Proceedings of the 2012 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference

G. Lim and J.W. Herrmann, eds.

A Simulation-Based Approach for a Solar Panel Production System

Ange Lionel Toba
Department of Modeling and Simulation
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA 23529
Leonardo Bedoya-Valencia
Department of Engineering
Colorado State University - Pueblo
Pueblo, CO 81001
Abstract
Assembly Line Balancing Problems (ALBP) involve production planning in order to improve an existing assembly
process or create a new one. The ultimate goal, in regard to high efficiency is to maximize the facility throughput,
in function of time, capital investment, resource utilization, customer demands and material handling. In this paper,
an approach for balancing a Concentrated Photovoltaic (CPV) solar panel assembly line is proposed, using Discrete
Event Simulation (DES). It aims to develop a more efficient CPV solar panel assembly line, which will allow the
manufacturing facility to meet the demand, while reducing congestion between workstations within the production
process. Several possible scenarios are developed for the deterministic case. These scenarios are then used as
benchmarks for their corresponding stochastic scenarios analyzed by a simulation model, considering changing
demands and different production capacity. With this proposed approach, the decision maker will be able to select
the best assembly line in order to satisfy customers demand while using time and resources required efficiently.

Keywords
Simulation, Assembly Liner Balancing, Production Planning, Solar Panels

1. Introduction
Concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) is one of the newest forms of solar energy technology on the market today. A
CPV system converts light energy into electrical energy like conventional photovoltaic technology does. The
difference in these technologies lies in the addition of an optical system that focuses a large area of sunlight onto
each cell, called multi-junction solar cell. This type of cell generally utilizes three different photovoltaic materials:
Gallium Indium Phosphide (GaInP), Gallium Arsenide (GaAs), and Germanium (Ge) P-N junctions in a single cell,
which extract more energy from the range of wavelengths in sunlight. This system enables the cells to produce a
consistent increasing amount in voltage, while allowing only minor loss in energy.
This paper is intended to develop a DES model in order to analyze alternative production systems of CPV solar
panels. The basic idea is to simulate scenarios for the different production systems, analyze them and define the best
system according to defined measures of performance.
What quantity and quality of the personnel is needed for a specific job? How much idle time between tasks is
affordable? How flexible is the process assembly and how easy is it to adapt it to increasing demand at some point in
time? Those questions are answered by using a DES model, which allow for a more appropriate design of
experiments and more accurate results, given the randomness, or the inclusion of uncertainty. Unlike
deterministic models, which are just used for results-confirmation purposes, stochastic models are able to handle
uncertainty.

2552

Toba and Bedoya-Valencia

The following section presents the literature review. Section 2 shows the development of the simulation model and
the conducted experiments. In section 4, the results are analyzed and finally, section 5 presents the conclusion of the
experiments.

2. Literature Review
The assembly line balancing problem (ALBP) deals with the amount of the work, in terms of time, which has to be
performed at each workstation, given a defined structure of precedence requirements. Assembly line balancing is
used to determine optimal allocation of operations at the workstations in order to minimize the number of
workstations needed for a given cycle time (Type I problem) by equalizing the loads on the workstations or to
determine optimal allocation of operations at the workstations in order to minimize the cycle time of the line for a
given or fixed number of workstations (Type II problem). The objectives of both types of problems are similar in
nature in terms of minimizing idle time and consequently improving the assembly line production efficiency [1].
Extensive research in assembly line balancing has been done in the last 50 years. The first published analytical
statement of the ALBP was made by Salveson [2] and followed by Jackson [3], Bowman [4], Supnik and Solinger
[5], White [6], and Hu [7]. Since then, the topic of line balancing has been of great interest to academicians.
Although extensive research has been done in the area, the problem has consistently resisted the development of
efficient algorithms for obtaining optimal solutions [8]. The performance of assembly systems is very much
dependent on the throughput of the system, on the utilization of the transportation systems (robots, AGVS, etc.) and
on the reuse of these transportation systems when different configuration of the assembly line are required to meet
customers demand. Framing this problem as an optimization problem can be cumbersome in most cases therefore
different approaches have been developed. Among others, simulation has recently become an essential and effective
tool for designing and managing manufacturing systems. Patel [9] discussed the methodology of modeling and
studying the final process system of the automobile manufacturing process in order to develop an effective and
efficient process to ensure the system throughput. Choi [10] discussed initial efforts to implement simulation
modeling as a visual management and analysis tool at an automotive foundry plant manufacturing engine blocks.
The optimum performances were identified through the use of scenarios by varying the number of assembly
machines and processing times. In their work, Ali et al. [11] stated that simulation has been commonly used to
study behavior of real world manufacturing system to gain better understanding of underlying problems and to
provide recommendations to improve the systems.
Most recently, Bukchin and Rubinovitz [12] studied the problem of assembly line design, focusing on the station
paralleling and equipment selection. They discussed two problem formulations, minimizing the number of stations
and the total cost. Masood [13] showed increased throughput and higher machine utilization in an automotive plant
as a result of line balancing. Templemeir [14] has provided an overview of research on line balancing and its
application to the real world. He made the observation that real world systems have stations with non-identical
mean processing times. Since many algorithms for the evaluation of stochastic flow production systems make the
assumption of equal processing times, they are not well suited to these types of systems. For a line with all buffers
equal to zero, Vidalis et al. [15] found that the optimal workload allocation followed a bowl pattern (Assigning less
work to the workstations located near the center of the assembly line, and more work to the workstations near the
beginning and end of the line resulted in optimal productivity, when the number of service phases at each station
was equal as defined by Hillier and Boling [16]). Shaaban and McNamara [17] used simulation to compare bowl,
inverted bowl, and monotonically increasing and decreasing arrangements with equal buffer sizes (of at least one per
station), and different degrees of imbalance. They found that the bowl arrangement resulted in the least idle time,
whereas the decreasing workload arrangement (with bottleneck at the beginning) resulted in the lowest average
buffer levels. They also found that buffer capacity had a higher impact on both these measures than the degree of
station imbalance.

3. Development of the Simulation Model

The approach chosen for this project is to use a DES model implemented in the software tool (SIMIO). This
approach helps to find a high performance configuration. The simulation model provides control over key
components of the model, such as assembly workstations, customer orders and requirements, work shifts and flow
control. Figure 1 displays the assembly process with its corresponding precedence constraints. Next, the stages are
briefly explained:

2553

Toba and Bedoya-Valencia

Cells: In this stage, the multi-junction solar cells are assembled.

Cell_Box: In this stage, the multi-junction solar cells are assembled onto the big box.
Wire_Cell_Box: In this stage, electric wires are assembled to the previous assembly. This is to wire the
cells to each other and create a circuit in series and allow the same amount of current to flow through the
cells.
Wire_Yoke: Wires are inserted inside of the yoke.
Motor1_Sensor: The sub-assembly consisting of one motor, two sensors and four screws is put together.
Motor1_Yoke: The previous sub-assembly is assembled to the yoke (with the wires already inserted).
CB_Motor1_Yoke: The command box is added to the previous sub-assembly.
Box_Yoke: This stage requires one of each sub-assembly (yoke + box) obtained in previous process.
Panels: In this stage, the lenses are added to yoke + box sub-assembly.
Tack_Free: This stage does not require any work, but instead it requires time for the sealant attaching the
lenses to cool off enough to allow the panels to be moved someplace else. After this stage, the assembly is
considered to be complete.
Cure Time: It takes place in a warehouse, where all the assembled panels rest, in order to give time for the
thermo paste to cure completely. Once this time has elapsed, the CPV panels are ready for delivery.

1
Cells
Assembly

Supply

2
Wire_Yoke
assembly

4
Cell_Box
Assembly

6
Wire_Cell_Box
Assembly
8
Yoke_Box
Assembly

5
Motor1_Yoke
Assembly

7
Motor1_Yoke
_CB Assembly

3
Motor1_Sensor
Assembly

12
Delivery

11
Cure Time

9
Panel
Assembly

10
Tack Free

Figure 1: Schema of the assembly system

In this research, an ALBP is considered with two variations from the traditional problem formulation. The first one
is the consideration of stochastic processing times and the second one deal with the objective. Here, based on the
precedence constraints given in Figure 1 and using the average value of the processing times, the minimum expected
cycle time is found. Then a Discrete Event Simulation (DES) model is used to estimate, by experimentation, the
cycle time under different scenarios of demand and level of resources. Note that the minimum expected cycle time
is 540 seconds (9 minutes), given by the panel assembly operation. According to Nahmias [18], for a cycle time C,
the minimum number of workstations is given by W = T/C where indicates that the ratio is rounded up to the
next larger integer and T is the total work content associated with the production of a solar panel.
Table 1 shows the expected values for the processing times of the different operations to assemble the solar panel. It
is important to notice that the processing times presented in this table correspond to manual assembly operations
performed by operators with the required tools. Moreover, since there is not actually any real production process

2554

Toba and Bedoya-Valencia

taking place, the processing times were obtained by conducting a time study using Maynard Operation Sequence
Technique (MOST) as described by Niebel and Freivalds [19], with the assumption that the operations are
performed by experienced and skilled employees when analyzing the assembly of a CPV solar panel prototype.
MOST decomposes assembly operations into three basic activities and their processing times can be obtained by
using MOST tables.
Table 1: Expected Processing Times
Operation
Processing Time (seconds)
Cells Assembly
Cell_Box Assembly
Wire_Cell_Box Assembly
Wire_Yoke Assembly
Motor1_Yoke Assembly
Motor1_Yoke_CB Assembly
Motor1_Sensors Assembly
Yoke_Box Assembly
Panel Assembly

133
170
27
28
40
10
19
108
540

Total Time

1075

In this case, T = 1075, C = 540 so the minimum number of workstations W is equal to 2. Notice that the curing time
was not included in the calculation as this operation is performed at the same station where the panel assembly is
performed and it does not require any resource other than space for the glue to fully cure. A special consideration
was made regarding the balancing of the assembly line when this last station has work content not requiring
resources but blocking the station. The expected curing time is almost twice the minimum cycle time and in the
worst case almost three times the cycle time. Therefore, in order to avoid stoppage of the assembly line, three
stations are required in the worst case. A sub-assembly is produced out of station 1 in average every 540 seconds (9
minutes) after 24 minutes from the starting time of the 8 hour shift. Station 2 requires a work content of 9 minutes in
average plus the curing time (15 minutes). The curing time will block station 2 for 15 minutes on average, and 20 in
the worst case, so in order to keep station 1 producing subassemblies and assuming the worst case for the curing
time (20 minutes) three stations 2s are required.
As mentioned before, there is no real assembly process yet being performed so not much is known about the
distribution of the outcome. The data distribution fit could not be performed the traditional way. However, the time
studies performed using MOST allowed to estimate/approximate the most likely value of the processing times in
each workstation, and the worst and best case as a deviation of 5% above and below from this value respectively.
Therefore, the triangular distribution is typically used as a subjective description, given the scarcity of data, for this
process. The validation step was performed by comparing the average processing times on each workstation
obtained from the simulation model with its corresponding value obtained by the time study [20].

4. Experiments
This section discusses the results obtained after running different scenarios analyzing a balanced assembly line. The
measures of performance to be used are: the cycle time, workstation utilization percentage, the workload distribution
among workstations, and the number of shifts required to meet the demand.
The transportation time was willingly left out, due again, to absence of data. We could not have access to a real
assembly process so including some transportation time could seep more errors in the model. It would also be
relevant to notice that this study does not take any layout study and dimensioning into account. However, these
times can easily be incorporated into the model if the methods of transportation are correctly specified. Details just
have to be provided as to how far the stations are, to each other.

2555

Toba and Bedoya-Valencia

4.1 Scenario Analysis
In this set of scenarios, eight (Cell, Cell_Box, Wire_Cell_Box, M1_Sensors, M1_Yoke, CB_M1_Yoke, Wire_Yoke
and Yoke_Box) out of the nine stations are put together to form a single station named W1. The work at this single
station will be performed by a single worker, respecting of course, the rules of precedence. Referring to Figure 2,
the worker performs, in order, task 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8. Alternative orders are possible, but it will not make any
difference, since the makespan in W1 will be the same. After all the operations at this station are completed, a
second worker, assigned at the Panel station named W2, can start performing task 9, see Figure 2. In the base case,
there is one production order arrival every 18 minute demanding one panel. Also, three Panel and TackFree stations
are assumed in W2. For the scenario 1, another worker is added to the W1. Two workers are now taking care of
W1 with the following assignment: worker 1 works on Cell, Wire_Cell_Box and Yoke_Box and worker 2 works on
Cell_Box, M1_Sensors, M1_Yoke, Wire_Yoke and CB_M1_Yoke.
This task allocation is optimal as we are trying to reduce the idle time of the workers. Based on the processing times
given above, worker 2 would spend 97 time units (28+19 +40+10) on stations M1_Sensors, M1_Yoke, Wire_Yoke
and CB_M1_Yoke, while in the mean time time, worker 1 would still be at the Cell station (133 time units). After
worker 2 is done, he can then move to Cell_Box station and start working (worker 1 would have not finished yet but
will surely have done enough for worker 2 to start his job at the next station). Once worker 1 is done, he can move
to Wire_Cell_box station to start (Here too, worker 2 would still be busy but would have done enough for worker 1
to pick up), knowing that output of CB_M1_Yoke is already ready. The last step would be the Yoke_Box station,
which will obviously be taken care of by worker 1, since worker 2 would still be finishing up at Wire_Cell_Box
station. Any other assignment would see an increased idle time of either worker between tasks, which is unwanted.
The scenario 2 is built upon the previous one, with the same environment, but the demand is doubled (2 arrivals
every 18 minutes). Scenario 3 suggests the presence of an additional worker (worker 4) at station W2 may be
necessary. The demand is reduced back to the initial quantity, with 1 arrival per 18 minutes. Finally in Scenario 4,
the environment is still the same, with 4 workers, 3 Panel stations and 2 arrivals at 18-minutes intervals.

1
Cells
Assembly

Supply

2
Wire_Yoke
Assembly

4
Cell_Box
Assembly

6
Wire_Cell_Box
Assembly
8
Yoke_Box
Assembly

W1
5
Motor1_Yoke
Assembly

7
Motor1_Yoke
_CB Assembly

3
Motor1_Sensor
Assembly

9
Panel
Assembly

W2
12
Delivery

11
Cure Time

10
Tack Free

Figure 2: Task Assignment to Work Stations

4.2 Results and Interpretation
The base case provides an average cycle time for each assembly of 32.90 minutes. The presence of an additional
Panel station will be enough to allow each arrival to be worked on, immediately at W2. This worker will then be
available to perform his task after worker 1 has released the assembly. Also, this causes the worker 1 to be active,

2556

Toba and Bedoya-Valencia

approximately 49.53 % of the time while worker 2 will slightly have more work to do, with 49.93 % of busy-time.
In the deterministic case, by the end of the shift, a total of 24 panels can be assembled.
The simulation model shows a cycle time of 34.02 minutes for the base case scenario, with 26 panels assembled.
Worker 1 is busy 51.23 % of the time and worker 2 is less busy than his co-worker, with 48.97%. This result does
not push for the suppression of the additional Panel station, because it will create a waiting queue at the exit of the
Yoke_Box station. The cycle time will dramatically increase, with an average of 87.76 minutes and only 18 panels
assembled.
The scenario 1 offers a cycle time is slightly reduced, 33.30 minutes. The busy-time percentages of the workers at
W1 are 25.68% and 25.26%, which is approximately half the amount of work to do at this station, considering the
fact that with one worker the percentage of work processing was 51.23%. As for W2, the worker in this case is
almost as busy (49.13%) as in the base case. The throughput is 26 panels assembled.
In scenario 2 the workers are twice as busy (See Figure 3). Worker 1 is working 51.48 % of the time, worker 2,
49.09 % and the worker at W2, 96.11%. Those numbers make sense, since there is twice as much work to do, and it
is expected to see the two workers at W1 have their busy-time going double. The throughput is of 45 panels, with a
cycle time of 78.11 minutes. This time is obviously too long, and it is due to panels queuing up at the entrance of
W2. The three Panel stations are obviously enough to host the coming panels and avoid any queue, but the
availability of the worker 3 is the issue. This worker is getting overwhelmed, and as indicated by his busy-time
percentage, it appears to be more and more difficult for him to do his tasks on time.

Figure 3: Percentage of busy-time of workers at Scenarios 1 and 2

Scenario 3 appears to be of no interest, as an additional worker (worker 4) is added at station W2 when the demand
is reduced back to 1 arrival per 18 minutes. The exact same numbers as in the Scenario 1 are found again. The
model shows that the fourth worker added is of no use, because worker 3 is doing the entire job. The same
statement can be made for one of the Panels and TackFree stations. In Scenario 4, the environment is still the same,
with 4 workers, 3 Panel stations but now with 2 panel arrival at 18-minutes intervals. As suspected, the busy-times
at Stations W1 and W2 will stay roughly the same, with 51.00% and 49.27% respectively for workers 1 & 2 as in
scenario 2. The two workers at the three Panels stations are performing tasks on availability, meaning that whoever
is idle takes the next job. Even with this assignment, they turn out to be quite busy; with 80.97% and 66.34% as
shown in Figure 4. The cycle time is 51.97 minutes with a throughput of 48 panels. Judging by the fact that the
cycle time still high, it would be reasonable to assume that there are still panels piling up, at the entrance of W2.
The results of these scenarios are summarized in Table 1 below.

2557

Toba and Bedoya-Valencia

Figure 4: Percentage of busy-time of workers at Scenarios 2 and 4

Scenarios
Base Case
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4

Table 2: Expected Processing Times

Cycle Time
Arrival Mode
Resources
(Minutes)
1 Arrival /18 minute 1 Worker at W1
34.02
1 Panel /Arrival
1 Worker at W2
1 Arrival /18 minute 2 Workers at W1
33.3
1 Panel /Arrival
1 Workers at W2
1 Arrival /18 minute 2 Workers at W1
78.11
2 Panels /Arrival
1 Worker at W2
1 Arrival /18 minute 2 Workers at W1
33.3
1 Panel /Arrival
2 Workers at W2
1 Arrival /18 minute 2 Workers at W1
51.97
2 Panel /Arrival
2 Workers at W2

Throughput
(Panels)
26
26
45
26
48

5. Conclusions
The basic model is a simulating representation of a hypothetical assembly process. The different scenarios proposed
involving eventual/potential changes in the system were designed to test the system strength, measure the stochastic
influences and try to achieve the goal originally set. Considering the results obtained in the previous section, the use
of DES appears to be a very good approach, as far as flexibility and variability of the system is concerned. It can test
the limits of the systems and eventually try to extend them by adding or removing additional requirements.
Assembly Line Balancing (ALB) was also applied to deal with the resource management. The resource utilization
was modified for testing purposes, so as to save money. Idle time, workers utilization percentage and throughput are
the measures of performance addressed, to select the best option. This simulation model appears to be an efficient
tool for helping to spot bottlenecks and preventing any unwanted situations by analyzing several process
performances. It provides several options to go over, in a timely manner, and gives the opportunity to design
appropriate solutions that will allow a CPV panel production company to be more competitive.
In this study, ALB was used to take care of the workforce and activities management. Different levels of human
resources were analyzed by using the simulation model and the results show that we typically obtain a better
performance measures in Scenario 4 of ALB.

2558

Toba and Bedoya-Valencia

References
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Das B., Sanchez-Rivas J. M., Garcia-Diaz A., and McDonald C. A., 2010, A computer simulation
approach to evaluating assembly line balancing with variable operation times, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 21(7), 872-887.
Salveson, M. E., 1955, The assembly line balancing problem, Journal of Industrial Engineering, 6(1), 1825.
Jackson, J.R., 1956, A computing procedure for a line balancing problem, Management Science, 2(3),
261-271.
Bowman, E. H., 1960, Assembly-line balancing by linear programming, Operations Research, 8(3), 385389.
Supnick, F, and Solinger, J., 1960, An external production line problem, Operations Research, 8(3), 381384.
White, W. W., 1961, Comments on a paper by Bowman, Operations Research, 9(2), 247-277.
Hu, T. C., 1961, Parallel sequencing and assembly line problems, Operations Research, 9(6), 841-848.
Gutjahr, A. L. and Nemhauser, G. L., 1964, An algorithm for the line balancing problem, Management
Science, 11(2), 308-315.
Patel, V., Ashby, J. and Ma, J., 2002, Discrete event simulation in automotive Final Process System,
Proc. of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference, December 8-11, San Diego, California, 1030-1034.
Choi, S. D., Kumar, A.R. and Houshyar A., 2002, A simulation study of an automotive foundry plant
manufacturing engine blocks, Proc. of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference, December 8-11, San
Diego, California, 1035-1040.
Ali, S. A., Seifoddini H. and Sun H., 2005, Intelligent modeling and simulation of flexible assembly
systems, Proc. of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference, December 4-7, Orlando, Florida, 1350-1358.
Bukchin, J. and Rubinovitz, J., 2003, A weighted approach for assembly line design with station
paralleling and equipment selection, IIE Transactions, 35(1), 73-85.
Masood, S., 2006, Line balancing and simulation of an automated production transfer line, Assembly
Automation, 26(1), 69-74.
Templemeir, H., 2003, Practical considerations in the optimization of flow production systems,
International Journal of Production Research, 41(1), 149-170.
Vidalis, M. J., Papadopoulos, C. T. and Heavey, C., 2005, On the workload and phaseload allocation
problems of short reliable production lines with finite buffers, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 48(4),
825-837.
Hillier, F. S. and Boling, R. W., 1966, The effect of some design factors on the efficiency of production
lines with variable operation times, Journal of Industrial Engineering, 17(12), 651-658.
Shaaban, S. and McNamara, T., 2009, Improving the efficiency of unpaced production lines by
unbalancing service time means, International Journal of Operation Research, 4(3), 346-361.
Nahmias H., 2009, Production and Operation Analysis, 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Niebel, B.W. and Freivalds, A., 2003, Methods, Standards and Work Design, 11th Edition, McGraw-Hill,
Boston.
Sargent R. G., 2007, Verification & Validation of Simulation Models, Proc. of the 2007 Winter
Simulation Conference , December 9-12, Washington D.C., 124-137.

2559