive launches is kept equal to the cycle time of the current unit. The cycle time and
launch intervals vary with every launches, as different models have different task times per
station. The time interval in variable rate launching can be expressed as follows:
Steps for determining variable launching rate:
i)

Determine number of workers (w) on the line.

ii)

Determine total work content time (

) of a particular model.

iii)

Determine repositioning efficiency

& balance efficiency

iv)

variable rate launching =

Where

is the time interval before the next launch in variable rate launching (min),

is

the work content time of the product just launched (model j) (min), w is the number of workers
and

are the repositioning efficiency and balance efficiency respectively.

19

Variable rate launching has a few logistical and technical setbacks. Deliver the required
components and subassemblies to the workstations at any given moment are difficult, also,
work units cannot be attached to the conveyor matching with the variable rate launching
interval. Due to these flaws, fixed rate launching is often preferred over variable rate launching
method.

Example 3: Determine the variable rate launching intervals for models Y and Z in previous
examples. Repositioning efficiency (E,) is 0.974 and balance efficiency (Eb) = 0.921.
Solution: Variable launching rate,

For model Y,

For model Z,
So, when a unit of model A is launched onto the front of the line, 6.020 min must elapse before
the next launch. Again, when a unit of model B is launched onto the front of the line, 5574 min
must elapse before the next launch.
II.

Fixed rate launching:

In fixed rate launching, the interval between launching of two models is kept constant. The
interval is usually kept taking the speed of the conveyor and the distance between work carriers
into account. It is important that the schedule is at per with the available man power on the
assembly line else there will be either station congestion or starving on the assembly line.
Steps for fixed rate launching:
i)

Determine production rate (RPj) of a model.

ii)

Determine work content time (Twc) of a model.

iii)

Determine production rate of all models (RP) in the schedule.

iv)

Launching time interval is determined as

20

Where
model j,

is defined as the time interval between two launch,

is the work content time of model j,

the number of models and

Is the production rate of

is the production rate for all models, p is

denotes number of workers, reposition efficiency and

balance efficiency respectively.

Congestion and idle time can be identified in each successive launch by the following expression:

Where

id the fixed rate launching interval, m = launch sequence during the period of

interest, h = launch index number for summation purpose and

is the cycle time associated

with model j in launch position h (min), calculated as follows:

If the value of the above expression is positive, then congestion is recognized, which means that
the actual sum of task times for the models thus far launched (m) exceeds the planned
cumulative task time. Otherwise, there will be idle time on the assembly line. In order to
minimize both congestion and idle time, the following model is proposed, (Groover M.P, 2002).
Example 4:
Determine the fixed rate launching intervals for models Y and Z in previous examples. Repositioning
efficiency (E,) is 0.974 and balance efficiency (Eb) is 0.921.
Solution:
The combined production rate of model Y & Z is 6+4 = 10 units/ hour.
Total work content time for two models is 27 min & 25 min respectively
Theoretical number of workers, w = 5

So, Launching time interval,

Or,

= 5.752 minute.

21

8.4 An alternatives approach to solve mixed assembly line balancing problem:

(eker, zgrler, & Tanya, 2013) considers the objective of minimizing the work overload and
station-to-station product flows. The authors have developed a multi objective mixed-integer
programming (MOMIP) model to optimize these two criteria. They made the following
assumptions while formulating the model:
i.

Each assembly task must be assigned to at least one station.

ii.

There are parallel machines in some stations.

iii.

Total space required for the tasks assigned to each station must not exceed the stations
finite work space available.

iv.

Each product must be routed to the stations subject to precedence relations defined by
its assembly plan.

v.

Revisiting of stations is not allowed.

vi.

Each station can perform at most one task at any given time.

vii.

Transfer times between stations are not negligible.

The following notations are used in the model;

Indices:
: assembly station , = {1, . . . ,

: assembly task = {1, . . . , }

: parallel machine at station { = 1, . . . ,

: product, = {1, . . . , V}
: assembly sequence, = {1, . . . , }.
Input Parameters:
: working space of station for task .
: working space for station .
: number of parallel machines in station .
: process time for task of model .

22

 : transportation time from station to station .

I : the set of stations capable of performing task .

J: the set of tasks required for product .

R : the set of immediate predecessor-successor pairs of tasks ( , ) for assembly

sequence such that task must be performed immediately before task .
S: the set of assembly sequences available for product .

T : the set of tasks in assembly sequence .

Decision Variables:
= 1, if assembly sequence is selected; otherwise 0;
= 1, if task is assigned to station ; otherwise = 0;

= 1, if task is assigned to parallel machine in station ;

Otherwise

= 0;

= 1, if product in sequence is transferred from station after the completion of

task to station to perform next task; otherwise

= 0;

max is the maximum station workload (cycle time).

sum represents the weighted sum of total assembly and transportation time.

The following decision variables are introduced to model the loading and routing problem:
: the weight factor (0 < < 1),
: a big number

23

The problem can be stated as

(1)

Subject to,

(2)

Ir, ( , )

, ,

, j J

, , s S

(4)
(5)
(6)

(7)

j J

(3)

(8)

(9)

, , s S

(10)

(11)

[ ][ ][ ][]

[ ];

, j J, , s S

(12)

Ij, l

I, l Lr, (j,r)

,sS

(13)

Ij, l

I, l Lr, (j,r)

,sS

(14)

Ij, l

I, l Lr, (j,r)

,sS

(15)

; kK

(16)
(17)

(18)
;

s S, j J, i I, h H

(19)

24

Description of the model

i.

The objective function is the minimization of the weighted maximum workload max and
sum of transportation time sum.

ii.

Equation (2) shows for each product and assembly sequence selected that all of its required
tasks are allocated among the stations.

iii.

Equation (3) is the flow of tasks for each station, for selected assembly sequence, and for
successively performed tasks.

iv.

Equations (4) and (7) ensure the workload of the bottleneck station with parallel machines
and the total transportation time, respectively.

v.

Equations (5) and (6) define the tasks that are assigned to at least one machine and not
more than all

parallel machines of such a station when the product moves from

station to station to perform task .

vi.

Equation (8) ensures that each task is assigned to at least one station, and by this, it admits
alternative assembly routes for products.

vii.

Equation (9) is the station capacity constraint.

viii.

Equation (10) shows the total flexibility capacity of all parallel machines at related station.

ix.

Equation (11) represents the capacity constraint of the number of parallel machines in
station .

x.

Equation (12) shows that if the sequence is not selected, all variables of related
sequence are made zero. Equation (12) shows that if we do not select any sequence, we
make all of variables in this sequence zero.

xi.

Equations (13), (14), and (15) ensure that each product successively visits stations where the
required tasks may be assembled subject to precedence relations defined by the assembly
sequence selected.

xii.

Equation (16) ensures that only one assembly sequence is selected for each product.

xiii.

Equation (17) eliminates upstream flow of products in a unidirectional flow system.

xiv.

Equation (18) eliminates assignment of tasks and products to inappropriate stations.

xv.

Equation (19) ensures that all tasks, which are in the same sequence, are assigned to the
same station and the same parallel machine and that also the tasks of the same product
models are assigned to the same station and the same parallel machine.

25

Solution Approach
i)

Multi objective integer programming problems may be thought as an extension of the

classical single objective integer programming problem.

ii)

The weighted sum (WS) method is used to solve multi-objective integer programming
problem.

iii)

The weighted sum (WS) method involves a linear or convex combination of the
objectives

each objective is multiplied by a normalized weight factor

and the product added to give the scalar objective

Where p is the number of objectives, = 1 and > 0, i = 1,..p.

iv)

To solve the underlying multi-objective mixed integer programming model, ILOG OPL
optimization software can be used.

The drawbacks of this method:

i.

It misses solution points on the nonconvex part of the Pareto surface.

ii.

Its diversity cannot be controlled; therefore even the distribution of weights does not
translate to uniform the distribution of the solution points.

iii.

The distribution of solution points is highly dependent on the relative scaling of the
objective.

9. Research issues in Mixed Model Assembly line balancing:

In todays competitive market, it is very important to implement more flexible production systems
that respond rapidly with the change of market demand in terms of producing more versatile
products in a short lead time. Hence balancing assembly line is a very important issue. Majorly, In a
MALB problem, efficiently balance the line is one of the most challenging tasks. Also, to increase the
overall performance, other strategic and operational decisions are to be taken. The MALB problem
can be solved either by minimizing the number of workstations for a given cycle time or minimizing
cycle time for a given number of workstations. Material movement is an important aspect in MALB
problem, also, transportation time often increase the total production time in MALB. So, optimal
routing of the parts and assigning of equal assembly time towards stations are the major issues in
MALB problem.
26

10. Conclusion:
The assembly line balancing problem (ALBP) has had significant industrial importance since Henry
Fords introduction of the assembly line. Assembly lines can be classified as single model, multi
model, and mixed model with respect to the number of different products assembled on an
assembly line. Mixed model assembly line has significant importance improving the production
efficiency in terms of varying market demand. Mixed model assembly line is also very important to
meet the goals of JIT production and in order to reduce inventory, setup and attain higher
production.
Historically, the focus almost always has been on full utilization of human labor; that is, to design
assembly lines minimizing human idle times. But newer views are much more practical and
intentions are to incorporate greater flexibility in the number of products manufactured on the line,
more variability in workstations (such as size, number of workers), improved reliability (through
routine preventive maintenance), and high-quality output (through improved tooling and training).
Balancing mixed-model is a difficult task and sequencing of task even makes it more difficult for
computation. But mixed model assembly line balancing has been recognized as a major enabler to
handle product variety, and can be found in most of the industrial environment today. With the
growing trend for product variability and shorter life cycle, they are slowly replacing the traditional
mass production assembly line.

27

11. References:
Al-e-Hashem, S., & Aryanezhad, M. (2009). An efficient method to solve a mixed-model assembly line
sequencing problem considering a sub-line. World Applied Sciences Journal, 6(7), 168181.
Balancing-sequencing, L., Author, M. A., Source, N. T. T., Series, A., & Url, I. S. (2015). Line balancingsequencing for mixed-model assembly , 14(2).
Bard, J. F. (1989). Assembly line balancing with parallel workstations and dead time. International Journal of
Production Research, 27(6), 10051018.
Ben-Arieh, D. (1995). Line balancing for non-traditional assembly lines, mixed models, and sequencedependent assembly times. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 8(4), 286297.
Gokcen.H.(1998). Binary Integer formulation for mixed model assembly line balancing problem. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 34(2), 451-461
Bukchin, J. (1998). A comparative study of performance measures for throughput of a mixed model assembly
line in a JIT environment. International Journal of Production Research, 36(10), 26692685.
Bukchin, J., Dar-El, E. M., & Rubinovitz, J. (2002). Mixed model assembly line design in a make-to-order
environment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 41(4), 405421.
Chang, H., & Chang, T. (2010). Simultaneous Perspective-Based Mixed-Model Assembly Line Balancing
Problem, 13(3), 327336.
Choudhary, S., & Agrawal, S. (2014). Mixed-Model Assembly Line Balancing Problem: A Focus on Model
Formulation, (Aimtdr), 1215.
Chutima, P. (2010). Mixed-Model U-Shaped Assembly Line Balancing Problems with Coincidence Memetic
Algorithm. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 03(04), 347363.
DePuy, G. W., & Whitehouse, G. E. (2000). Applying the COMSOAL computer heuristic to the constrained
resource allocation problem. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 38(3), 413422.
Mikell P. Groover. (2002). Automation, Production Systems, and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 3
edition, PHI publication.

rd

Erel, E., & Gokcen, H. (1999). Shortest-route formulation of mixed-model assembly line balancing problem.
European Journal of Operational Research, 116(1), 194204.
Gken, H., & Apak, K. (2006). A goal programming approach to simple U-line balancing problem. European
Journal of Operational Research, 171(2), 577585.
Kara, Y., zgven, C., Seme, N. Y., & Chang, C. T. (2011). Multi-objective approaches to balance mixed-model
assembly lines for model mixes having precedence conflicts and duplicable common tasks. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 52(5-8), 725737.
Lee, S. M., Everett, A. M., & Melkonian, J. H. (1994). Optimizing lot size and setup time in a JIT environment: a
multiple objective application. Production Planning & Control, 5(3), 308319.
Merengo, C., Nava, F., & Pozzetti, a. (1999). Balancing and sequencing manual mixed-model assembly lines.
International Journal of Production Research, 37(12), 28352860.

28

Miltenburg, J., Steiner, G., & Yeomans, S. (1990). A dynamic programming algorithm for scheduling mixedmodel, just-in-time production systems. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 13(3), 5766.
Miltenburg, J. (2011). Level Schedules for Mixed-Model Assembly Lines in Just-in-Time Production Systems *.
Management, 35(2), 192207.
Nevins, a. J. (1972). Assembly Line Balancing using Best Bud Search. Management Science, 18(9), 529539.
Raouf, a., Tsui, C. L., & El-Sayed, E. a. (1980). A new heuristic approach to assembly line balancing. Computers
& Industrial Engineering, 4, 225234.
Scheloribates, I., Badejo, M. A., Woas, S., & Beck, L. (2002). Assembly Systems and Line Balancing. a B, 86, 1
60.
eker, ., zgrler, M., & Tanya, M. (2013). A weighted multiobjective optimization method for mixed-model
assembly line problem. Journal of Applied Mathematics, 2013(i).
Lastra. J.(2015). Production-line balances for mixed-model lines , 19(4), 423434.
Sivasankaran, P., & Shahabudeen, P. (2014). Literature review of assembly line balancing problems. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 16651694.
Systems, A. (n.d.). Tambe, P. Y. (2006). Balancing Mixed-Model Assembly Line To Reduce Work Overload in a
Multi-Level Production System, (May), 174.
Thomopoulos, N. T. (1970). Mixed Model Line Balancing with Smoothed Station Assignments. Management
Science, 16(9), 593603
Trevino, J., Hurley, B. J., & Friedrich, W. (1993). A mathematical model for the economic justification of setup
time reduction. International Journal of Production Research, 31(1), 191202.
Uddin, M. K., Luis, J., & Lastra, M. (n.d.). Assembly Line Balancing and Sequencing, (section 2).
Van Zante-de Fokkert, J. I., & de Kok, T. G. (1997). The mixed and multi model line balancing problem: a
comparison. European Journal of Operational Research, 100(3), 399412.
Vilarinho, P., & Simaria, A. (2002). A two-stage heuristic method for balancing mixed-model assembly lines
with parallel workstations.
Xu, W., & Xiao, T. (2011). Strategic robust mixed model assembly line balancing based on scenario planning.
Tsinghua Science and Technology, 16(3), 308314.
Zhang, Y., Luh, P. B., Yoneda, K., Kano, T., & Kyoya, Y. (2000). Mixed-model assembly line scheduling using the
Lagrangian relaxation technique. IIE Transactions, 32(2), 125134.
Zhu, X., Hu, S. J., Koren, Y., & Marin, S. P. (2008). Modeling of Manufacturing Complexity in Mixed-Model
Assembly Lines. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 130(5), 051013.

29