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

net/publication/297593262

Multi-objective optimization algorithms for mixed model assembly line

balancing problem with parallel workstations

Article in Cogent Engineering · March 2016

DOI: 10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

CITATIONS READS

17 212

5 authors, including:

Masoud Rabbani Hamed Farrokhi-Asl

University of Tehran University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
211 PUBLICATIONS 4,417 CITATIONS 79 PUBLICATIONS 1,226 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Neda Manavizadeh
KHATAM University, Iran
55 PUBLICATIONS 573 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamed Farrokhi-Asl on 19 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Multi-objective optimization algorithms for mixed

model assembly line balancing problem with
parallel workstations
Masoud Rabbani, Reyhaneh Siadatian, Hamed Farrokhi-Asl and Neda Manavizadeh

Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903

Page 1 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Multi-objective optimization algorithms for mixed
model assembly line balancing problem with
parallel workstations
Received: 19 October 2015 Masoud Rabbani1*, Reyhaneh Siadatian1, Hamed Farrokhi-Asl2 and Neda Manavizadeh3
Accepted: 17 February 2016
First Published: 03 March 2016 Abstract: This paper deals with mixed model assembly line (MMAL) balancing problem
*Corresponding author: Masoud of type-I. In MMALs several products are made on an assembly line while the similarity of
Rabbani, School of Industrial
Engineering, College of Engineering,
these products is so high. As a result, it is possible to assemble several types of products
University of Tehran, P.O. Box 11155- simultaneously without any additional setup times. The problem has some particular fea-
4563 Tehran, Iran
E-mail: [email protected]
tures such as parallel workstations and precedence constraints in dynamic periods in which
each period also effects on its next period. The research intends to reduce the number of
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

Reviewing editor:
Zude Zhou, Wuhan University of workstations and maximize the workload smoothness between workstations. Dynamic
Technology, China periods are used to determine all variables in different periods to achieve efficient solutions.
Additional information is available at A non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) and multi-objective particle swarm
the end of the article
optimization (MOPSO) are used to solve the problem. The proposed model is validated with
GAMS software for small size problem and the performance of the foregoing algorithms is
compared with each other based on some comparison metrics. The NSGA-II outperforms
MOPSO with respect to some comparison metrics used in this paper, but in other metrics
MOPSO is better than NSGA-II. Finally, conclusion and future research is provided.

Subjects: Industrial Engineering & Manufacturing; Manufacturing Engineering; Production

Engineering

Keywords: multi-objective optimization; mixed model assembly lines; balancing;

sequencing; parallel workstations

ABOUT THE AUTHORS PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Masoud Rabbani is a professor of Industrial In today’s highly competitive industrial
Engineering in the School of Industrial and environment, increasing systems’ flexibility to meet
Systems Engineering at the University of Tehran. customers’ demands is crucial. Assembly line is
Reyhaneh Siadatian is MSc degree student in a flow of materials subjected to workstations. In
school of Industrial Engineering at university of mixed model assembly lines several products are
Tehran. made on an assembly line while the similarity of
Hamed Farrokhi-Asl finished his Bachelor of these products is so high. As a result, it is possible
Science in Industrial Engineering from University to assemble and produce several types of products
of Khaje-Nasir University of Technology, Iran simultaneously in rational time. So, the flexibility
at 2013. He continued his master’s studies at of this type of the assembly line is high to produce
University of Tehran and graduated at 2014. different product with high volume based on
Neda Manavizadeh obtained her PhD customers’ demand. This paper deals with the
in Industrial Engineering from College of mixed model assembly line balancing problem
Masoud Rabbani Engineering, University of Tehran (Start year: where the parallel workstations in dynamic
2008). Currently, she is an assistant professor periods are considered. Dynamic periods means
at Industrial Engineering Department, KHATAM that each period has effects on its next period,
University, Tehran, Iran. and this is used to increase efficiency of the line.
Two algorithms are used to solve the proposed
mathematical model and the results are compared
with each other.

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 2 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

1. Introduction
Assembly line is a flow of materials and components subjected to workstations placed as a
sequence. As parts move through this line of production, they are assembled together or to the main
part in order to form the final products. One of the models used in this kind of line, is a hybrid model
called mixed model assembly line (MMAL) (Soman, van Donk, & Gaalman, 2004). In MMALs several
products are made on an assembly line while the similarity of these products is so high that the
setup time for stations from one product to another one is assumed to be negligible. As a result, it is
possible to assemble several types of products simultaneously with respect to orders entered to the
line without any additional setup times. A variety of similar models in MMAL can meet the various
demands of customers. In today’s highly competitive manufacturing environment, increasing flexi-
bility of systems according to customers ’ desires is crucial. MMAL has several advantages, such as
products manufacturing based on customers demand and increasing the flexibility of the line. As a
result, it is so important to study and search about this topic (Manavizadeh, Hosseini, Rabbani, &
Jolai, 2013).

According to the above mentioned, if several products with high workload come to a workstation
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

consecutively, they may increase the cycle time. To prevent this happening, concepts of balance and
sequence are used. Sequencing assembly line includes the order of products entering the assembly
line and whenever several models come with high volume followed at a station, the cycle time may
exceed the station (Boysen, Fliedner, & Scholl, 2009). Assembly line balancing emerges when de-
signing an assembly line and it consists of finding a feasible assignment of tasks to workstations in
such a path that the assembly costs are minimized, the demand is met and constraints of the as-
sembly process are satisfied (Boysen, Fliedner, & Scholl, 2007). As a result, the aim of the assembly
line balancing is optimal assignment of works to stations.

There are some models used in assembly line balancing problem. The first of them which is used
in this study is called assembly balancing problem type-I. It consists of assignment of tasks to work-
stations where the number of workstations should be minimized for a given cycle time. The second
types of assembly balancing problem is type-II and it occurs when there are certain numbers of
workstations, but the cycle time is unknown (Akpınar & Bayhan, 2011).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, some related literatures are reviewed.
Mathematical model and the problem definition are presented in Section 3. The concept of a non-
dominated solution is illustrated in Section 4. In Section 5, the methodology for tackling of this
problem is described. Numerical results and comparison of two metaheuristics are presented in
Section 6. Finally, the study is ended with the conclusion in Section 7.

2. Literature review
McMullen and Frazier (1998) found that using equal weight for each objective to solve a multi-objec-
tive assembly line balancing problem with simulated annealing algorithm when workstations are
parallel has a better result. Simaria and Vilarinho (2004) solved MMAL balancing problem type-II
with genetic algorithm to find the best balance in parallel workstations while the problem had con-
straints of zoning. McMullen and Tarasewich (2003) used ant techniques to solve the MMAL balanc-
ing problem with parallel workstations and probable time work. They compared ant techniques with
several other heuristics, such as simulated annealing and found that this approach is competitive
with the other methods.

Simaria and Vilarinho (2009) solved balancing two-sided assembly lines problem with an ant col-
ony optimization algorithm to minimize number of workstations and balancing the workload with
precedence, capacity, zoning, and synchronism constraints. They understood that their proposed
procedure is performed well. Rabbani, Kazemi, and Manavizadeh (2012) proposed a new approach
to minimize the number of workstations when these are intersecting in mixed model U-line balanc-
ing type-I problem and solved it with genetic algorithm. Hamzadayi and Yildiz (2012) used genetic
algorithm and simulated annealing to solve MMAL balancing type-I problem with sequence in U-line

Page 3 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

with parallel workstations and zoning constraints. Boysen, Kiel, and Scholl (2011) focused on the
added workload stations in sequencing MMAL and tried to minimize the number of work overload
situations. They introduced different exact and heuristic algorithms such as branch and bound and
tested their model in some instances.

Mamun, Khaled, Ali, and Chowdhury (2012) proposed a genetic algorithm to solve balancing
mixed model assembly line of type-I with some features such as parallel workstations, zoning con-
straints, and sequence with limit resources. They defined reassignment process to increase flexibility
in task allocation. Tiacci (2012) evaluated operational objectives of MMAL problem with parallel sta-
tions, stochastic task times, sequences, and buffers within workstations. They solved their model in
Assembly Line Simulator (ASL) which is able to quickly model and simulate intricate assembly line.
Akpınar, Bayhan, and Baykasoglu (2013) proposed a new hybrid algorithm which is combined ant
colony optimization with genetic algorithm for MMAL balancing problem type-I with some features
such as parallel workstations, zoning constraints, and sequence. Kellegöz and Toklu (2015) proposed
a new method for balancing assembly line with parallel multi-manned workstations with zoning
constraints and sequence. They used branch and bound algorithm for a comparative evaluation.
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

Tiacci (2015a) solved buffer allocation problem and assembly line balancing problem simultane-
ously for the first time. He considered stochastic task times, parallel workstations, and buffers
between workstations for his problem and solves it with genetic algorithm. Yang and Gao (2016)
presented MMAL problem with adjacent workforce cross-training where the skill of doing each task
can be learned by two workers in adjacent stations and then they can reallocate the tasks occurred
variation of demand. They solved this problem with a branch, bound, and remember algorithm.
Sivasankaran and Shahabudeen (2014) had a review on assembly line balancing problems. They
classified problem into single model or multi model, deterministic or probabilistic task times, types
of assembly line (straight line or U- line) and with which algorithms these problem were solved.
Finally, they found out which types of problems didn’t work yet. According to the mention, an over-
view of approaches in the literature on MMAL balancing problem of type-I (MMALBP-I) is shown in
Table 1.

According to the mentioned researches, this paper considers a bi-objective MMAL balancing prob-
lem with parallel workstations in dynamic situation. Two multi-objective metaheuristic algorithms

Table 1. An overview of approaches in the literature on MMALBP-I

Publication Line Precedence Zoning Dynamic Methodology
configuration constraint constraint
This study Parallel √ √ NSGA-II, MOPSO
workstations
Manavizadeh U-line √ SA
et al. (2013)
Ozbakir, Bayka- Parallel lines √ ACO
soglu, Gorkemli,
and Gorkemli
(2011)
Akpınar and Parallel √ √ GA, heuristics
Bayhan (2011) workstations
Mamun et al. Parallel √ √ GA
(2012) workstations
Akpınar et al. Parallel √ √ GA, ACO
(2013) workstations
Gökҫen et al. Parallel lines √ SA
(2006)
Vilarinho and Parallel √ √ ACO
Simaria (2006) workstations

Page 4 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

are used to solve the problem. Finally, the performance of non-NSGA-II and multi-objective particle
swarm optimization (MOPSO) algorithms is compared with each other for this problem. Details of
this problem about objectives and assumptions are in the next section.

3. Problem description
In this paper, we are trying to consider the layout of a MMAL including parallel workstations in dy-
namic periods. Using parallel workstations has many features such as, two or more replicas of a
workstation can perform the same set of tasks on different assemblies when required. Cycle times
are allowed to be shorter than the longest task time in parallel workstations, thus it can increase the
production rate and it provides better flexibility in designing the assembly line and the number of
tasks performed by each worker increases (Vilarinho & Simaria, 2002).

Each work center (WC) comprises either one workstation for the instance of non-paralleling or
multiple parallel workstations. A WC with multiple workstations is considered busy if every worksta-
tions inside are busy. An example of parallel workstations is shown in Figure 1. According to this
figure, one operator is assigned to each workstation. There are seven workstations in the mentioned
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

figure where two of them are parallel with each other. These two parallel workstations have created
one WC. Another five workstations that there are no parallel workstations with them consisted five
WCs where each of workstation is one WC. In parallel workstations, the tasks assigned to the WC are
not shared among the workstations, while every workstation can perform each one of the tasks
(Tiacci, 2015b).

In such a way, workstations are replicated only when processing time of a task is higher than the
cycle time for at least one model, so the number of this replication does not exceeded by the tasks
which have a task time higher than the cycle time (Akpınar & Bayhan, 2011; Vilarinho & Simaria,
2002). According to the literature, this research has following objectives.

3.1. Objectives
In this research, there are two objectives which should be achieved: First of them is minimizing num-
ber of workstations (Akpınar & Bayhan, 2011; Manavizadeh et al., 2013; Vilarinho & Simaria, 2002)
and the second one is to maximize workload smoothness between workstations (Akpınar & Bayhan,
2011; Mamun et al., 2012; Vilarinho & Simaria, 2002, 2006). The second objective aims to balance the
line and it means that for each model, the idle time is divided through the workstations equally
(Mamun et al., 2012; Vilarinho & Simaria, 2006).

3.2. Assumptions
The common assumptions of the problem are listed below:

• Assembly line balancing problem type-I are used.

• Precedence constraints and precedence diagrams for each product are known. Precedence con-
straints indicate that an assignment should be allocated to a workstation, if it has no
Figure 1. An assembly line with
parallel workstations.

Page 5 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

predecessors, or if all of its predecessors have already been assigned to that workstation or its
previous workstations.
• Task performance’s times of each product are known.
• Operators who are working in each workstation of the each line are multi-skilled and can be as-
signed to work at any station (flexible workers).
• Setup times between models are supposed as insignificant.
• All the operators are permanent and we do not have overtime periods.
• The number of workstations are variable.
• Cycle time is given and we have dynamic periods to determine all variables in different periods
to achieve efficient solutions.
• We have a straight line with parallel workstations which can also be worked on each side of any
line. Workstations along the line can be replicated to create parallel workstations.

3.3. Mathematical model

Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

Every time one of the workstations has to wait for the completion of its predecessors, idle times will
occurr. Minimizing the idle time which is related to the line is equivalent to minimizing the number
of workstations (Manavizadeh et al., 2013). Minimizing the number of workstations can lead to
reduced weighted line efficiency (WLE). So maximizing the WLE is another objective of this research
to prevent this occurrence.

3.3.1. Notations and parameters

t = index of period t = 1, 2, ..., T
i = index of task i = 1, 2, …, N
k = number of workstations k = 1, 2, …, K
P = a specified planning horizon
M = number of similar models m = 1, 2, …, M
Hi = the set of successors of task i
Dmt = the forecast demand of model m in period t
timt = the time required to perform task i on model m in period t
Rkt = the number of replicas of workstation k in period t
∑
K
st = the real number of workstations needed to meet the demand in period t is: st = Rkt
k=1

Ct = cycle time in period t. The forecast demand over the planning horizon, for model m in period t,
p
is: Ct = M
∑
Dmt
m=1

qmt = the overall proportion of the number of units of model m being assembled in period t is
D
showed by: qmt = M mt
∑
Dpt
p=1

3.3.2. Decision variables

xijt = equal 1 if task i is assigned to workstation j in period t and equal 0 otherwise
rkt = equal 1 if workstation k can be replicated in period t
ITkmt = idle time of workstation k on model m in period t
Imt = the stock of model m at the end of period t
NPmt = total number of production of model m in period t
Objective function:
2
∑
T
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ ⎞
st
⎜ st ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
�� T K
� � �
T M
IT 1
MinZ = 𝛼 k.xNkt + 𝛽
t=1
⎜q ⎜ kmt
− ⎟ ⎟
⎜ mt
⎜ t st ⎟ ⎟ (1)
k=1 ∑
s
t=1 k=1 ∑T
t=1 m=1
st − 1 ⎜ ⎜ ITlmt ⎟ ⎟
t=1 ⎝ ⎝ l=1 ⎠ ⎠
Page 6 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

The objective of minimizing the number of the workstations is represented by the first term in
objective function, and the objective of smoothing workload between the workstations is the second
term (Akpınar & Bayhan, 2011).

In the objective function, α and β are coefficients indicating the weight of each objective which is
determined by the management while the sum of these factor must be 1. Since minimizing the
number of workstations is more important than the second objective so, its weight must be higher
than second objective (α ≻ β) (Vilarinho & Simaria, 2006). Constraints of this model are formulated as
follows:

Subject to:

∑
T
∑
K
xikt = 1 i = 1, 2, ..., N (2)
t=1 k=1
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

Im,t−1 − Imt + NPmt = Dmt ∀m, ∀t > 1 (3)

∑
K
∑
T
∑
K
xakt − xbkt� ≤ 0 ∀t = 1...T a ∈ N, b ∈ Ha (4)
k=1 t� =t k=1

( )
∑
T
∑
N
∑
T
∑
T
∑
T
( )
timt .xikt + ITkmt = ct 1 + rkt . Rkt − 1 ∀m, ∀k (5a)
t=1 i=1 t=1 t=1 t=1

∑
T
∑
T
∑
N
rkt ≤ xikt ∀k (5b)
t=1 t=1 i=1

∑
T
∑
T
∑
N
𝜆 rkt ≥ xikt ∀k (5c)
t=1 t=1 i=1

xikt ∈ {0, 1} (6a)

rkt ∈ {0, 1} (6b)

ITkmt ≥ 0 (6c)

Imt ≥ 0 (6d)

NPmt ≥ 0 (6e)

Constraint (2) ensures that all tasks are assigned to a station and each task is assigned only once
(Gökҫen, Ağpak, & Benzer, 2006).

Equality (3) indicates dynamic periods which shows the gap between two periods and describes
available stocks at the end of period t which is used at the first of period t + 1. Dynamic environment
is considered for objectives and other constraints.

Constraint (4) describes the precedence constraint. This means that before assigning task i to sta-
tion k, all successors of its have been assigned to either station k or further stations. In this con-
straint, task b is a successor of task i.

Page 7 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

Constraints (5a)–(5c) ensure that total time capacity of each workstation is up to task times
assigned to each workstations and it will be equal to cycle time if there are no replication for that
workstation. The maximum number of replicas of a workstation in a WC is up to the tasks which have
a task time more than the cycle time for at least one model, and just the workstations where the
time of the tasks assigned to it exceeds by the cycle time can be duplicated. In constraint (5c), λ is a
very large positive integer (Akpınar & Bayhan, 2011).

Equalities (6a)–(6e) mean domain of the decision variables.

4. Non-dominated solution
Multi-objective problems (MOP) appear in the most orders in today’s study. Attempting to solve a
MOP seems to be more complete and sensible in many issues (Deb, Agrawal, Pratap, & Meyarivan,
2000). A general single-objective problem is defined as:

Max or Min f (x) (7)

st:
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

gi (x) ≤ 0 i = 1, 2, ..., m (8)

hj (x) = 0 j = 1, 2, ..., p (9)

x ∈ Ω
where gi(x) ≤ 0 and hj(x) = 0 are constraints of f(x); Ω includes all possible x. While a general MOP is
as follow:

Max or Min F(x) = [f1 (x), f2 (x), ..., fk (x)] (10)

st:

gi (x) ≤ 0 i = 1, 2, ..., m (11)

hj (x) = 0 j = 1, 2, ..., p (12)

x∈Ω
In multi-objective issues due to a few objectives, we attempt to discover great bargains rather than
a single solution so the documentation of optimum solution is introduced as Pareto Optimum. A
solution x ∊ Ω will be Pareto Optimal if and only if there is no x′ ∊ Ω for which v = F(x′) = (f1(x′), f2(x′),
..., fk(x′)) that dominates u = F(x) = (f1(x), f2(x), ..., fk(x)). In Pareto dominance, vector “u” dominates
vector “v” if and only if “u” is partially worse than “v”.

5. Methodology
Two solution’s algorithms designed to discover logical Pareto solutions, the first one is based on non-
dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) and the other one is based on multi-objective parti-
cle swarm optimization (MOPSO). In this section, metaheuristic approaches are described to solve
the problem. The steps of the NSGA-II are schemed as follow (Akpınar & Bayhan, 2011):

5.1. Initial population

The initial population is created randomly; each individual is represented through three chromo-
somes. The first chromosome includes an order of different periods. The second chromosome con-
tains an ordered sequence of all tasks which is used for each model according to the precedence
diagram and its order is the same order that they are assigned to the WCs. The third chromosome
consists workstations where the task is given to and if a workstation in a WC be replicated, the

Page 8 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

number of that workstation which is assigned to a gene will replicate in next gene for the number of
parallel stations (Tiacci, 2015b). According to illustrations mentioned previously, tasks assigned to
workstations required for each period are determined.

A simple example to explain creation of initial population is shown in Figure 2. According to this
figure, each solution has three chromosomes to specify its properties which are period, task, and
workstation, respectively. At first, the order of these chromosomes is generated, randomly. After
that, they are transformed to meaningful chromosomes to show solutions of the problem. In this
example, WC 1 has two workstations which are parallel, WC 2 has one workstation and WC 3 has two
workstations which are parallel. According to Figure 2, the genes which are below each other are
considered as an answer in a population. It means that each task in each period is assigned to a WC.
According to this description, task number 1 in period “a” is assigned to WC 3, task number 3 in
period “c” is assigned to WC 2 and task number 2 in period “b” is assigned to WC 1.

5.2. Crossover
The single-point crossover divides each of the parent into two parts (head and tail). This point is
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

generated randomly. Recombination of parent one with parent two is generated new offsprings. The
head of first offspring keeps the head part of the first parent and the tail part of the first offspring is
filled with all missing tasks in the order in the second parent. According to the mentioned, the head
of the second offspring is built based on the head part of the second parent and the tail part is filled
with all missing tasks in the order in the first parent.

Each individual is represented through three chromosomes (i.e. tasks order, periods order, and
workstations order). We should decide which chromosome should be selected for the crossover. For
this reason, we generate one integer random number between one and seven, namely in range
[1–7]. This number defines which( chromosome(s)
) ( ) is (are)
( chosen
) for applying crossover operator.
3 3 3
Note that “7” is obtained from + + = 7 (Rabbani, Farrokhi-Asl, & Ameli,
1 2 3
2016). State 1 occurs when the first chromosome of each parents is chosen for crossover and the
other chromosomes remain unchanged which is shown in Figure 3. State 2 occurs when both of the
first and the second chromosomes of each parents is chosen for crossover and the third chromo-
some is remained unchanged. State 3 occurs when the first and the third chromosomes of each
parents is chosen for crossover and the second chromosome is remained unchanged and so on. Both
of the generated offsprings become feasible as their head and the tail parts is also filled according
to the precedence feasible order.

Figure 3 shows the state one when the first chromosome of each parent is chosen for crossover
and the other chromosomes remain unchanged. According to this figure, period’s chromosomes for
both parents are changed in the offsprings and other chromosomes are remained unchanged. The
figure shows that the head part of the first parent is located in the head part of the first offspring and
the tail part of it is filled by unused genes from the second parent. According to the mentioned, a, b,
and c genes of the head part of the first parent is located unchanged in the head part of the first
offspring. Where d, e, and f genes from the second parent are not used in the first offspring. So, these
three genes are located in the tail part of the first offspring, respectively.

Figure 2. Initial population.

Period: a c b

Task:
1 3 2

3 3 2 1 1
WorkStation:

WC3 WC2 WC1

Page 9 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

Figure 3. Single-point crossover. Parent1: Parent2:

Period: Period:
Head P1 Tail P1 Head P2 Tail P2
a b c d e f a c d e b f
Task: Task:
1 2 4 5 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 6 7 8 9 2 4 5 3 10 11
WorkStation: WorkStation:
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 1 1 3 3 4 2 2

Offspring1: Offspring2:

Period: Period:
Head O1 Tail O1 Head O2 Tail O2
a b c d e f a c d b e f
Task: Task:
1 2 4 5 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 6 7 8 9 2 4 5 3 10 11

WorkStation: WorkStation:
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 1 1 3 3 4 2 2 1

5.3. Mutation
We used swap operation for mutation which two genes are selected randomly for new offspring and
the place of these genes are replaced in the chromosome. Other genes of the parent without chang-
ing are placed in the offspring. Each individual is represented through three chromosomes, so for
doing mutation [1–7] condition will be occur which are as same as crossover. In the first state which
is shown in Figure 4, changes are occurred in period chromosome and the other two chromosomes
are remained unchanged. As it is shown in the figure, the second gene from head part and the fifth
gene from tail part of the period’s chromosome from the parent are selected randomly and the pal-
aces of them are changed. The other genes of this chromosome are remained unchanged. So, the
arrangement of the genes for this chromosome is changed from a-b-c-d-e-f to a-e-c-d-b-f.

Crossover and mutation are used to define how the next generation is created. The strategy il-
lustrative of which individuals will be stay in the population and which ones will be replaced. The
individuals of new generation may be created by the previous generation and the offspring produced
by crossover and mutation.

5.4. MOPSO algorithm

Particle swarm optimization is a metaheuristic algorithm which is designed for continuous problems.
This algorithm is inspired by the behavior of birds who are in search of food. The movement’ speed
of each individual into the food is compared to the best behavior (Parsopoulos & Vrahatis, 2002). The
multi-objective particle swarm optimization provides the Pareto front nearer to the required Pareto
fronts and its performance is better than some other multi-objective algorithms (Coello & Lechuga,
2002). The steps of the MOPSO algorithm are as follows:

Figure 4. Swap mutation. Parent: Offspring:

Period: Period:
Head P Tail P Head O Tail O
a b c d e f a e c d b f

Task: Task:
1 2 4 5 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 4 5 3 6 7 8 9 10 11
WorkStation: WorkStation:
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 4

Page 10 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

Step 1: Generate the initial population of particles.

Step 2: Each particle’ velocity is generated and saved in the velocity vector which determines the
direction in which a particle should move to improve its new position.

Step 3: The new position of each particle is saved as memory of particle in the personal best, which
shows the best position of each individual. The new position of each particle is calculated by sum of its
previous position and its velocity vector. If the new position calculated for each particle is better than
its previous position, the personal best should be equal to that position. The previous position in the
memory should be kept when the new position is dominated by its.

Step 4: Leaders which is the position of non-dominated particles is saved in an external memory
called global best. Leaders lead other particles towards better areas in search space and considered
for all the individual.
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

Step 5: Until the number of iteration is same as the maximum number of iterations, we should re-
peat step 4.

6. Numerical results
The performance of the NSGA-II and MOPSO algorithms is investigated and the related results are
analyzed. The algorithms are coded in MATLAB R2013b and run on Intel CORE i7 2.30 GHz on per-
sonal computer with 6 GB RAM.

A numerical example is used to validate model with GAMS 23.5 software and the results of NSGA-
II and MOPSO algorithms are compared with each other. In this example, precedence diagram can
be shown as Akpınar and Bayhan (2011) in Figure 5 which is known for us in the problem with 30
tasks. For small size problem some of these tasks are considered. The initial experiment is performed
by small-sized problems, which includes 10 sample test problems of different sizes, and 10 sample
test problems of different sizes were used for large-sized problem. In this example, tasks are done
over a planning horizon of 400 time units. A workstation can be replicated if a processing time of its
task is more than the cycle time. The maximium number of replicas of workstations in a WC in this
problem is supposed to be three (Akpınar & Bayhan, 2011).

The exact results of GAMS software for the proposed model are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Obtained
results for variables are summarized in these two tables. In Table 4, the obtained variables by solving
an each objective function separately is placed in another objective function to calculate its value.

Figure 5. Precedence diagram.

Page 11 of 19
 Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

Table 2. GAMS results for first objective

Index 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3.1 1.3.2 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3.1 2.3.2 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3.1 3.3.2 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3.1 4.3.2
Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

Variable
xijt 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
rkt 1 0 1 0 1 0
ITkmt 1 0 3 0 6 0 8 0 6 0 6 0
Imt 6 0 4 0
NPmt 10 0 10 0

Table 3. GAMS results for second objective

Index 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3.1 1.3.2 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3.1 2.3.2 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3.1 3.3.2 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3.1 4.3.2
Variable
xijt 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
rkt 0 0 0 0 0 0
ITkmt 1 0 0 4 6 0 6 0 3 0 0 4
Imt 6 0 0 0
NPmt 10 0 6 4

Page 12 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

Table 4. Competition of objectives in GAMS

Z1 Z2
Z1 Z1 = 1 Z2 = 0.3357
Z2 Z1 = 1 Z2 = 0.147

6.1. Meta-heuristic methods

In NSGA-II and MOPSO algorithms, we classified test problems as small-sized and large-sized test
problems with respect to the number of periods, tasks, workstations, and models including in them.
The results of comparison of NSGA-II and MOPSO algorithms are shown in Tables 5–14. Problem
characters in Tables 5–14 are in order of the number of periods, tasks, workstations, and models
they include. Each parameter of algorithms is used as follows.

General parameters:
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

• Number of population size for both algorithm is set to 100.

• Experiments for both algorithm are repeated 20 times.
• Maximum number of iteration for both algorithms in each run of algorithm is considered as 50.

NSGA-II parameters:

• Crossover rate and mutation rate are in order 0.8 and 0.3.

MOPSO parameters:

• Number of repository size is noted 100.

• Values of C1 (personal learning coefficient) and C2 (global learning coefficient) are set to 2.
• Grid inflation parameter (α) is set to 0.1.
• Leader selection pressure parameter (β) is noted as 4.
• Gamma which is defined as extra repository member selection pressure parameter is considered
2.

In order to compare the efficiency of these algorithms five comparison metrics such as number of
Pareto solutions, diversification metric (DM), spacing metrics (SM), mean ideal distance (MID), and mean
square index (MSI) were used. DM recognizes the extension of solution set and calculated as follows:
√
√ n
√∑
DM = √ max(∥ xti − yti ∥) (13)
i=1
i i i i
where max(∥ xt − yt ∥) is distance between the non-dominated solutions xt and yt. The results of
our computations for this metric are shown in Tables 5 and 6.

Tables 7 and 8 described the computation results of SM wh ich provides us to know the Euclidean
distance between two adjacent solutions of Pareto front. This kind of metric provides us to know
details about the uniformity of the distribution of the solutions which is obtained by each of the al-
gorithm. This metric is computed as follows:
√
√
√ ∑( n
)2
SM = √
1
× di − d̄ (14)
N − 1 i=1

where di is the Euclidean distance between solution i and the nearest solution belonged to Pareto set
of solutions and d̄ is the average value of all di.

Page 13 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

Table 5. Diversity metric (DM) for small size

Average 3.58527 5.023423
Problem characters NSGA-II MOPSO
2-3-4-2 2.8284271247461 2.45015319037307
2-4-6-2 2.828427124746 2.82878899852692
2-5-7-2 2 5.65733205717679
2-6-8-2 2.2360679774 10.8167288058419
2-7-10-2 5.74458549317 5.91607978309962
3-8-8-3 4.0003136569 5.65688750321298
3-8-9-3 8.7178286821 6.0000109716944
3-9-12-3 1.4142646273 7.74596669241483
3-10-12-3 6.082784615 0
3-10-14-3 0 3.16227766016838
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

Table 6. DM for large size

Average 4.030011 11.50504
Problem characters NSGA-II MOPSO
4-19-18-5 1.41929671309859 9.16515138991168
4-20-20-5 1.41464100574115 0
4-21-18-5 2.82853860 17.9443584449264
5-22-19-6 2.82866812540513 0.883720930232558
5-25-20-6 1.4145532275 16.6733320005331
5-26-23-6 6.55758735584786 16.431676725155
5-27-25-7 6.00007446626679 10.4880884817015
6-28-27-7 7.9373566656 9.9498743710662
6-28-28-8 5.0003502062 25.7681974534503
6-30-28-8 4.89904845846309 7.74596669241483

Table 7. SM for small size

Average 0.337056 0.183864
Problem characters NSGA-II MOPSO
2-3-4-2 0.5 0
2-4-6-2 0.5 0
2-5-7-2 0 0.932091039049302
2-6-8-2 0 0.639882423582033
2-7-10-2 0.153873333 0.266666666666667
3-8-8-3 0.4996576884 0
3-8-9-3 0.4443394946 0
3-9-12-3 0 0
3-10-12-3 1.2726878292 0
3-10-14-3 0

MID metric shows sum of the distance between obtained solutions (fi ; where i is the number of
best
Pareto) and the ideal answer (f ) for each objective function. The results of this metric are shown
in Tables 9 and 10. Ideal answer is the point in population which has the best answer in all of

Page 14 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

Table 8. SM for large size

Average 1.083484 0.629952
Problem characters NSGA-II MOPSO
4-19-18-5 0 0.363636363636364
4-20-20-5 0
4-21-18-5 0.49953363 0.6875
5-22-19-6 0.498589097127162 0.883720930232558
5-25-20-6 0 0.989247311827957
5-26-23-6 0.399877644727188 1.32075471698113
5-27-25-7 0.499959408866703 0
6-28-27-7 7.9373566656 1.1219512195122
6-28-28-8 0.4281549607 0.932707355242567
6-30-28-8 0.571371224816095 0
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

Table 9. MID for small size

Average 0.981219 0.984215
Problem characters NSGA-II MOPSO
2-3-4-2 1.000223930499 0.91378458764677
2-4-6-2 0.976587442255 0.98944701349708
2-5-7-2 0.959888719832 1.00633917800085
2-6-8-2 0.98153139073 1.01666355204049
2-7-10-2 1.0027624299 1.00472327236632
3-8-8-3 1.007753485 1.01230488121194
3-8-9-3 1.0007072821 0.98930468444202
3-9-12-3 0.97399547051 1.00368664165091
3-10-12-3 0.99634459732 0.90553851381
3-10-14-3 0.91239464725 1.0003560058896

Table 10. MID for large size

Average 0.998784 0.998749
Problem characters NSGA-II MOPSO
4-19-18-5 0.99658145956181 1.0013596627309
4-20-20-5 0.99096373896803 0.98165616894063
4-21-18-5 0.99736741523 1.00100576896847
5-22-19-6 0.99969522164064 1.00149981451826
5-25-20-6 0.99321634447 1.00088307431177
5-26-23-6 1.00230794372585 1.00035328221594
5-27-25-7 1.00119200055204 0.99972863946362
6-28-27-7 1.003963293 1.00081737175658
6-28-28-8 1.0019985629 1.0003934050078
6-30-28-8 1.0005499319529 0.99978886673097

Page 15 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

Table 11. MSI for small size

Average 0.02849 0.061832
Problem characters NSGA-II MOPSO
2-3-4-2 1.11022302462516e-16 0.0987654320987654
2-4-6-2 1.80411241501588e-16 0.0904977375565611
2-5-7-2 5.55111512312578e-17 0.176470588235294
2-6-8-2 1.11022302462516e-16 0.126315789473684
2-7-10-2 0.0391304347826 2.775557561562e-16
3-8-8-3 0.114942528735 0.0775862068965516
3-8-9-3 0.0732758620689 0.0486815415821498
3-9-12-3 0.012018381053 4.440892098500e-16
3-10-12-3 0.045528455284 0
3-10-14-3 0 1.110223024625e-16
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

Table 12. MSI for large size

Average 0.068898 6.72e-16
Problem characters NSGA-II MOPSO
4-19-18-5 0.120229042105453 5.55111512312578e-16
4-20-20-5 0.034778450949676 0
4-21-18-5 0.0430062498 4.9960036108132e-16
5-22-19-6 0.0639204545454549 6.10622663543836e-16
5-25-20-6 0.03100103762 3.88578058618805e-16
5-26-23-6 0.0886902165524723 3.33066907387547e-16
5-27-25-7 0.059846154767623 2.77555756156289e-16
6-28-27-7 0.1508811481 1.77635683940025e-15
6-28-28-8 0.0519081911 8.32667268468867e-16
6-30-28-8 0.044718805316506 1.4432899320127e-15

Table 13. Number of Pareto solutions and computational time for small size
NPS Computational time(s)
Average 3 2.9 74.41495 9.71821
Problem characters NSGA-II MOPSO NSGA-II MOPSO
2-3-4-2 3 2 44.71 3.304637
2-4-6-2 3 2 48.195905 3.930728
2-5-7-2 2 4 46.378222 4.814735
2-6-8-2 3 6 56.205583 5.498103
2-7-10-2 4 4 57.127584 5.665040
3-8-8-3 3 2 85.788409 12.088588
3-8-9-3 5 2 94.436604 14.718414
3-9-12-3 2 4 94.434902 14.325840
3-10-12-3 4 1 110.221109 14.119085
3-10-14-3 1 2 106.651202 18.716929

Page 16 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

Table 14. Number of Pareto solutions and computational time for large size
NPS Computational time(s)
Average 3.8 3.2 641.545 277.2629
Problem characters NSGA-II MOPSO NSGA-II MOPSO
4-19-18-5 2 3 351.614671 70.098852
4-20-20-5 2 1 366.901229 110.831746
4-21-18-5 3 5 378.450320 153.406588
5-22-19-6 3 5 508.753348 250.982827
5-25-20-6 2 4 583.892324 201.820911
5-26-23-6 6 3 591.855149 312.749703
5-27-25-7 5 2 792.193048 404.199652
6-28-27-7 5 3 920.721841 525.944696
6-28-28-8 5 4 1,063.405027 521.565098
6-30-28-8 5 2 857.667723 221.028653
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

objective functions in the problem. The ideal answer in this problem is considered as the point of
max
(0,0) because all objectives should be minimized. f1,total is the maximum value of the first objective
min
function and f1,total is the minimum value of it. It is better to have less value of this metric. This metric
is computed as follows:

�� �2 � �2
∑
N
f1i −f1best f2i −f2best
+
i=1
max
f1,total min
−f1,total max
f2,total min
−f2,total (15)
MID =
n
MSI which is shown in Tables 11 and 12 is the mean square of the maximum value of objective func-
tion minus the minimum value of the objective function.

Number of Pareto solutions measures ability of the algorithms to find effective point and compu-
tational time, which are summarized in Table 13 for small size and Table 14 for large-sized problems,
respectively.

DM measure shows that in the most examples MOPSO operate better than NSGA-II in both sizes
of the problems, because it has a higher value than NSGA-II. In SM measure, the average value of
NSGA-II is more than MOPSO in both small and large sizes of the problem. So, we can say that
MOPSO is superior to NSGA-II. MID measure does not show superiority for any of them. In this metric,
the average value for NSGA-II in the small sizes is less than MOPSO, so it performs better than
MOPSO in small sizes and in the large-scale MOPSO is better than NSGA-II. MOPSO is superior to
NSGA-II in MSI measure. The computational time for MOPSO is almost better than NSGA-II. In most
examples, NSGA-II is better than MOPSO in producing Pareto numbers.

7. Conclusion
This research deals with MMALBP-I which had some particular features such as parallel workstations
and precedence constraints to reduce the number of workstations and maximize the workload
smoothness between workstations for a given cycle time. This model has been implemented in a
dynamic situation.

In the first step GAMS software was used to solve small-scale problem. For the second step, NSGA-
II and multi-objective swarm optimization were used to solve the problem for the numerical exam-
ple in small and large scales. The results obtained from those algorithms were compared with each
other. The results which are displayed in most examples of DM and MSI measure, MOPSO is superior
to NSGA-II, but in the SM NSGA-II operate better than MOPSO. The value of MID measure shows that

Page 17 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

in small scale, NSGA-II is better than MOPSO; and in large scale MOPSO is better than NSGA-II, so this
measure doesn’t show superiority for any of them. The computational time for MOPSO is almost bet-
ter than NSGA-II, but in most examples NSGA-II is better than MOPSO in producing Pareto
numbers.

For future research, MMAL balancing problem of type-II with U- line can be used in a dynamic situ-
ation when cycle time is unknown and number of workstations is known using the constraints of
number of operators and skill level of them.

Funding Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., & Meyarivan, T. (2000). A fast
The authors received no direct funding for this research. elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for
multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. Lecture notes in
Author details computer science, 1917, 849–858.
Masoud Rabbani1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45356-3
E-mail: [email protected] Gökҫen, H., Ağpak, K., & Benzer, R. (2006). Balancing of parallel
Reyhaneh Siadatian1 assembly lines. International Journal of Production
Economics, 103, 600–609.
E-mail: [email protected]
Hamzadayi, A., & Yildiz, G. (2012). A genetic algorithm based
Hamed Farrokhi-Asl2
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

approach for simultaneously balancing and sequencing

E-mail: [email protected]
of mixed-model U-lines with parallel workstations and
Neda Manavizadeh3 zoning constraints. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
E-mail: [email protected] 62, 206–215.
1
School of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, Kellegöz, T., & Toklu, B. (2015). A priority rule-based
University of Tehran, P.O. Box 11155-4563 Tehran, Iran. constructive heuristic and an improvement method for
2
School of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science & balancing assembly lines with parallel multi-manned
Technology, Tehran, Iran. workstations. International Journal of Production
3
Department of Industrial Engineering, KHATAM University, Research, 53, 736–756.
Tehran, Iran. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.920548
Mamun, A. A., Khaled, A. A., Ali, S. M., & Chowdhury, M. M.
Citation information (2012). A heuristic approach for balancing mixed-
Cite this article as: Multi-objective optimization algorithms model assembly line of type I using genetic algorithm.
for mixed model assembly line balancing problem International Journal of Production Research, 50, 5106–
with parallel workstations, Masoud Rabbani, Reyhaneh 5116.
Siadatian, Hamed Farrokhi-Asl & Neda Manavizadeh, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.643830
Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903. Manavizadeh, N., Hosseini, N. S., Rabbani, M., & Jolai, F. (2013).
A simulated annealing algorithm for a mixed model
Cover image assembly U-line balancing type-I problem considering
Source: Authors. human efficiency and Just-In-Time approach. Computers
& Industrial Engineering, 64, 669–685.
References McMullen, P. R., & Frazier, G. V. (1998). Using simulated
Akpınar, S., & Bayhan, G. M. (2011). A hybrid genetic algorithm annealing to solve a multiobjective assembly line
for mixed model assembly line balancing problem with balancing problem with parallel workstations.
parallel workstations and zoning constraints. Engineering International Journal of Production Research, 36,
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 24, 449–457. 2717–2741.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2010.08.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075498192454
Akpınar, S., Bayhan, G. M., & Baykasoglu, A. (2013). Hybridizing McMullen, P. R., & Tarasewich, P. (2003). Using ant techniques
ant colony optimization via genetic algorithm for mixed- to solve the assembly line balancing problem. IIE
model assembly line balancing problem with sequence Transactions, 35, 605–617.
dependent setup times between tasks. Applied Soft http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07408170304354
Computing, 13, 574–589. Ozbakir, L., Baykasoglu, A., Gorkemli, B., & Gorkemli, L. (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.07.024 Multiple-colony ant algorithm for parallel assembly line
Boysen, N., Fliedner, M., & Scholl, A. (2007). A classification of balancing problem. Applied Soft Computing, 11, 3186–
assembly line balancing problems. European Journal of 3198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2010.12.021
Operational Research, 183, 674–693. Parsopoulos, K. E., & Vrahatis, M. N. (2002). Particle swarm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.10.010 optimization method in multiobjective problems. In
Boysen, N., Fliedner, M., & Scholl, A. (2009). Sequencing mixed- Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Symposium on Applied
model assembly lines: Survey, classification and model Computing, ACM (pp. 603–607). Madrid.
critique. European Journal of Operational Research, 192, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/508791
349–373. Rabbani, M., Farrokhi-Asl, H., & Ameli, M. (2016). Solving a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.09.013 fuzzy multi-objective products and time planning using
Boysen, N., Kiel, M., & Scholl, A. (2011). Sequencing mixed- hybrid meta-heuristic algorithm: Gas refinery case study.
model assembly lines to minimise the number of work Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 4, 93–106.
overload situations. International Journal of Production http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2015.12.002
Research, 16, 4735–4760. Rabbani, M., Kazemi, S. M., & Manavizadeh, N. (2012). Mixed
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2010.507607 model U-line balancing type-1 problem: A new approach.
Coello, C. A., & Lechuga, M. S. (2002). MOPSO: A proposal Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 31, 131–138.
for multiple objective particle swarm optimization. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2012.02.002
Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Simaria, A. S., & Vilarinho, P. M. (2004). A genetic algorithm
Computation, 2, 1051–1056. based approach to the mixed- model assembly line

Page 18 of 19
 Rabbani et al., Cogent Engineering (2016), 3: 1158903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1158903

balancing problem of type II. Computers & Industrial task times. International Journal of Production Economics,
Engineering, 47, 391–407. 162, 201–215.
Simaria, A. S., & Vilarinho, P. M. (2009). 2-ANTBAL: An ant http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.022
colony optimization algorithm for balancing two-sided Tiacci, L. (2015b). Coupling a genetic algorithm approach and a
assembly lines. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56, discrete event simulator to design mixed-model un-paced
489–506. assembly lines with parallel workstations and stochastic
Soman, C. A., van Donk, D. P., & Gaalman, G. (2004). Combined task times. International Journal of Production Economics,
make-to-order and make-to-stock in a food production 159, 319–333.
system. International Journal of Production Economics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.05.005
90, 223–235. Vilarinho, P. M., & Simaria, A. S. (2002). A two-stage heuristic
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(02)00376-6 method for balancing mixed-model assembly lines with
Sivasankaran, P., & Shahabudeen, P. (2014). Literature review parallel workstations. International Journal of Production
of assembly line balancing problems. The International Research, 40, 1405–1420.
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540110116273
1665–1694. Vilarinho, P. M., & Simaria, A. S. (2006). ANTBAL: An ant colony
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-5944-y optimization algorithm for balancing mixed-model
Tiacci, L. (2012). Event and object oriented simulation to fast assembly lines with parallel workstations. International
evaluate operational objectives of mixed model assembly Journal of Production Research, 44, 291–303.
lines problems. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540500227612
24, 35–48. Yang, C., & Gao, J. (2016). Balancing mixed-model assembly
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2012.01.004 lines using adjacent cross-training in a demand variation
Downloaded by [46.41.236.226] at 00:12 19 March 2016

Tiacci, L. (2015a). Simultaneous balancing and buffer environment. Computers & Operations Research, 65,
allocation decisions for the design of mixed-model 139–148.
assembly lines with parallel workstations and stochastic

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Engineering (ISSN: 2331-1916) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 19 of 19

View publication stats