Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol.

889 575
Applied Mechanics and Materials Submitted: 2018-03-25
ISSN: 1662-7482, Vol. 889, pp 574-579 Revised: 2018-12-14
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.889.574 Accepted: 2018-12-29
© 2019 Trans Tech Publications Ltd, Switzerland Online: 2019-03-06

Researching and Applying the Line Balancing Methods in Optimizing

Automobile Assembly Lines
Nguyen Phi Trung1,a, Le Minh Tai1,b*
1
University of Technology and Education, Ho Chi Minh City,Vietnam
a
trungnp@hcmute.edu.vn, btailm@hcmute.edu.vn

Keywords: line balancing; takt time; idle time; efficiency.

Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to researching basic methods of line balancing used widely
in operations. Particularly, five basic methods including Longest task time, Shortest task time, Most
following tasks, Least following task, Ranked positional weighted are researched. Then they are
applied in balancing the assembly line of an automobile manufacturing company. The results show
the comparisons of advantages and disadvantages of each method based on total idle time and
efficiency index. Firstly, idle time is the waiting time or non-working time of the workers while
they are still paid their enough salary. Moreover, the waiting time makes an unfair between workers
- some people work more and some work less. Secondly, efficiency in the workplace is the time it
takes to do something. Efficient employees and managers complete tasks in the least amount of time
possible with the least amount of resources possible by utilizing certain time-saving strategies. The
calculations are performed to create these two values and graphs are drawn with the support of
excel softwares.

1. Introduction
The concept of production assembly line was first introduced by Henry Ford in the early 1900’s
[1]. It was designed to be an efficient, highly productive way of manufacturing a particular product.
The basic assembly line consists of a set of workstations arranged in order, with each station
connected by a material handling device. The basic movement of material through an assembly line
begins with a part being fed into the first station at a predetermined feed rate. A station is
considered any point on the assembly line in which a task is performed on the part. These tasks can
be performed by machinery, robots, and or human operators. Once the part enters a station, a task is
then performed on the part, and the part is fed to the next operation. The time it takes to complete a
task at each operation is known as the process time. The cycle time of an assembly line is
predetermined by a desired production rate. This production rate is set so that the desired amount of
an end product is produced within a certain time period.
When designing an assembly line the following restrictions must be imposed on grouping of
work elements.
1. Precedence relationship.
2. The number of work elements cannot be greater than the number of workstation. The
minimum number of workstation is one.
3. The cycle time is greater than or equal to the maximum of any station time and of the time
of any work elements. The station time should not be exceeded the cycle time.

2. Method
The total work performed at a workstation is equal to the sum of the tasks assigned to that
workstation. The assembly-line balancing problem is the one of assigning all tasks to a series of
workstations so that each workstation has no more time than the one can be done in the workstation
cycle time, and so that the unassigned (that is, idle) time across all workstations is minimized [3-5].
The problem is complicated by the relationships among tasks imposed by product design and
576 Material, Machines and Methods for Sustainable Development

process technologies. This is called the precedence relationship, which specifies the order in which
tasks must be performed in the assembly process.
The steps in balancing an assembly line are straightforward:
Step 1: Specify the sequential relationships among tasks using a precedence diagram. The diagram
consists of circles and arrows. Circles represent individual tasks; arrows indicate the order of task
performance.
Step 2: Determine the required workstation cycle time (Rt), using the formula
𝑇
𝑅𝑡 = (1)
𝑄𝑄
T : Production time per day
Q : Required output per day (in units)
Step 3: Determine the theoretical minimum number of workstations (Nt) required to satisfy the
workstation cycle time constraint using the formula (note that this must be rounded up to the next
highest integer).
𝑚 𝑡𝑖𝑖
∑𝑖𝑖=1
𝑁𝑡 = (2)
𝑅𝑡
ti : time of each task (task time)
Step 4: Select a rule by which tasks are to be assigned to workstations
Step 5: Assign tasks, one at a time, to the first workstation until the sum of the task times is equal to
the workstation cycle time, or no other tasks are feasible because of time or sequence restrictions.
Repeat the process for Workstation 2,Workstation 3, and so on until all tasks are assigned.
Step 6: Evaluate the efficiency of the balance derived using the formula
𝑚 𝑡𝑖𝑖
∑𝑖𝑖=1
𝐸= (3)
𝑁𝑎. 𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥
Na : Actual number of workstations
Rmax : Maximum workstation actual cycle time
Step 7: If efficiency is unsatisfactory, rebalance using a different decision rule.

3. Results and Discussion

The Model J Wagon is to be assembled on a conveyor belt. 192 wagons are required per day.
Production time per day is 480 minutes, and the assembly steps and times for the wagon are given
in Exhibit TN5.10. Assignment: Find the balance that minimizes the number of workstations,
subject to cycle time and precedence constraints shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Cycle time of each task and precedence constraints
Cycle Time
Task Predecessor
[second]
A 40 -
B 80 A
C 120 A
D 25 B
E 20 B
F 15 B
G 30 D,E,F
H 145 C
I 130 H
J 115 G,I
Workstation cycle time
𝑇 8.60.60
𝑅𝑡 = = = 150 seconds per unit
𝑄𝑄 192
The theoretical minimum number of workstations
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 889 577

∑𝑚 𝑡𝑖𝑖 720
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑁𝑡 = = = 4.8 ; choose 5
𝑅𝑡 150
The precedence graph:

Fig. 1. The precedence graph

Longest Task Time:
Table 2. Cycle time of each task and precedence constraints
Task time
Task Predecessor
[second]
H 145 C
I 130 H
C 120 A
J 115 G,I
B 80 A
A 40 -
G 30 D,E,F
D 25 B
E 20 B
F 15 B

Rearranging workstations
{1} : (A,B,D) ; R1 = 145 seconds
{2} : (C,E) ; R2 = 140 seconds
{3} : (H) ; R3 = 145 seconds
{4} : (I,F) ; R4 = 145 seconds
{5} : (G,J) ; R5 = 145 seconds
Therefore, Na = 5
Maximum workstation actual cycle time Rmax = 145 seconds
The efficiency
𝑚 𝑡𝑖𝑖
∑𝑖𝑖=1 720
𝐸= = = 0.9931
𝑁𝑎. 𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 5.145
Shortest Task Time:
Table 3. Cycle time of each task and precedence constraints
Task time
Task Predecessor
[second]
F 15 B
E 20 B
D 25 B
G 30 D,E,F
A 40 -
B 80 A
J 115 G,I
C 120 A
I 130 H
H 145 C

Rearranging workstations
{1} : (A,B,F) ; R1 = 135 seconds
{2} : (E,D,G) ; R2 = 75 seconds
578 Material, Machines and Methods for Sustainable Development

{3} : (C) ; R3 = 120 seconds

{4} : (H) ; R4 = 145 seconds
{5} : (I) ; R5 = 130 seconds
{6} : (J) ; R6 = 115 seconds
Therefore, Na = 6
Maximum workstation actual cycle time Rmax = 145 seconds
The efficiency
𝑚 𝑡𝑖𝑖
∑𝑖𝑖=1 720
𝐸= = = 0,8276
𝑁𝑎. 𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 6.145
Most Following Tasks:
Table 4. Cycle time of each task and precedence constraints
Task time the number of
Task Predecessor
[second] Following tasks
A 40 - 6
B 80 A 5
C 120 A 3
D 25 B 2
E 20 B 2
F 15 B 2
H 14 C 2
G 30 D,E,F 1
I 130 H 1
J 115 G,I 0

Rearranging workstations
{1} : (A,B,D) ; R1 = 145 seconds
{2} : (C,E) ; R2 = 140 seconds
{3} : (F,G) ; R3 = 45 seconds
{4} : (H) ; R4 = 145 seconds
{5} : (I) ; R5 = 130 seconds
{6} : (J) ; R6 = 115 seconds
Therefore, Na = 6
Maximum workstation actual cycle time Rmax = 145 seconds
The efficiency
𝑚 𝑡𝑖𝑖
∑𝑖𝑖=1 720
𝐸= = = 0,8276
𝑁𝑎. 𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 6.145
Least Following Tasks:
Table 5. Cycle time of each task and precedence constraints
Task time the number of
Task Predecessor
[second] Following tasks
J G,I 115 0
G D,E,F 30 1
I H 130 1
D B 25 2
E B 20 2
F B 15 2
H C 145 2
C A 120 3
B A 80 5
A - 40 6

Rearranging workstations
{1} : (A,B,D) ; R1 = 145 seconds
{2} : (E,F,G) ; R2 = 65 seconds
{3} : (C) ; R3 = 120 seconds
{4} : (H) ; R4 = 145 seconds
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 889 579

{5} : (I) ; R5 = 130 seconds

{6} : (J) ; R6 = 115 seconds
Therefore, Na = 6
Maximum workstation actual cycle time Rmax = 145 seconds
The efficiency
𝑚 𝑡𝑖𝑖
∑𝑖𝑖=1 720
𝐸= = = 0,8276
𝑁𝑎. 𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 6.145
Ranked Positional Weight [2]:
Table 6. Cycle time of each task and precedence constraints
Task time Tasks that must RPW
Task (in seconds)
[second] precede
A 40 - 720
C 120 A 510
H 145 C 390
B 80 A 285
I 130 H 245
D 25 B 170
E 20 B 165
F 15 B 160
G 30 D,E,F 145
J 115 G,I 115

Rearranging workstations
{1} : (A,B,D) ; R1 = 145 seconds
{2} : (C,E) ; R2 = 140 seconds
{3} : (H) ; R3 = 145 seconds
{4} : (I,F) ; R4 = 145 seconds
{5} : (G,J) ; R5 = 145 seconds
Therefore, Na = 5
Maximum workstation actual cycle time Rmax = 145 seconds
The efficiency
𝑚 𝑡𝑖𝑖
∑𝑖𝑖=1 720
𝐸 = 𝑁 .𝑅 = = 0.9931
𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑥 5.145
The results of the five methods have been shown above. And each method will have their own
advantages and disadvantages based on each particular case. In practical production, to make the
operation process more efficiently, we usually combine those methods together to make use of all
the advantages and reject the disadvantages. Moreover, calculations by using computer softwares
will give the results faster and more exact. Therefore, the management will be more efficient.

4. Conclusion
The main purpose of this paper is to represent the use of five methods - longest task time,
shortest task time, most following tasks, least following task, ranked positional weighted to develop
the assembly line and balancing that line. With this study it is found that every method is useful
itself when the less data is available. Through the result of each method, it is easier for companies to
make their own decisions based on the efficiency. Again with the help of methods, one can find out
the way to synchronize the work stations for the work flow and sequencing. So the bottlenecking of
the assemblies can be reduced remarkably.
 580 Material, Machines and Methods for Sustainable Development

References
[1] Naveen Kumar and Dalgobind Mahto, Assembly Line Balancing: A Review of Developments
and Trends in Approach to Industrial Application, 2013.
[2] Santosh T. Ghutukade, Suresh M. Sawant, Use of ranked positional weighted for assembly
line balancing, 2013.
[3] Sandip K.Kumbhar, Niranjan, Sanjay T.Satpute, Assembly line production improvement by
optimization of cycle time, 2013.
[4] Nils Boysen, Malte Fliedner, Armin, “A Classification Of Assembly Line Balancing
Problems.” European Journal of Operational Research183,674-693 (2007).
[5] Nuchsara Kriengkorakot and Nalin Pianthong, “The Assembly Line Balancing Problem
Review articles.” KKU Engineering Journal Vol. 34 No .2 (133 - 140) March – April 2007.

View publication stats