Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

An effective artificial fish swarm optimization algorithm for two-sided T

assembly line balancing problems
Yuguang Zhong , Zexiao Deng, Ke Xu
⁎

College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Two-sided assembly lines are often used in assembly of large-sized products, such as automobiles, buses and
Fish swarm algorithm trucks. Compared to the traditional one-sided assembly line, two-sided assembly line has advantages of shorter
Two-sided assembly line line and higher utilization of fixture. However, normal balancing method is not applicable to solve the two-sided
Assembly line balancing assembly line balancing problem since the constraint conditions become more complicated. On the other hand,
Optimization computing
artificial fish swarm algorithm is a relatively new member of swarm intelligence based on swarm behaviors that
were inspired from social behaviors of fish swarm in nature. As a typical application of behaviorism in artificial
intelligence, artificial fish swarm algorithm can search for the global optimum. So it is a good candidate for
developing new search algorithm for solving optimization problems in operational research. In this research, an
effective discrete artificial fish swarm algorithm is developed to solve the cost-oriented assembly line balancing
problems which aims to minimize the construction cost and at the same time minimize the number of mate-
station. Through extensive computational experiments, the performance of the proposed artificial fish swarm
algorithm is examined. The experimental results validate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed
method.

1. Introduction
Assembly line balance problem (ALBP) refers to reasonably as-
signing the tasks to each station with a certain optimization method
under constraints such as procedure relationship, cycle time, and so on.
Balancing an assembly line can keep the operation and production
system fluent and reasonable. Thus, it has a great influence on the
process of the production to the manufacturing system. With the ad-
vantages of shorter line, lower transportation cost and higher utilization
of equipment over traditional assembly line, two-sided assembly line is
increasingly used in manufacturing, especially in the automobile in-
dustry. The engineering practice shows that the two-sided assembly line
is more efficient and reliable than the general assembly line on the
productivity of the manufacturing system. Accordingly, the two-sided
assembly line balancing problem (TALBP) has become more and more
attractive to scholars around the world (Li, Kucukkoc, & Nilakantan,
2017).
Bartholdi (1993) was the first to put forward the concept of two-
sided assembly line and corresponding balancing problem, which be-
longs to the NP-hard problem in combinatorial optimization. Since
then, lots of scholars have put their efforts into the TALBP. The math-
ematical model of two-sided assembly line presented by Kim, Song, and
Kim (2009) is valuable for the further practical development in the
design of assembly lines. Besides, they added the strategy of localized
evolution and steady-state reproduction into genetic algorithm for the
promotion of population diversity and search efficiency. Özcan and
Toklu (2009) proposed a Multiple-criteria decision-making method to
solve the TALBP with zoning constraints, taking the number of mate-
station, cycle time and the amount of tasks assigned per station as
optimization objectives. The TALBP of was solved by Simaria and
Vilarinho (2009) with ant colony optimization algorithm (ACO), while
constraints like zoning, synchronism, capacity and so on were con-
sidered. They chose minimizing the number of stations as the primary
goal, and observed some other indicators as well. In their algorithm,
two ants work simultaneously at each side, which advancing the per-
formance of the algorithm, illustrated with results of a computational
experience. Fuzzy multi-objective programming was utilized by
Tapkan, Özbakır, and Baykasoğlu (2012) to maximize work slackness
index and line efficiency, and minimize total balance delay in the
TALBP with positional, zoning and synchronous constraint, while bee
algorithm (BA) was used as a search mechanism. Purnomo, Wee, and
Praharsi (2013) proposed a novel optimization method which in-
tegrates the evolution and swarm intelligence algorithms to solve the
TALBP. The proposed method mimics the two movements of soccer

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhongyuguang@126.com (Y. Zhong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106121
Received 9 June 2019; Received in revised form 24 September 2019; Accepted 7 October 2019
Available online 10 October 2019
0360-8352/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Y. Zhong, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121

player, the move off and the move forward, in where prioritize tasks 2.1. Problem assumptions
and critical tasks are implemented respectively. Employing teaching-
learning based optimization (TLBO), Tuncel and Aydin (2014) dealt Basic assumptions of TALBP are listed as follows:
with the TALBP with additional assignment restrictions that often en-
countered in practice. To solve the TALBP which contains the zoning, • The processing time of each task is a constant;
positional and synchronism constraints, Yuan, Zhang, and Shao (2015) • Precedence relationships are known;
did not only construct an integer programming (IP) model, but also • The assembly line only process one type of product;
proposed a method named late acceptance hill-climbing (LAHC). The • Operators perform their task at both sides of the line simultaneously
effectiveness of IP and LAHC were validated by experiments. Sepahi within a fixed cycle time;
and Naini (2016) formulated a new approach that allows the parallel • The travel time of operators are ignored;
performance of two two-sided assembly lines with a mixed-integer • Parallel tasks and parallel stations are not allowed;
program, and a new heuristic algorithm was proposed to solve the • No buffers are available in the paced serial line.
problem. A new mixed-model two-sided assembly line balancing pro-
blem with underground stations (MTALB-US) is proposed and the cor- 2.2. Notations
responding mathematical model is also established by Kucukkoc, Li,
Karaoglan, and Zhang (2018). Furthermore, ant colony algorithm 2.2.1. Indices
(ACO) is utilized by them to solve the MTALB-US problem.
In the increasingly competitive market, the cost of production has i,h,p,r a task
j,g a mated-station
generally aroused high opinion of businesses. When taking minimizing k 1 a left station
the number of stations or the cycle time as the objective, the ALBP is a side of the line; k =
2 a right station
called time-oriented ALBP. Distinguished from previous researchers, (j, k) a station in mated-station j and its side is k
Amen (2000, 2006) focused on the cost-oriented ALBP. The construc-
tion cost of assembly line consists of the wages of workers which de-
pends on the level of skill required by the task and the equipment in- 2.2.2. Parameters
vestment determined by the length of assembly line. Roshani, Fattahi, wir wage rate of task i
Roshani, Salehi, and Roshani (2012) stretched Amen’s work to the wjkr wage rate of station (j,k)
TALBP, and solved the problem by using SA. wjk wages to pay the workers in station (j,k)
To the best of our knowledge, there are few attempts in the litera- w wages to pay all the workers in the line
ine the equipment investment of the line
ture which minimizing the number of mate-station, treating the cost-
ns the number of stations
oriented objective function on two-sided assembly line configuration. In Ps the price of constructing a station
addition, the artificial fish swarm algorithm (AFSA) is one of the swarm nm the number of mated-stations
intelligent algorithms that has been the subject of intense research in Pm the price of constructing a mated-station
the last decade and used for solving optimization problems in opera- C the cost of the line
I set of tasks
tional research (Rocha, Costa, & Fernandes, 2016). Therefore, a novel
J set of mated-stations
discrete artificial fish swarm algorithm (DAFSA) is proposed in this AL set of tasks which should be performed at a left-side station; AL I
paper to solve the TALBP. To improve searching capability of the AR set of tasks which should be performed at a right-side station; AR I
DAFSA and help the algorithm to get rid of the local optimal solution, AE set of tasks which can be performed at either side; AE I
P(i) set of immediate predecessors of task i
the behavior of follow and prey based on method of movement to
Pa(i) set of all predecessors of task i
neighborhood are embedded in this algorithm. The influence of para- S(i) set of immediate successors of task i
meters setting is investigated based on the design of experiment. Ex- Sa(i) set of all successors of task i
perimental evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency is made on the P0 set of tasks that have no immediate predecessors
DAFSA, especially for the large-sized TALBP. ti processing time of task i
tfi finish time of task i
The paper is organized as follows: After this introduction, the cost-
ψ a positive number that is large enough
oriented TALBP is defined by mathematical formulas in Section 2. C(i) set of tasks whose operation sides are opposite to that of task i;
Section 3 gives the proposed DAFSA. In comparison with the results of AL if i AR
Roshani’s algorithm, the computational results of the DAFSA are pre- C (i ) = AR if i AL
sented in Section 4. Section 5 gives the conclusions and future research if i AE
directions. K(i) set of integers which preferred operation side of task i;
1 if i AL
K (i ) = 2 if i AR
{1, 2} if i AE
2. Problem definitions and mathematical model
CT cycle time
R(i) set of tasks that R (i) = {r|r I Pa (i) Sa (i) C (i ) andi < r}
As the name implies, two-sided assembly line has working stations
on both sides of the line. The two stations distributed around one po-
sition are called a mate-station. There are one or more workers ar- 2.2.3. Decision variables
ranged in each station. When workplace passes through a mate-station,
xijk 1, if task i is assigned to station (j,k); 0, otherwise
workers at both sides can carry out their assigned task simultaneously.
zip 1, if task i is assigned earlier than task p in the same station; 0, otherwise
In the running direction of assembly line, the tasks should be assigned
to the stations under some constraints, such as a task can start only
when all its predecessors have been finished, some tasks can be oper- 2.3. Mathematical formulation of TALBP
ated at only one side of line while others can be operated at either side.
The TALBP can be divided into two types of balance problems (TALBP- 2.3.1. Objective function
Ⅰand TALBP-Ⅱ) by different optimization objectives (Rekiek et al., In the TALBP, minimizing the construction cost, which includes
2002). The TALBP studied by us belongs to the TALBP-Ⅰ, which mini- workers’ wages and equipment investment, is taken as the primary
mizing the number of mate-stations for a given cycle time, and mini- objective of the TALBP.
mizing the construction cost are the primary objectives of the solution. Tasks assigned to a station will be completed by workers standing

2
Y. Zhong, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121

Table 1 paid in a full cycle time (Amen, 2006):

Wage rate in P9.
wjk = CT × w rjk (2)
Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wage rate 1 3 5 2 8 3 9 1 5 Therefore, the wage paid for all workers in the line is:
nm 2 nm 2
w= wjk = max{wir |i I jk }
j=1 k=1 j=1 k=1 (3)

Equipment used in assembly line is made up of two parts: universal

equipment and transportation equipment. In a two-sided assembly line,
universal equipment investment is determined by the number of sta-
tions, while transportation equipment investment is determined by the
number of mated-stations (Roshani et al., 2012). Therefore, the
equipment investment of a two-sided assembly line can be expressed as:
ine = ns × Ps + nm × Pm (4)

Then the construction cost can be written as:

C = w + ine = max{wir |i I jk } + ns × Ps + nm × Pm (5)

2.3.2. Assignment constraints

Fig. 1. The precedence graph of P9. The constraints, based on the model of Kim et al. (2009), are given
as follows:
there. But tasks may have different degree in operational complexity.
x ijk = 1 i I
The wage rate of a station depends on the most complex task among j J k K (i ) (6)
those assigned to the station (Amen, 2000). It can be expressed as:

wrjk = max{wir |i gxhgk jx ijk i I P0, h P (i )

I jk} (1) g J k K (h ) j J k K (i ) (7)
The wage rate means wages paid per unit time. For example, wage
rate of each task in P9 is shown in Table 1. The wage of a worker are ti f CT i I (8)

Fig. 2. Flow diagram of decoding.

3
Y. Zhong, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121

Fig. 3. A decoding result.

ti f thf + (1 xhjk ) + (1 x ijk ) ti calculate the objective functions. Tasks are assigned to stations in order
k K (h ) k K (i ) according to the sequence in the process of decoding. Specific rules are
i I P0, h P (i ), j J (9) described as:

tpf ti f + (1 x pjk ) + (1 xijk ) + (1 z ip) tp (1) In a mated-station, tasks should be performed at left must be as-
signed to the left-station, while tasks should be performed at right
i I, p R (i), j J, k K (i ) K (p)
must be assigned to the right-station. As for tasks can be performed
(10) at both sides, choose the side where they can be started earlier. If
f they have the same beginning time at left and at right, assign them
tpf ti + (1 x pjk ) + (1 xijk ) + z ip tp
to one side randomly;
i I, p R (i), j J, k K (i ) K (p) (2) If there are any predecessors of the task to be assigned in current
(11) mate-station, the start time of it cannot be earlier than the finish
time of its predecessors;
x ijk {0, 1} i I, j J, k K (i ) (12) (3) The finish time of tasks cannot exceed the cycle time. If the current
station can’t accept more tasks, add a new mated-station and con-
z ip {0, 1} i I, p R (i ) (13)
tinue the assignment.
Eq. (6) is the assignment constraint which guarantees that each task
is assigned to strictly one station. Eq. (7) is the precedence constraint Flow diagram of decoding is shown in Fig. 2.
which ensures that each task is started only if all its predecessors have Fig. 3 gives an example for our decoding method. It’s a result of
been finished. Eq. (8) is the cycle time constraint which confirms that decoding the sequence (1,2,3,4,5, 6,7,8,9) when the cycle time is 4 in
the finish time of each task does not exceed the cycle time. If task h is an P9.
immediate predecessor of task i and they are assigned to the same
mated-station j, their finish time should satisfied Eq. (9).If task p and
3.2. Movement strategy of artificial fish
task i don’t have any precedence relationship and they are assigned to
the same mated-station j, their finish time should satisfied Eqs. (10) and
3.2.1. Method of movement to neighborhood
(11).
According to the way we decode, we design a following method to
change the task sequence to ensure the feasibility of the solution we get.
3. Algorithm designing
Select a task randomly. In order to satisfy the precedence relationship,
the selected task must be placed behind all its predecessors and before
The TALBP belongs to the NP-hard problem in combinatorial opti-
all its successors. Then, it can be moved to any position ranges from the
mization. Many researchers compute this problem with the help of
nearest predecessor to the nearest successor. If the selected task has no
evolutionary algorithms and heuristic algorithms, such as genetic al-
gorithm (Purnomo et al. 2013), simulated annealing algorithm
(Khorasanian, Hejazi, & Moslehi, 2013), artificial bee colony algorithm
(Tapkan, Ozbakir, & Baykasoglu, 2012), tabu search (Özcan and Toklu,
2009), ant colony optimization (Simaria and Vilarinho, 2009) and so
on. Artificial fish swarm algorithm (AFSA) was firstly proposed by Dr.
Li in 2002. The AFSA has the advantages of strong robustness, high
global convergence ability, low requirement of initial value, etc.
However, application of AFSA has been limited to problems that are
continuous and unconstrained, while rarely involved in that are dis-
crete and multi-objective, just as ALBP. Compared with traditional
AFSA, the discrete artificial fish swarm algorithm (DAFSA) developed
from the AFSA is more available for the TALBP.

3.1. Encoding and decoding

In the DAFSA, the state of fish is a sequence coded by a task-oriented

representation method. The task sequence should satisfy the precedence
relationship, which means a task should be placed behind all its pre-
decessor tasks. The encoding length equals to the number of tasks. The
precedence graph of P9 problem is given as an instance in Fig. 1. For P9,
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and (2,3,1,5,6,4,9,7,8) are both acceptable codes,
where the number represents the corresponding task. In order to realize
the optimization procedure, we need to decode the task sequence,
which means transforming it into actual assignment scheme, to Fig. 4. Movement method.

4
Y. Zhong, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121

3.2.2. Behavior of fish

Fig. 5. Behavior of prey.
predecessor, it can be moved to a location from the first place of the
sequence to its nearest successor. If it has no successor, it can be moved
to a location from its nearest predecessor to the last place of the se-
quence. Move method of the P9 instance is given by Fig. 4. Task 2 and
task 3 are the predecessors of task 6, and task 3 is closer to task 6 in the
original sequence. Task 9 is the successor of task 6. When task 6 is
selected to move, it can be placed anywhere between task 3 and task 9.
The four changed sequences are all acceptable.
There are five basic parameters: Total number of fish(N), Step,
Visual, Try Times and crowded operator (δ). In DAFSA, the fish have two
kinds of movements called prey and follow.
Prey is a natural behavior of fish. Each individual is tended to move
forward to where there is more plentiful food, which means the better
solution in the practical problem. When the individual preys in the
DAFSA, it adjusts the positions of a certain number of tasks that equals
to Step randomly in the sequence at a time. If the solution after chan-
ging performs better than before, then stop prey and keep the later
solution. If the repeated times has reached the Try Times but no better
solution is obtained, then the prey is over. The prey can be expressed as
Eq. (14). Xj is the state moving from Xi t after changing the sequence. Yi
and Yj are the corresponding objective function values. It should be
Yj > Yi in maximum problem, while Yj < Yi in minimum problem. A
prey when Step is two is shown in Fig. 5.
Xj Yj > Yi
Xi t + 1 = prey (Xi t ) =
Xi t else (14)

Individuals in fish will approach to their friend’s position where is

higher food consistence. The follow describes the movement to the
nearby optimal neighbor. Eq. (15) expresses the distance dij between Xi
and Xj in the DAFSA. Xj is a neighbor of Xi when dij < Visual. Supposed
that the number of neighbors equals to nf , in which the best neighbor is
Xi,max . If Yi,max /Yi > δnf in maximum problem or Yi / Yi,min > δnf in
minimum problem, it can be considered that there is enough food but
not too much individuals around Xi,max and then change the state of Xi
to the same as Xi,max . The follow can be expressed as Eq. (15). And Fig. 6
is an illustration of follow when Visual equals to 3.
nT
dij = |sgn(x ik x jk )|
k=1 (15)

Fig. 6. Behavior of follow.

Xi, max Yi, max / Yi > nf
Xi t + 1 = follow (Xi t ) =
Xit else (16)

Table 2
Five parameters and their combinations for DAFSA.
Parameters P1(N) P2(Step) P3(Visual) P4( ) P5(Try times)

Levels 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Values 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 6 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 60 80 100 120

Table 3
The test result of S/N ratios of combination sets of DAFSA parameters.
No. Levels of factors Experiments (construction cost) S/N

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 1 1 1 1 1 8280 8282 8289 8280 8280 8298 −78.3615

2 1 2 2 2 2 8280 8276 8280 8275 8280 8275 −78.3582
3 1 3 3 3 3 8276 8279 8276 8274 8275 8274 −78.3561
4 1 4 4 4 4 8281 8280 8278 8278 8280 8280 −78.3601
5 2 1 2 3 4 8274 8275 8277 8274 8277 8278 −78.3562
6 2 2 1 4 3 8272 8270 8272 8274 8275 8273 −78.3529
7 2 3 4 1 2 8276 8275 8274 8275 8275 8276 −78.3555
8 2 4 3 2 1 8271 8270 8270 8268 8269 8268 −78.3494
9 3 1 3 4 2 8265 8263 8265 8265 8263 8263 −78.3438
10 3 2 4 3 1 8265 8265 8264 8264 8263 8262 −78.3436
11 3 3 1 2 4 8257 8259 8256 8258 8257 8258 −78.337
12 3 4 2 1 3 8258 8258 8259 8257 8257 8258 −78.3373
13 4 1 4 2 3 8253 8255 8256 8254 8254 8254 −78.3336
14 4 2 3 1 4 8252 8252 8251 8253 8251 8252 −78.331
15 4 3 2 4 1 8249 8248 8248 8249 8248 8247 −78.3271
16 4 4 1 3 2 8254 8253 8253 8251 8251 8250 −78.3312

5
Y. Zhong, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121

Fig. 7. The mean S/N ratio for each level of the factors.

3.3. Algorithm flow In this work, P9 case shown in Appendix Table A1 and Fig. 1, a
simple yet sufficient sized TALBP is utilized for briefly explanation of
Algorithm 1 gives the specific steps of the DAFSA. the algorithm flow. To start with, supposed that a group of initialization
parameters for the DAFSA was selected (more detail in the following
Algorithm 1 (The discrete artificial fish swarm algorithm).
section for the selection method), such as N = 8, Step = 3, Visual = 5,
δ = 0.14 and Try times = 30, and the number of iterations is set to 50.
(1) Initialize the control parameters of the DAFSA, including N, Step, Visual, Try Times Next, N code sequences are randomly generated which should satisfy
and δ; precedence relationship in P9 case, such as (2,3,1,5,6,4,9,7,8) men-
(2) Generate randomly N initial solution and calculate the function value respectively; tioned in Section 3.1 is one of reasonable artificial fish. Then, make a
(3) Update the population.
a. As for individual Xi , if prey (Xit ) > follow (Xit ) ,then performs prey, otherwise per-
forms follow; Table 4
b. Compare Xi with the global optimal solution. If Xi is better, then replace the global Parameters settings.
optimal solution with Xi .
N Step Visual δ Try Times
One of iteration is complete.
(4) If the allowed maximum iteration has been reached or the global optimal solution
P24 10 3 5 0.14 100
has not been changed for certain iterations, put an end to the algorithm.
P65 12 6 8 0.11 120
Otherwise, go to step (3).
P148 15 10 12 0.09 150
P205 18 15 18 0.07 180

6
 Y. Zhong, et al.

Table 5
Comparative results of the three algorithms.
First Fit Rule SA DAFSA

No Problem CT LB the average the best the average the best IMP% the average the best IMP% Avg CPU
(s)

1 P24 18 8 4[8][8424] 4[8][8388] 4[8][8251.2] 4[8][8244] 1.7 4[8]8260.2] 4[8][8244] 1.7 4.3
2 20 7 4.2[8][8724] 4[8][8500] 4[8][8360] 4[8][8360] 1.7 4[8][8290] 4[8][8260] 2.8 4.1
3 24 6 3[6][6744] 3[6][6744] 3[6][6744] 3[6][6744] 0 3[6][6629.3] 3[6][6624] 1.7 3.9
4 25 6 3[6][6795] 3[6][6750] 3[6][6635] 3[6][6600] 2.2 3[6][6590] 3[6][6575] 2.6 3.6
5 30 5 3[5][6265] 3[5][6220] 3[5][6070] 3[5][6070] 2.4 3[5][6079] 3[5][6070] 2.4 3.5
6 35 4 2[4][4951] 2[4][4930] 2[4][4902] 2[4][4860] 1.4 2[4][4860] 2[4][4860] 1.4 3.2
7 40 4 2[4][5140] 2[4][5120] 2[4][4880] 2[4][4880] 4.7 2[4][4880] 2[4][4880] 4.7 3
8 P65 326 16 9[17.2][60242.5] 9[17][60036] 9[17.4][57268] 9[17][56776] 5.4 9[17][53957.1] 9[17][52538] 12.4 21.3
9 381 14 8[14.7][59114] 8[15][57715] 8.8[14][54883] 9[14][53443] 7.4 8[15][51449.7] 8[15][50476] 12.5 25
10 423 13 7[13][59476] 7[13][57361] 8.6[12.8][56072] 9[13][54262] 5.4 7[13][50640] 7[13][49747] 13.2 22.4
11 461 12 6[12][60011.7] 6[12][58283] 6.2[12][53643] 6[12][52751] 9.5 6[12][49498.3] 6[12][48602] 16.6 23.3
12 490 11 6[11][56972.5] 6[11][52440] 7[11.25][53610] 6[12][52940] 0 6[11][51759.4] 6[11][50480] 3.7 19.4
13 544 10 5[10][58419] 5[10][55788] 6.7[10][52968] 7[10][51400] 7.9 5[10][49256] 5[10][48168] 13.6 21.9
14 594 9 5[9][57505] 5[9][56614] 6[9][52959] 6[9][52068] 8 5[9][50531.7] 5[9][48892] 13.6 16.6
15 669 8 4[8][56371.5] 4[8][56037] 5.25[8][52856] 5[8][52823] 5.7 4[8][48959.6] 4[8][48009] 14.3 19.4

7
16 P148 204 26 14[27.2][71824.5] 14[27][70600] 13.75[27][69686] 13[26][68892] 2.4 14[27.3][68335.1] 14[27][67224] 4.7 85.6
17 255 21 11[21.5][67298.7] 11[21][66985] 11.4[21.2][66997] 11[21][65710] 1.9 11[22][63306.4] 11[22][62640] 6.4 94.6
18 320 17 9[18][65373.3] 9[18][64520] 10[17.2][64600] 9[17][63380] 1.8 9[17.35][62019] 9[17][60180] 6.7 68.5
19 357 15 8[16][64737] 8[16][64023] 9.25[15][63184.2] 10[15][62981] 1.6 8[15.75][60256.6] 8[16][59382] 7.2 60.3
20 394 14 7[14][63688.7] 7[14][63032] 8.2[14][62967.6] 9[14][62662] 0.6 7[14][57887] 7[14][57112] 9.3 70.8
21 425 13 7[13][65225] 7[13][65225] 7.25[13][63300] 7[13][63100] 3.3 7[13.45][59882.5] 7[13][59275] 9.1 59.1
22 459 12 6[12][63126] 6[12][63126] 7[12][61631] 7[12][60713] 3.8 6[12][57328.1] 6[12][56241] 10.9 65.4
23 510 11 6[11.5][65125] 6[11][64380] 6.6[11][62392] 8[11][61880] 3.9 6[11.65][60146] 6[11][59260] 7.9 51.7
24 560 10 5[10][61826.7] 5[10][61640] 5[10][60920] 5[10][60520] 1.8 5[10][56806.3] 5[10][55480] 9.9 56.7
25 615 9 5[10][65990] 5[10][65580] 6[9][60037.5] 6[9][59730] 8.9 5[9.95][59897] 5[10][58815] 10.3 53.5
26 710 8 4[8][61870] 4[8][61870] 4[8][61870] 4[8][61870] 0 4[8][57385] 4[8][56900] 8.0 51.3
27 P205 1050 23 13.5[26.5][265550] 13[26][258600] 15.6[24.6][250740] 17[25][246600] 4.6 13[25.55][238292.5] 13[25][235000] 9.1 196.5
28 1158 21 12[24][263333] 12[24][256674] 15.3[22][254480.7] 13[22][253000] 1.4 11.3[22.4][236891.3] 11[22][234030] 8.8 200.3
29 1322 18 11[22][271641] 11[22][270980] 13.25[19.5][253352.5] 12[19][251772] 7.1 10[20][238994.3] 10[20][237452] 12.3 151
30 1430 17 10[20][270633] 10[20][269680] 13.25[18][247327.5] 14[18][244710] 9.3 9[18][236634.5] 9[18][233560] 13.3 172.3
31 1550 16 10[19][277900] 10[19][276350] 11.6[16.8][253280] 12[17][250600] 9.3 8.55[16.8][240522.2] 8[16][236050] 14.5 161.8
32 1888 13 8[16][282968] 8[16][280608] 10[14][254776] 10[14][252888] 9.9 7[14][246082.6] 7[14][244824] 12.7 99.7
Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121
Y. Zhong, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121

judgement for each individual as shown in step (3)(a). And if the per-
formance is prey, Eq. (14) would be operated, and Fig. 5 is shown more
vividly for this operation; Otherwise, Eq. (16) would be operated.
Furthermore, the decoding procedure is also performed for the function
value calculation of each individual. Compared the function value of
each individual with the existing optimal one, therein the better one is
preferentially retained. The same operation is executed on N in-
dividuals. Finally, step (3)(b) is performed for termination of the al-
gorithm.
For further study, P65 case, A medium-sized 2-sided and typical
TALBP is also provided in the appendix to facilitate the reader's ver-
ification of the proposed algorithm and to extend the use of the DAFSA
to solve large-scale TALBP. And the basic algorithm movement/steps
follows as the explanation and discussion above-mentioned. Fig. 8. IMP of algorithm.

4. Computational results
4.1. Test problems and parameters settings
In order to inspect the availability of the DAFSA, we use 4 bench-
mark instances to evaluate the proposed algorithm, including a small-
scale problem (P24, taken from Kim, Kim, & Kim, 2000), a medium-
scale problem (P65, taken from Lee, Kim, and Kim (2001)) and two
large-scale problems (P148, taken from Bartholdi (1993) and P205,
taken from Lee et al., 2001). During one calculation, if there is no better
solution for 100 iterations then the computation is over. We set the
coefficient related to construction cost the same with Roshani et al.
(2012) for the comparison with their results of First-Fit rule algorithm
(FFR) and simulated annealing algorithm (SA). Besides, test problems in
each case are calculated for 20 times and the best and average function
values are recorded to make the results more incredible. The average
CPU times of the DAFSA are also reported. The calculation runs on a PC
with Intel Core i5-4570, 3.2 GHz processor and 4.00 GB memory.
For DAFSA, the parameters, Total number of fish (N), step, Visual, try
times, crowded operator (δ), have great effects on the test result. An in-
crease in Total number of fish (N) can increase the ability of the DAFSA
to jump out of local optimal solution. But the amount of calculation also
increases. As the step increases, the DAFSA can converge fast, but the
best combination is set with N = 10, step = 3, visual = 5, δ = 0.14, try
times = 100.
According to the method of parameter setting mentioned previous,
we get the better combinations of parameters in different problems.
And the parameters set by us are shown in Table 4.
4.2. Experimental results
To make the task assignment scheme more practical, the solution
should have less number of stations and mated-stations so that the
length of line will be shorter and workload on each station will be more
balanced. In this paper, minimizing the number of mated-stations is set
as the objective with first priority, and minimizing the number of sta-
tions is the second, while minimizing the construction cost is the last.
Therefore, a solution that decreases the cost will not also increase the
number of stations and mated-stations.
The comparison of results of our DAFSA, Roshani’s FFR and SA are
presented in Table 5. LB, the theoretical minimum station numbers can
be calculated by Eqs. (18) and (19). IMP% is the percentage improved
for the best value of FFR, which is gained by Eq. (20).
ti ti
Max = max
i AL
,
i AR

convergence speed would slow down again when the step exceeds a CT CT
(18)
certain count. The value of Visual play an essential role on DAFSA. It is
easier to find the optimal solution for the dominant follow behavior of LB = 2 × Max
fish when the value of Visual increases. Unfortunately, the computa-
tional complexity of DAFSA is correspondingly increased. The prey
ability of fish becomes strong when try times increases. The crowded + max 0,
t
i AE i (Max × CT t
i AL i ) (Max × CT t
i AR i )
operator (δ) is also a crucial factor of DAFSA to get rid of the local CT
optimal solution. However, the optimal point is inaccurate because of
(19)
crowded operator’s existence. Thus, we designed an experimental test
of the DAFSA parameters which include five factors to find the kind IMP%
combination of values of the parameters. In this test, we set the five = (the best of FFR the best of SA or DAFSA)/the best of FFR × 100%
factors as P1, P2, P3, P4, P5. And five factor levels for each parameter are (20)
illustrated in Table 2. The orthogonal array L16 (45) is shown in Table 3.
According to the orthogonal array, the DAFSA is implemented to
solve the problem (P24). The objective function is the construction cost.
For each combination, we get the value of the objective function.
Clearly, the smaller value is, the better combination is.
To evaluate the performance of the algorithm, the signal-noise is
used as follows.
1 n
S/N = 10 × log( y2)
n i=1 i (17)

where n is the number of the experiments; yi is the number of objective

functions. The bigger S/N is, the better combination is. The obtained S/
N for all combinations is listed in Table 3. Fig. 7 shows the average S/N
ratio obtained at each combination.
The bigger S/N ratio is, the better level is. Thus, it can be seen that
the best combination is P1(4)P2(3)P3(3)P4(2)P5(3). As the result, the Fig. 9. Number of stations to algorithm.

8
Y. Zhong, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121

As shown in Table 5, the results of DAFSA for both average and best
are better than that of FFR entirely, most of which are better than that
of SA. The IMP%s of SA and DAFSA are exhibited in Fig. 8. It can be
seen clearly that the DAFSA achieves greater improvement than SA.
Figs. 9 and 10 shows the comparison of the numbers of stations and
mated-stations at the same time when the three algorithms get the
minimum cost separately. Although sometimes the SA gets the least
station numbers, it increases the mated-station numbers. It means the
line is longer but there is only one side that is used in some mate-sta-
tions, which is so irrational that depresses the utilization of equipment.
In contrast, while the construction cost is the least, the DAFSA generally
gets the same or smaller numbers of stations and mated-stations, only in
isolated cases the numbers are more. In addition, the DAFSA has a re-
latively fast speed in operation, especially when there is a large quantity
Fig. 10. Number of mate-stations to algorithm.
of tasks. In our experiment, the solution procedure of P148 takes about
one minute averagely and three minutes for P205.
The convergence time of the DAFSA is also in a reasonable scope no
matter for small-size or large-size problems, and the time is shown in
Fig. 11.
Table 6 shows the results of statistical treatment that each problem
has been run 20 times. The notation of Best, Average, SD, existing in the
table represent the best value, average value, standard deviation of the
construction cost that 20 times results of each problem using the three
different algorithms respectively. Fig. 12 shows the comparison of
standard deviation.

5. Conclusions and future research

In this paper, a discrete artificial swarm algorithm (DAFSA) is

proposed to solve the cost-oriented TALBP. The advantages of the
DAFSA utilized in TALBP include normal requirement of the form of
objective function, large tolerance range of parameters and fast con-
Fig. 11. Average convergence time of DAFSA.
vergence to find the optimal solution (DAFSA can be used in parallel

Table 6
Statistical treatment of each algorithm.
No. Problem First Fit Rule SA DAFSA

CT LB Average Best SD Average he Best SD Average Best SD

1 P24 18 8 8424 8388 0.302% 8251.2 8244 0.059% 8260.2 8244 0.041%
2 20 7 8724 8500 1.722% 8360 8360 0 8290 8260 0.242%
3 24 6 6744 6744 0 6744 6744 0 6629.3 6524 0.826%
4 25 6 6795 6750 0.491% 6635 6600 0.354% 6590 6575 0.144%
5 30 5 6265 6220 0.556% 6070 6070 0 6079 6070 0.094%
6 35 6 4951 4930 0.315% 4902 4860 0.541% 4860 4860 0
7 40 4 5140 5120 0.261% 4880 4880 0 4880 4880 0
8 P65 326 16 60242.5 60,036 0.229% 57,268 56,776 1.281% 53957.1 52,538 1.114%
9 381 14 59,114 57,715 1.755% 54,883 53,443 2.032% 51449.7 50,476 1.12%
10 423 13 59,476 57,361 2.693% 56,072 54,262 2.393% 50,640 49,747 1.041%
11 461 12 60011.7 58,283 1.932% 53,643 52,751 1.440% 49498.3 48,602 0.662%
12 490 11 56972.5 52,440 5.900% 53,610 52,940 1.121% 51759.4 50,480 1.872%
13 544 10 58,419 55,788 3.489% 52,968 51,400 2.293% 49,256 48,186 0.971%
14 594 9 57,505 56,614 1.039% 52,959 52,068 1.302% 50531.7 48,892 2.121%
15 699 8 56371.5 56,037 0.478% 52,856 52,823 0.051% 48959.6 48,009 1.302%
16 P148 204 26 71824.5 70,600 1.144% 69,686 68,892 0.919% 68335.1 67,224 0.891%
17 255 21 67298.7 66,985 0.389% 66,997 65,710 1.488% 63306.4 62,640 0.346%
18 320 17 65373.3 64,520 0.876% 64,600 63,380 1.526% 62,019 60,180 1.875%
19 357 15 64,737 64,023 0.739% 63184.2 62,981 0.279% 60256.6 59,382 0.649%
20 394 14 63,126 63,032 0.126% 62967.6 62,662 0.351% 57,887 57,112 0.623%
21 425 13 65,225 65,225 0 63,300 63,100 0.245% 59882.5 59,275 0.507%
22 459 12 63,126 63,126 0 61,631 60,713 1.289% 57328.1 56,241 1.132%
23 510 11 65,125 64,380 0.809% 62,392 61,880 0.734% 60,146 59,260 0.542%
24 560 10 61826.7 61,640 0.213% 60,920 60,520 0.421% 56806.3 55,480 1.167%
25 615 9 65,990 65,580 0.417% 60037.5 59,730 0.428% 59,897 58,815 0.405%
26 710 8 61,870 61,870 0 61,870 61,870 0 57,385 56,900 0.501%
27 P205 1050 23 265,550 258,600 2.027% 250,740 246,600 1.278% 238292.5 235,000 0.691%
28 1158 21 263,333 256,674 1.875% 254480.7 253,000 0.520% 236891.3 234,030 0.348%
29 1322 18 271,641 270,980 0.243% 253352.5 251,772 0.503% 238994.3 237,452 0.204%
30 1430 17 270,633 269,680 0.312% 247327.5 244,710 0.820% 236634.5 233,560 0.411%
31 1550 16 277,900 276,350 0.421% 253,280 250,600 0.818% 240522.2 236,050 0.351%
32 1888 13 282,968 280,608 0.559% 254,776 252,888 0.524% 246082.6 244,824 0.413%

9
Y. Zhong, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121

However, there are still several aspects can be further studied in the
future:

(1) Heuristic information can be added to conduct of fish to improve

the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed algorithm;
(2) Besides the two-sided assembly line, there are other layout forms of
assembly line, such as U-shaped assembly line. When the DAFSA is
applied to solve the ALBP in other forms, the behavior of fish should
be adjusted to the problem accordingly. It is the same with the
encoding and decoding method.
(3) It has been proved that the DAFSA is capable to deal with the
single-objective optimization problems. How to make the algorithm
available to solve the multi-objective optimization problems effec-
tively need to be intensively studied.
Fig. 12. Comparison of standard deviation.

computing). But traditional AFSA cannot be used to solve the discrete
problem which limits its application. Thus, a discrete strategy is pro-
posed by us to improve the applicability of AFSA. In addition, similar to
other traditional meta-heuristic algorithm, the degree of deviation be-
tween the feasible solution and the optimal solution by the DAFSA to
solve TALBP may not be predicted in advance. The computational re-
sults indicate a better performance of the proposed algorithm.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 51275104) and supported in part by the Specialized
Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (No.
20132304120021).

Appendix A

See Tables A1 and A2.

Table A1
P9.
Task number Task time Side Immediate predecessor Immediate successor

1 2 L – 4
2 3 R – 5,6
3 2 E – 6
4 3 L 1 7
5 1 R 2 7,8
6 1 E 2,3 9
7 2 E 4,5 –
8 2 L 5 –
9 1 E 6 –

Table A2
P65.
Task number Task time Side Immediate predecessor Immediate successor

1 49 E – 3
2 49 E – 3
3 71 E 1,2 4,23
4 26 E 3 5,6,7,9,11,12,25,26,27,41,45,49
5 42 E 4 14
6 30 E 4 14
7 167 R 4 8
8 91 R 7 14
9 52 L 4 10
10 153 L 9 14
11 68 E 4 14
12 52 E 4 –
13 135 E – 14
14 54 E 5,6,8,10,11,13 –
15 57 E 14 16
16 151 L 15 17
17 39 L 16 31
18 194 R 14 19
19 35 R 18 21
20 119 E 14 21
(continued on next page)

10
Y. Zhong, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121

Table A2 (continued)

Task number Task time Side Immediate predecessor Immediate successor

21 34 E 19 31
22 38 E 14 31
23 104 E 3 24
24 84 E 23 31
25 113 L 4 31
26 72 R 4 –
27 62 R 4 28
28 269 R 27 50
29 89 L – 50
30 49 L – 50
31 11 E 17,21,22,24,25 32,36,51,52,53,54,55,56,58,59,60,61,62
32 45 E 31 33
33 54 E 32 34
34 106 E 33 35
35 132 R 34 50
36 52 E 31 37
37 157 E 36 38
38 109 E 37 39
39 32 L 38 50
40 32 R 38 50
41 52 E 4 42
42 193 E 41 43
43 34 E 42 62
44 34 R – 46
45 97 L 4 46
46 37 E 44,45 47
47 25 L 46 48
48 89 L 47 50
49 27 E 4 50
50 50 E 28,29,30,35,39,40,48,49 –
51 46 R 31 65
52 46 E 31 65
53 55 L 31 65
54 118 E 31 65
55 47 R 31 65
56 164 E 31 57
57 113 E 56 65
58 69 L 31 65
59 30 R 31 65
60 25 E 31 65
61 106 R 31 65
62 23 E 31 63
63 118 L 62 64
64 155 L 63 65
65 65 E 51,52,53,53,54,55,57,58,59,60,61,64 –

References
Amen, M. (2000). An exact method for cost-oriented assembly line balancing.
International Journal of Production Economics, 64(1), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0925-5273(99)00057-2.
Amen, M. (2006). Cost-oriented assembly line balancing: Model formulations, solution
difficulty, upper and lower bounds. European Journal of Operational Research, 168(3),
747–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.07.026.
Bartholdi, J. J. (1993). Balancing two-sided assembly lines: A case study. International
Journal of Production Research, 31(10), 2447–2461. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207549308956868.
Khorasanian, D., Hejazi, S. R., & Moslehi, G. (2013). Two-sided assembly line balancing
considering the relationships between tasks. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 66(4),
1096–1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.08.006.
Kim, Y. K., Kim, Y., & Kim, Y. J. (2000). Two-sided assembly line balancing: A genetic
algorithm approach. Production Planning & Control, 11(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.
1080/095372800232478.
Kim, Y. K., Song, W. S., & Kim, J. H. (2009). A mathematical model and a genetic al-
gorithm for two-sided assembly line balancing. Computers & Operations Research,
36(3), 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2007.11.003.
Kucukkoc, I., Li, Z., Karaoglan, A. D., & Zhang, D. Z. (2018). Balancing of mixed-model
two-sided assembly lines with underground workstations: A mathematical model and
ant colony optimization algorithm. International Journal of Production Economics, 205,
228–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.009.
Lee, T. O., Kim, Y., & Kim, Y. K. (2001). Two-sided assembly line balancing to maximize
work relatedness and slackness. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 40(3), 273–292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-8352(01)00029-8.
Li, Z. X., Kucukkoc, I., & Nilakantan, J. M. (2017). Comprehensive review and evaluation
of heuristics and meta-heuristics for two-sided assembly line balancing problem.
Computers & Operations Research, 84, 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.
03.002.
Özcan, U., & Toklu, B. (2009). Multiple-criteria decision-making in two-sided assembly
line balancing: A goal programming and a fuzzy goal programming models.
Computers & Operations Research, 36, 1955–1965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.
2008.06.009.
Purnomo, H. D., Wee, H.-M., & Praharsi, Y. (2013). Solving two-sided assembly line
balancing problems using an integrated evolution and swarm intelligence. In Y.-. K.
Lin, Y.-. C. Tsao, & S.-. W. Lin (Eds.). Proceedings of the institute of industrial engineers
Asian conference 2013 (pp. 141–148). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Rekiek, B., Delchambre, A., Dolgui, A., Bratcu, A., Kucukkoc, I., Li, Z., ... Amen, M.
(2002). Assembly line design: A survey. International Journal of Production Economics,
205(1), 689–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(99)00057-2.
Rocha, A. M. A. C., Costa, M. F. P., & Fernandes, E. M. G. P. (2016). A shifted hyperbolic
augmented Lagrangian-based artificial fish two-swarm algorithm with guaranteed
convergence for constrained global optimization. Engineering Optimization, 48(12),

11
Y. Zhong, et al.
2114–2140. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2016.1157688.
Roshani, A., Fattahi, P., Roshani, A., Salehi, M., & Roshani, A. (2012). Cost-oriented two-
sided assembly line balancing problem: A simulated annealing approach. International
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 25(8), 689–715. https://doi.org/10.
1080/0951192X.2012.664786.
Sepahi, A., & Naini, S. G. J. (2016). Two-sided assembly line balancing problem with
parallel performance capacity. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40(13), 6280–6292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2016.02.022.
Simaria, A. S., & Vilarinho, P. M. (2009). 2-ANTBAL: An ant colony optimisation algo-
rithm for balancing two-sided assembly lines. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
56(2), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.10.007.
Tapkan, Pinar, Ozbakir, L., & Baykasoglu, A. (2012). Modeling and solving constrained
two-sided assembly line balancing problem via bee algorithms. Applied Soft
Computing, 12(11), 3343–3355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.06.003.
Tapkan, P., Özbakır, L., & Baykasoğlu, A. (2012). Bees Algorithm for constrained fuzzy
multi-objective two-sided assembly line balancing problem. Optimization Letters, 6(6),
1039–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-011-0344-9.
12
Computers & Industrial Engineering 138 (2019) 106121
Tuncel, G., & Aydin, D. (2014). Two-sided assembly line balancing using teaching–le-
arning based optimization algorithm. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 74, 291–299.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.06.006.
Yuan, B., Zhang, C., & Shao, X. (2015). A late acceptance hill-climbing algorithm for
balancing two-sided assembly lines with multiple constraints. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 26(1), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-013-0770-x.
Zhong Yuguang is a Professor for Production System Management at the Harbin
Engineering University, China. He received his Ph.D in Design and Construction of Naval
Architecture and Ocean Structure from Harbin Engineering University in 2005. His re-
search has been published in the journal of International Journal of Production Research,
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, the International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems and several con-
ference proceedings. His research interests focus on decision support in assembly line
management, modeling methods on production system, and robust optimization methods.