See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/296443466

Application of Ranked positional weight method for Assembly line Balancing – A

case study

Conference Paper · January 2007

CITATION READS

1 6,655

1 author:

Vivek A Deshpande
G H Patel College of Engineering and Technology (GCET)
53 PUBLICATIONS   194 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Plant Layout Optimization View project

Supply Chain Management for Food Processing Industry– A Review View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vivek A Deshpande on 01 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Application of Ranked Positional Weight Method for
Assembly Line Balancing – A Case Study
Vivek A. Deshpande1, Anand Y Joshi2
1, 2
Lecturer in Mechanical Engg., 1, 2 G.H.Patel College of Engg. & Tech., Vallabh
Vidyanagar, Gujarat.
1
vivek_deshpande@yahoo.com, 2anandyjoshi@indiatimes.com
Abstract: Line balancing is the assignment of work
to stations in a line so as to achieve the desired
output with the smallest number of workstations [1].
A well-planned and installed assembly line
minimizes the processing time without violating the
product requirements. The problem in line
balancing is minimizing the idle time on the line for
all combinations of workstations subject to certain
restrictions. The first and foremost of these
restrictions is the production volume that is to be
produced, which determines the pace at which the
line should operate. If the demand of the product
should change, it means a change in line balancing.
A number of variable factors, such as lack of
materials, a design change in the product, labour
shortage or a change in production methods,
influence the line balance and keep the problem
from ever becoming too simple. If all the operations
in the fabrication and assembly of the product took
the same time, balancing would not present a
problem. Again, the fact that this condition seldom
exists brings a need for logical, systematic method of
solving line-balancing problems. This paper
describes a heuristic approach for assembly line
balancing of transmission assembly line at
Mahindra & Mahindra Pvt. Ltd. In this paper the
authors used ranked positional weight (RPW)
method for solving the line-balancing problem. The
performance criteria considered are the cycle time,
line efficiency and smoothness index.
Keywords: Assembly line, Line balancing, RPW, Line
efficiency, Smoothness index
I. INTRODUCTION
Assembly line balancing (ALB) relates to a
finite set of work elements or tasks, each having
an operation processing time and a set of
precedence relations. The objective of line
balancing is to subdivide the network into several
sub-station without violating precedence
relationships and allocating operations to each
station without exceeding the cycle time [2]. The
assembly process can be broken down into
workstations, each of which consists of an
operator working at a given location performing
specified tasks.
Each of these tasks adds value to the final
product. However, the tasks must be assigned to
the various workstations according to the
precedence requirements so that the idle time over
the whole process is a minimum.
Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Machine Design & Industry Automation,
348 IA
In order to determine a proper line balance the
following minimum information is required:
1. Production volume
2. List of operations and their sequence
3. Times required completing each
operation as well as the elemental time
values.
Sales or marketing group should determine the
production volume. List of operations and their
sequence should be established prior to
considering a line-balancing problem. The times
for various operations, along with the time values
for the elements within each of these operations,
constitute probably the most important piece of
information of all in the line-balancing problem.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
In this case study, authors found that the cycle
times of all the sub assembly stations are
different thereby balance delay in the existing
transmission assembly was more and plant
capacity was inadequate. Existing production rate
was 40 units. Also considering the current and
the future production volume, the plant capacity
should be increased. Hence, the need for line
balancing.
III METHODOLOGY:
Following are the methods of line balancing [3].
1. Largest candidate rule
2. Kilbridge and western’s method
3. Ranked position weights method
Two approaches to the assembly line balancingg
problems have been used.
1. Assume a fixed cycle time and
find the optimum number of
work stations.
2. Assume the number of workstations
to be fixed and try to minimize the
total delay time by minimizing the
cycle time.
Authors have used the first approach.
January 10-12, 2007, College of Engineering, Pune, India
 Application of Ranked Positional Weight Method for Assembly Line Balancing – A Case Study
CYCLE TIME FOR TRANSMISSION
A) TERMINOLOGY (Table No. 1):
ASSEMBLY LINE (Table No. 3):
Sr.
Abbreviation Description Formula
No.
Min.
CYCLE TIME FOR TRANSMISSION
rational ---
1 Tej TIME
work S.N. ACTIVITIES
element (MIN.)
n

2 Twc
Total work
content
Twc =  Tej
j 1
A. BACKLASH ASSEMBLY
MOUNT TRANS.CASE,
COUNTER SHAFT, BULL CAGE
1 4.89
LH AND RH AND
Work DIFFERENTIAL CASE
n n
station
3 Tsi
process  Tsi =  Tej 2 NUMBER PUNCHING 0.14
j 1 j 1 3 BRING SPLINE SHAFT 0.17
time 4 COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40
Cycle 5 PUSH SKID TO NEXT STAGE 0.26
4 Tc ---
Time 6 PRELOAD LH 5.79
Balance d = (nxTc – Twc) / 7 MOUNT SPLINE SHAFT 1.61
5 d
Delay (nxTc)
8 CHECK BACKLASH 0.42
Line
6 E E = (Twc) / (nxTc) 9 BACKLASH LH 2.78
Efficiency
10 COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40
B) PRECEDENCE DIAGRAM Fig. (1): 11 PUSH SKID TO NEXT STAGE 0.26
12 BACKLASH RH 2.78
Refer page no. 5 13 BACKLASH RECHECK 0.42
14 COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40
15 FINAL LH BULLCAGE TIGHT 1.99
16 FINAL RH BULLCAGE TIGHT 1.99
C) CYCLE TIME BY ‘MOST’ METHOD: MTG. C’SHAFT FRT BEARING
17 1.32
Following are the elemental cycle times for each COVER
MTG. DRIVE SHAFT (WITHOUT
and every activity of transmission line. These cycle 18
TORQUE)
1.04
times are taken by Maynard Operation Sequence 19 TORQUE DRIVE SHAFT 0.30
Technique (MOST). 20 AXLE BOLT PLACING 1.40
B. CLUTCH HOUSING
Sub Assembly Stations (Table No. 2): MOUNT CLUTCH HOUSING FIR
1 C’HSG. GASKET, DOWEL AND 6.84
G.NIPPLE.
TIME C. REAR AXLE MOUNTING
S.N. ACTIVITY
(MIN.) 1 MOUNT LH BRAKE 1.13
1 COUNTER SHAFT SUB ASSLY. 5.37 2 MOUNT LH BULL GEAR 0.64
2 BULL SHAFT SUB ASSLY. 4.48 3 LOAD LH AXLE 2.59
3 DRIVE SHAFT SUB ASSLY. 1.55 4 AXLE BOLT PLACING 1.4
4 DIFF CASE SHAFT SUB ASSLY. 11.66 5 TIGHT LH AXLE 1.00
5 SPLINE SHAFT SUB ASSLY. 14.28 6 BOLT PLACING 0.76
REAR AXLE CARRIER SUB 7 PRESS BOLT 1.13
6 9.04
ASSLY. 8 MOUNT RH BRAKE 1.13
7 GEAR SHIFTER SUB ASSLY. 11.06 9 MOUNT RH BULL GEAR 0.64
8 CLUTCH HOUSING SUB ASSLY. 7.17 10 LOAD RH AXLE 2.59
11 AXLE BOLT PLACING 1.4
12 TIGHT RH AXLE 1.00
D) ASSUMPTIONS: 13 BOLT PLACING 0.76
14 PRESS BOLT 1.13
D. BRAKE AND PTO MOUNTING
1.Production schedule is 3500 transmissions 1 BRAKE & AXLE TORQUE 1.19
per month. Assume 25 working days. So, 2 BRAKE & AXLE TORQUE 1.19
we require 140 transmissions / day i.e. 70 3 PTO FITTING 2.60
Tr. / shift if we run two shifts. G.S. MOUNTING &
E
TRANSMISSION TESTING
2. Shift timings: Shift I & II: 420 min. each. MOUNT GEAR SHIFTER SUB
3. Time Available to Complete the Task 1 3.32
ASSEMBLY
(TACT) = 420 / 70 = 6 Min. 2
MOUNT TRANSMISSION CASE
2.00
Cycle times of all operations are known. ON SKID
3 FILL OIL & TESTING 17.5

ICANDIA 2007 MED, COE, Pune, India

IA 349
 Application of Ranked Positional Weight Method for Assembly Line Balancing – A Case Study
TRANSMISSION ASSEMBLY LINE TIME
TN. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
(MIN.)
(Table No. 4):
11A & B
TIME MOUNT CLUTCH HSG. FIR
STN. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION  C’HSG. GASKET, DOWEL 6.84
(MIN.)
AND G.NIPPLE.
COUNTER SHAFT SUB
1 5.37  MOUNT LH BRAKE 1.13
ASSLY.
 MOUNT LH BULL GEAR 0.64
BULL CAGE LH-RH SUB
2 4.84  LOAD LH AXLE 2.59
ASSLY.
DIFF. CASE SUB ASSLY.  COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40
3A & B 11.66  PUSH SKID TO NEXT STAGE 0.26
(2 PARALLEL STATIONS)
DRIVE SHAFT SUB ASSLY . (2 PARALLEL STATIONS) 11.86
4 A, B 1.55 12
SPLINE SHAFT SUB ASSLY.
&C 14.28  AXLE BOLT PLACING 1.4
(3 PARALLEL STATIONS)
15.83  TIGHT LH AXLE 1.00
RAC SUB ASSLY.  BOLT PLACING 0.76
5 A, B 9.04  PRESS BOLT 1.13
CLUTCH HSG. SUB ASSLY.
&C 7.17  COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40
(3 PARALLEL STATIONS)
16.21  PUSH SKID TO NEXT STAGE 0.26
GEAR SHIFTER SUB ASSLY. 4.94
6A & B 11.06 13
(2 PARALLEL STATIONS)
7  MOUNT RH BRAKE 1.13
MOUNT TRANS.CASE,  MOUNT RH BULL GEAR 0.64
COUNTER SHAFT, BULL  LOAD RH AXLE 2.59
 4.89
CAGE LH AND RH AND  COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40
DIFFERENTIAL CASE  PUSH SKID TO NEXT STAGE 0.26
 NUMBER PUNCHING 0.14 5.02
 BRING SPLINE SHAFT 0.17 14
 COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40  AXLE BOLT PLACING 1.4
 PUSH SKID TO NEXT STAGE 0.26  TIGHT RH AXLE 1.00
5.86  BOLT PLACING 0.76
8A & B  PRESS BOLT 1.13
 PRELOAD LH 5.79  COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40
 MOUNT SPLINE SHAFT 1.61  PUSH SKID TO NEXT STAGE 0.26
 CHECK BACKLASH 0.42 4.94
 BACKLASH LH 2.78 15
 COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40  BRAKE & AXLE TORQUE 1.19
 PUSH SKID TO NEXT STAGE 0.26  BRAKE & AXLE TORQUE 1.19
(2 PARALLEL STATIONS) 11.26  PTO FITTING 2.60
9  COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40
 BACKLASH RH 2.78  PUSH SKID TO NEXT STAGE 0.26
 BACKLASH RECHECK 0.42 5.63
 FINAL LH BULL CAGE TIGHT 1.99 16
 COLLECT MATERIAL 0.40  MOUNT GEAR SHIFTER SUB
3.32
 PUSH SKID TO NEXT STAGE 0.26 ASSEMBLY
5.85  MOUNT TRANSMISSION
2.00
10 CASE ON SKID
 FINAL RH BULL CAGE TIGHT 1.99 5.32
MTG. C’SHAFT FRT BEARING 17
 1.32
COVER A, B & C
 MTG. DRIVE SHAFT 1.04  FILL OIL & TESTING 17.50
 TORQUE DRIVE SHAFT 0.30 (3 PARALLEL STATIONS) 17.50
5.32 TOTAL 92.52
STN: Station
E) APPLICATION OF LINE BALANCING
METHOD
Helgeson and Birnie developed the ranked
positional weight method in 1961 [4]. It
combines the strategies of the largest candidate
rule & kilbridge and western method. A RPW is
computed for each element.
ICANDIA 2007 MED, COE, Pune, India

350 IA
 Application of Ranked Positional Weight Method for Assembly Line Balancing – A Case Study
The RPW value takes account of the ‘Te’ value of
Element RPW Te Precedence
the element and its position in the precedence
diagram. Then the elements are assigned to work 16 11.15 5.32 15
station in the general order of their RPW values. 17 5.83 5.83 6 & 16
Steps: Step3 (Table No. 7):
1. Calculate RPW for each element by
summing the element together with the Station Element Te Station Element Te
‘Te’ values for the entire element that
follows it in the arrow chain of the 1 1 5.37 10 10 5.32
precedence diagram. 2 2 4.84 11 11 5.93
2. List the elements in the order of their
3 3 5.83 12 12 4.94
RPW, largest at the top of the list.
3. Assign elements to station according to 4 4 5.27 13 13 5.02
RPW, avoiding precedence constraint 5 5 5.4 14 14 4.94
and time cycle violations. 6 6 5.53 15 15 5.63
Step1 (Table No. 5): 7 7 5.86 16 16 5.32
Element RPW Element RPW 8 8 5.63 17 17 5.83
1 92.52 10 42.93 9 9 5.85
2 87.15 11 37.61
3 82.31 12 31.68 IV RESULT & CONCLUSION
4 76.48 13 26.74
5 71.21 14 21.72 Line Efficiency, E =
Twc =
92.52 X 100% = 91.77%
6 65.81 15 16.78 nTc 17 x5.93
7 60.28 16 11.15
nTc  Twc 17 x5.93  92.52
8 54.42 17 5.83
Balance delay d = nTc = 17 x5.93 = 8.22 %
9 48.79
Smoothness Index = {(Idle time at Stn.1)2+(Idle time at
Step2 (Table No. 6): Stn.2)2+…...+(Idle time at Stn.17)2}1/2
= 2.47
Element RPW Te Precedence By applying line-balancing method we have increased
the production rate from 40 units to 70 units. The
1 92.52 5.37 ---
higher value of line efficiency & lower value of the
2 87.15 4.84 --- balance delay and smoothness index suggests that the
3 82.31 5.83 --- line is smooth [5].
4 76.48 5.27 ---
IV REFERENCES
5 71.21 5.4 ---
[1] Lee J. Krajewski and Larry P. Ritzman, "Operations
6 65.81 5.53 --- Management: Strategies and Analysis ", Ed. 5th, Addison-
7 60.28 5.86 1, 2 & 3 Wesley publishing Co. Inc., pp 425, 2000.

8 54.42 5.63 4&7 [2] R Paneerselvam, "Production & Operations Management

", Ed. 5th, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.., New Delhi, pp
9 48.79 5.85 8
177, 1999
10 42.93 5.32 4&9
[3] Mikell P. Groover, "Automation, Production Systems and
11 37.61 5.93 5 & 10 Computer Integrated Manufacturing ", Ed. 1st, Prentice Hall
12 31.68 4.94 11 of India Pvt. Ltd., pp 144 - 149, 1989.

13 26.74 5.02 12 [4] Helgeson, W.B., and D. P. Birnie, “ Assembly Line

14 21.72 4.94 13 Balancing Using Ranked Positional Weight Technique,”
Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 12, No.6, 1961, pp.
15 16.78 5.63 14 394-398.

[5] A. P. Verma, "Industrial Engineeringt ", Ed. 1st, S. K.

Kataria & Sons, Delhi, pp 52, 2000.

ICANDIA 2007 MED, COE, Pune, India

IA 351
 Application of Ranked Positional Weight Method for Assembly Line Balancing – A Case Study

PRECEDENCE DIAGRAM Fig. (1):

11A
8A
2
7 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17
8B 7 7 7
11A
3A

3B
4A
5A

4B
5B

4C 6A
5C

6B

Station
1 2 3A 3B 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 7 8A 8B 9 10
No.
Time
5.37 4.84 11.66 15.83 16.21 11.06 5.86 11.26 5.85 5.32
(min.)
Station
11A 11B 12 13 14 15 16 17A 17B 17C
No.
Time
11.86 4.94 5.02 4.94 5.63 5.32 17.5
(min.)

ICANDIA 2007 MED, COE, Pune, India

352 IA

View publication stats