ARTICLE IN PRESS

Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140

Assembly line balancing: Two resource constrained cases

Kur- .
. sad A&gpaka, Hadi Gok@en b,
*
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Gazi University, Maltepe, 06750 Ankara, Turkey

Received 15 April 2003; accepted 25 March 2004

Abstract

In this paper, a new approach on traditional assembly line balancing problem is presented. The goal of proposed
approach is to establish balance of the assembly line with minimum number of station and resources. For this purpose,
0–1 integer-programming models are developed. These models are solved using GAMS-CPLEX mathematical
programming software for a numerical example.
r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Assembly line balancing; Resource constraint; 0–1 integer programming

1. Introduction

The idea of line balancing was first introduced by Bryton (1954) in his graduate thesis. The first published
scientific study belonged to Salveson (1955). For more than 45 years, many studies were made on this
subject. During this period various new balancing problem concepts such as U-type, two-sided, parallel,
flexible assembly line, etc., and solution algorithms for those problems have been produced. The common
thing for all these problems is using both the operator and the machine in the most efficient way, at the
same time providing flexibility in production.
The purpose of the cases presented in this paper is to provide flexibility in production while increasing the
productivity.
Nowadays assembly lines move towards cellular manufacturing in terms of variety of production. As a
result of this, usage of special equipment and/or professional workers, which are able to perform more than
one process, is increasing. In order to benefit from continuous productions’ advantages, these equipment
and workers must be added to the line in a way by which high efficiency measures (maximum usage,
minimum number of stations) can be achieved.

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-312-231-74-00-2839; fax: +90-312-230-84-34.

.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Gok@en).

0925-5273/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.03.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

130 &
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140

In this paper, assembly line balancing problem, for which lots of variations has been examined till now, is
studied with a different perspective.
Efficient usage of resources that carry out assembly line operations has been targeted by balancing the
line with the minimum number of stations. In fact, the issue of line balancing with the minimum number of
resources has always been a serious problem in industry.
The paper is organized as follows: the second part will address the traditional assembly line balancing
problem and an integer programming model developed for the resource constrained cases. In the third part,
the solutions of traditional assembly line balancing and the resource constrained case on a numerical
example are given, and discussed. In the last part, conclusion and suggestions for future studies are
addressed.

2. Assembly line balancing problem

2.1. Traditional assembly line balancing problem and literature review

Assembly lines consist of successive workstations at which products are processed. Workstations are
defined as places where some tasks (operations) on products are performed. Products stay at each
workstation for the cycle time (C), which corresponds to the time interval between successively completed
units.
While designing the line, the list of tasks to be done, task times required to perform each task and the
precedence relations between them are analyzed. While the tasks are being grouped into stations based on
this analysis, the following goals are regarded:

1. Minimization of the number of workstations for a given cycle time.

2. Minimization of cycle time for a given number of work stations (Baybars, 1986).

A grouping which satisfies a determined goal, is called a balance. This problem is called the line balancing
problem. Up to now, many optimal or heuristic techniques have been developed for the solution of this
problem (Baybars, 1986; Ghosh and Gagnon, 1989; Erel and Sarin, 1998).
The problem analyzed in this paper is similar to the studies which is called Assembly System Design
Problems (ASDP) in the literature. ASDP has sought to optimize an economic criterion such as total cost
with machine selection (Ghosh and Gagnon, 1989; Nicosia et al., 2002; Pinnoi and Wilhelm, 1998; Graves
and Lamar, 1983; Yamada and Matsui, 2003). But in this study, workforce/machine assignment and line
balancing problem is analyzed with a different approach.

2.2. Resource constrained assembly line balancing (RCALB) problem

This problem was met in a factory where some machinery is manufactured and assembled. In this
factory, there are limited number of specific machines and limited number of workers that can use these
machines. For example, there is a special cutting tool that can cut metals in a specific width and shape. In
this situation, the problem is assigning these tools/machines and workers to the stations. In assembly lines,
where specific operation robots are used, the importance of simultaneously balancing of the resources and
the assembly line can be understood better.
At this point, RCALB problem should be defined for the line balancing literature. This new problem
deals with ‘‘maximization of resource usage/minimization of number of resources used’’ for a given C and
maximum number of stations. The resources expressed in description may be workforce or machines.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

&
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140 131

In practice, existence of limited amount of workforce/machine type, which can perform only some
specific tasks in a system, is common (for example there may be only a specific number of workforce/
machine, which/who are only able to weld or only able to drill).
The new model proposed for the assembly line balancing problems foresees that while tasks are being
assigned to the workstations, the tasks that can be performed by the same resource should be assigned to
the same workstation. This model enables resource saving. During this classification, number of resources is
minimized as much as possible. This resource constrained case also helps smoothing the production flow.
In part 3, traditional balance and the effect of proposed model are explained on a numerical example
more clearly.
In RCALB problem, we may come across with two cases depending on resource type:
Case 1: There is no task that can be assigned to different resources. In this case, the intersection of the
sets of tasks that can be performed by resources is an empty set. For example let us assume an assembly line
with 9 tasks; resource A can do tasks 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and resource B can do tasks 2, 4, 6, 8. So there is no
common task which can be performed by resource A and B. This case will be called as RCALB Type 1
problem.
Case 2: There are some tasks that can be assigned to different resources, which means some tasks can be
performed by alternative resources. For example, let us assume an assembly line with 9 tasks, resource A
can perform tasks 1, 2, 5, 7, 9; resource B can perform tasks 2, 4, 5, 6, 8. As seen, tasks 2 and 5 can be
performed by both resource A and B. This type will be called as RCALB Type 2.
Traditional assembly line balancing problem without resource constrained is given as follows (Patterson
.
and Albracht, 1975; Gok@en and Erel, 1998).

Objective function:
X
m max

Minimum zj : ð1Þ
j¼1

Constraints:
XLi
ðxij Þ ¼ 1; i ¼ 1; y; n; ð2Þ
j¼Ei
X
ti ðxij ÞpC; j ¼ 1; y; mmax ; ð3Þ
iAwk

X
La X
Lb
jðxaj Þ  jðxbj Þp0; for 8ða; bÞAP; ð4Þ
j¼Ea j¼Eb
X
ðxij Þ  jjWj jjzj p0; j ¼ 1; y; mmax ; ð5Þ
iAWj

xij ; zj Af0; 1g8i; j:

Notations:

C: cycle time.
mmax : maximum number of stations which can be estimated from a heuristic procedure.
Wj : subset of all tasks that can be assigned to station j:
jjWj jj : number of tasks in set Wj :
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

132 &
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140

Ei : earliest station task i can be assigned to, given the precedence relations.
Li : latest station task i can be assigned to, given the precedence relations.
P: set of tasks that precedes from a task.

1; if task i in the precedence diagram is assigned to workstation j;
xij ¼
0; otherwise;

1; if there is any task assigned to workstation j;
zj ¼
0; otherwise:
Constraint (2) assures that all tasks are assigned to at most one station. Constraint (3) ensures that the
sum of task times assigned to each station does not exceed the cycle time. Constraint (4) ensures the
precedence relationships between the tasks are not violated. Lastly, the objective of the formulation is to
minimize the number of work stations.
Resource constraint which express encounter of first case (Type I RCALB problem), for proposed model
is given below:
X
xij  jjKjr jjMjr p0; r ¼ 1; y; R; ð6Þ
iAKjr

where Kjr is the set of tasks that can be performed in workstation j with resource r: Mjr defines the resource
r in workstation j: If there is resource r in workstation j; Mjr value is equal to 1, in otherwise, this value is 0.
jjKjr jj is number of elements in set Kjr : Constraint (6) ensures that if at least one task is done in workstation j
with resource r; then resource r is used in workstation j; and Mjr value gets 1.
Now, the objective of the proposed model can be defined as minimization of the number of resources that
is assigned to workstations:
X X
R m max

Minimum Mjr : ð7Þ

r¼1 j¼1

Complete 0–1 integer programming formulation of proposed model for Type I RCALB is given below:
X X
R m max

Minimum Mjr : ð8Þ

r¼1 j¼1

Constraints:
Eqs. (2)–(5),
X
xij  jjKjr jjMjr p0; r ¼ 1; y; R; ð9Þ
iAKjr

X
m max

zj pmmax ; ð10Þ
j¼1

xij ; zj Af0; 1g8i; j:

If the problem is Type II RCALB, common tasks that can be performed by different resources, are
shown as a separate set. So, the resource constraint in Type I RCALB model is modified to constraint (11):
X
xij  jjNjr jjMjr p0; r ¼ 1; y; R; ð11Þ
iANjr

where Njr is the set of tasks that can be done in workstation j with resource r excluding all the common
tasks that can be performed by different resources. Assigning the common tasks to stations is satisfied by
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

&
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140 133

new constraint (12):

X
xij  Mjr p0; r ¼ 1; y; R; 8 iAfKjr -Njr g; j ¼ 1; y; mmax ; ð12Þ
rAVi

where Vi is the set of resources that can do task i: Constraint (12) ensures that if task i is assigned to
workstation j; then it is sufficient that at least one of the resources that can perform task i has been or will
be assigned to workstation j:
Proposed model for Type II RCALB including constraints (11) and (12) is given below:
XR mX max

Minimum Mjr : ð13Þ

r¼1 j¼1

Constraints:
Eqs. (2)–(5),
X
xij  jjNjr jjMjr r0; r ¼ 1; y; R; ð14Þ
iANjr
X
xij  Mjr p0; r ¼ 1; y; R; 8 iAfKjr -Njr g; j ¼ 1; y; mmax ; ð15Þ
rAVi

X
m max

zj pmmax ; ð16Þ
j¼1

xij ; zj Af0; 1g 8 i; j:

3. Numerical example

A precedence diagram with 11 tasks is given in Fig. 1. The performance times of the tasks and the
resources are presented in Table 1. The problem is solved for both the traditional ALB model and the
proposed model, and the results are compared. All models in this study have been solved using GAMS-
CPLEX mathematical programming software package.
While solving the problem, cycle time was assumed as 9 and the maximum number of stations was
estimated as 7 (note that the theoretical minimum number of stations for numerical example is calculated as
6). Table 2 shows the results obtained when the model given in Appendix A is solved.

2 6 8

10
3

1
11
4 7 9

Fig. 1. Precedence diagram with 11 tasks.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

134 &
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140

Table 1
Task times and resources

Task no. Task time Resource

1 6 A
2 2 B
3 5 A
4 7 B
5 1 A
6 2 B
7 3 A
8 6 B
9 5 A
10 5 B
11 4 A

Table 2
Balance with proposed model (C ¼ 9; mmax ¼ 7)

No. of station Task Resource

1 1 A
2 2, 4 B
3 3, 5, 7 A
4 6, 8 B
5 10 B
6 9, 11 A

Table 3
Balance with traditional model (C ¼ 9; mmax ¼ 7)

No. of station Task Resource

1 1, 2, 5 A, B
2 6, 8 B
3 3 A
4 4 B
5 7, 9 A
6 10, 11 A, B

When the same problem is solved using the traditional assembly line balancing model, we get the results
given in Table 3.
As seen from the Tables 2 and 3, a total of 8 resources (4 units of resource A and 4 units of resource B)
are being used in the traditional line balancing model, while this number could be reduced to 6 (3 units of
resource A and 3 units of resource B) with the proposed model. Thus, 2 units of resources (one unit of
resource A and one unit of resource B) are saved. Besides, the required number of stations is calculated as 6
in the line balanced with the proposed model. This number is same with the theoretical minimum number of
stations, which means that the solution is also optimal in terms of station assignment. When the number of
station is optimal, the ever best situation for the number of resources and stations is satisfied if the number
of resources is equal to the number of stations, and this situation is achieved in our solution. Consequently,
the solution is the best also in terms of the number of resources, and while reaching this best, the best
number of stations is also achieved.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

&
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140 135

Table 4
Balance with proposed model (C ¼ 9; mmax ¼ 7)

No. of station Task Resource

1 1, 2 A
2 4, 5 B
3 6, 8 B
4 10 B
5 3, 7 A
6 9, 11 A

In the example, if we assume that both resources can perform the tasks of 2 and 5, the problem becomes
RCALB Type 2. The model given in Appendix B is solved with same cycle time and maximum number of
station value given before (the theoretical minimum number of stations is 6), and the obtained results are
given in Table 4.
As seen from Table 4, the balance is achieved with 6 stations and 6 resources. Task 5, which was
previously performed by resource A, along with the task 4 are performed by resource B. Similarly, it is
considerable that the task 2, which was previously performed by B, along with the task 1 are performed by
resource A. When the problem is solved without any resource constrained case, the number of stations is
again found as 6, while the number of resources needed being calculated as 8 (Table 3). So, it can be stated
that the optimal number of resources has been found under the optimal number of stations.

4. Conclusion and future work

Although, resource constrained cases are widely experienced in practice, there has not been sufficient
interest in the literature. This paper presents a new approach on traditional assembly line balancing
problems. The goal of proposed approach is to establish balance of assembly line with minimum number of
stations and resources. For this purpose, 0–1 integer-programming models are developed. With this
proposed model, an important need with regard to line balancing while maintaining the flexibility of
production is met. Because assembly line balancing problems are NP-hard nature (Ghosh and Gagnon,
1989), large-scale problems are also quite hard to solve using this proposed model.
In the future studies, the models explained here can also be modified as a goal programming model by
adding the deviational variables. Especially, when there is limited
P P number of resources, the objective
function (Eqs. (7) and (13)) can be defined as a goal constraint: R r¼1
mmax
j¼1 Mjr  dM þ dM pMmax ; where
þ 

Mmax is the maximum number of resources. The Pmstation constraints (Eqs. (10) and (16)) can be expressed
j¼1 zj  dST þ dST pmmax ; where dST ; dST ; dM ; dM are
max þ  þ  þ 
as a goal by adding deviational variables:
deviational variables for number of stations and resources.
Also, several problems such as minimization of number of the stations for a given number of resources,
and minimization of cycle time for a given number of the stations and resources can be examined, and some
heuristic algorithms can be developed for the large-scale problems.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the State Planning Organization (DPT) of Turkish Prime
Ministry under Grant no. 2002K120250.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

136 &
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140

Appendix A

Ei and Li values:
" ! #þ
X
Ei ¼ ti þ tj =C ;
jAPi
" ! #þ
X
Li ¼ mmax þ 1  ti þ tj =C :
jASi

Pi : The set of tasks which must proceed task i:

Si : The set of tasks which must succeed task i:

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

Objective:
Minimum Z ¼ MAKð1; 1Þ þ MAKð1; 2Þ þ MAKð1; 3Þ þ MAKð1; 4Þ þ MAKð1; 5Þ
þ MAKð1; 6Þ þ MAKð1; 7Þ þ MAKð2; 1Þ þ MAKð2; 2Þ þ MAKð2; 3Þ
þ MAKð2; 4Þ þ MAKð2; 5Þ þ MAKð2; 6Þ þ MAKð2; 7Þ

Constraints
Assignment constraints:
X ð1; 1Þ þ X ð1; 2Þ ¼ 1;
X ð2; 1Þ þ X ð2; 2Þ þ X ð2; 3Þ þ X ð2; 4Þ þ X ð2; 5Þ ¼ 1;
X ð3; 2Þ þ X ð3; 3Þ þ X ð3; 4Þ þ X ð3; 5Þ þ X ð3; 6Þ ¼ 1;
X ð4; 2Þ þ X ð4; 3Þ þ X ð4; 4Þ þ X ð4; 5Þ ¼ 1;
X ð5; 1Þ þ X ð5; 2Þ þ X ð5; 3Þ þ X ð5; 4Þ þ X ð5; 5Þ þ X ð5; 6Þ ¼ 1;
X ð6; 2Þ þ X ð6; 3Þ þ X ð6; 4Þ þ X ð6; 5Þ þ X ð6; 6Þ ¼ 1;
X ð7; 3Þ þ X ð7; 4Þ þ X ð7; 5Þ þ X ð7; 6Þ ¼ 1;
X ð8; 2Þ þ X ð8; 3Þ þ X ð8; 4Þ þ X ð8; 5Þ þ X ð8; 6Þ ¼ 1;
X ð9; 3Þ þ X ð9; 4Þ þ X ð9; 5Þ þ X ð9; 6Þ þ X ð9; 7Þ ¼ 1;
X ð10; 3Þ þ X ð10; 4Þ þ X ð10; 5Þ þ X ð10; 6Þ þ X ð10; 7Þ ¼ 1;
X ð11; 6Þ þ X ð11; 7Þ ¼ 1:

Cycle time constraints:

6 X ð1; 1Þ þ 2 X ð2; 1Þ þ X ð5; 1Þp9;

6 X ð1; 2Þ þ 2 X ð2; 2Þ þ 5 X ð3; 2Þ þ 7 X ð4; 2Þ þ X ð5; 2Þ þ 2 X ð6; 2Þ þ 6 X ð8; 2Þp9;

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

&
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140 137

2 X ð2; 3Þ þ 5 X ð3; 3Þ þ 7 X ð4; 3Þ þ X ð5; 3Þ þ 2 X ð6; 3Þ þ 3 X ð7; 3Þ þ 6 X ð8; 3Þ þ 5 X ð9; 3Þ

þ 5 X ð10; 3Þp9;

2 X ð2; 4Þ þ 5 X ð3; 4Þ þ 7 X ð4; 4Þ þ X ð5; 4Þ þ 2 X ð6; 4Þ þ 3 X ð7; 4Þ þ 6 X ð8; 4Þ þ 5 X ð9; 4Þ

þ 5 X ð10; 4Þp9;

2 X ð2; 5Þ þ 5 X ð3; 5Þ þ 7 X ð4; 5Þ þ X ð5; 5Þ þ 2 X ð6; 5Þ þ 3 X ð7; 5Þ þ 6 X ð8; 5Þ þ 5 X ð9; 5Þ

þ 5 X ð10; 5Þp9;

5 X ð3; 6Þ þ X ð5; 6Þ þ 2 X ð6; 6Þ þ 3 X ð7; 6Þ þ 6 X ð8; 6Þ þ 5 X ð9; 6Þ

þ 5 X ð10; 6Þ þ 4 X ð11; 6Þp9;

5 X ð9; 7Þ þ 5 X ð10; 7Þ þ 4 X ð11; 7Þp9:

Resource constraints:
X ð1; 1Þ þ X ð5; 1Þ  2 MAKð1; 1Þp0;

X ð2; 1Þ  MAKð2; 1Þp0;

X ð1; 2Þ þ X ð3; 2Þ þ X ð5; 2Þ  3 MAKð1; 2Þp0;

X ð2; 2Þ þ X ð4; 2Þ þ X ð6; 2Þ þ X ð8; 2Þ  4 MAKð2; 2Þp0;

X ð3; 3Þ þ X ð5; 3Þ þ X ð7; 3Þ þ X ð9; 3Þ  4 MAKð1; 3Þp0;

X ð2; 3Þ þ X ð4; 3Þ þ X ð6; 3Þ þ X ð8; 3Þ þ X ð10; 3Þ  5 MAKð2; 3Þp0;

X ð3; 4Þ þ X ð5; 4Þ þ X ð7; 4Þ þ X ð9; 4Þ  4 MAKð1; 4Þp0;

X ð2; 4Þ þ X ð4; 4Þ þ X ð6; 4Þ þ X ð8; 4Þ þ X ð10; 4Þ  5 MAKð2; 4Þp0;

X ð3; 5Þ þ X ð5; 5Þ þ X ð7; 5Þ þ X ð9; 5Þ  4 MAKð1; 5Þp0;

X ð2; 5Þ þ X ð4; 5Þ þ X ð6; 5Þ þ X ð8; 5Þ þ X ð10; 5Þ  5 MAKð2; 5Þp0;

X ð3; 6Þ þ X ð5; 6Þ þ X ð7; 6Þ þ X ð9; 6Þ þ X ð11; 6Þ  5 MAKð1; 6Þp0;

X ð6; 6Þ þ X ð8; 6Þ þ X ð10; 6Þ  3 MAKð2; 6Þp0;

X ð9; 7Þ þ X ð11; 7Þ  2 MAKð1; 7Þp0;

X ð10; 7Þ  MAKð2; 7Þp0:

Station constraints:
X ð1; 1Þ þ X ð2; 1Þ þ X ð5; 1Þ  3 ISTð1Þp0;

X ð1; 2Þ þ X ð2; 2Þ þ X ð3; 2Þ þ X ð4; 2Þ þ X ð5; 2Þ þ X ð6; 2Þ þ X ð8; 2Þ  7 ISTð2Þp0;

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

138 &
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140

X ð2; 3Þ þ X ð3; 3Þ þ X ð4; 3Þ þ X ð5; 3Þ þ X ð6; 3Þ þ X ð7; 3Þ þ X ð8; 3Þ þ X ð9; 3Þ þ X ð10; 3Þ  9 ISTð3Þp0;

X ð2; 4Þ þ X ð3; 4Þ þ X ð4; 4Þ þ X ð5; 4Þ þ X ð6; 4Þ þ X ð7; 4Þ þ X ð8; 4Þ þ X ð9; 4Þ þ X ð10; 4Þ  9 ISTð4Þp0;

X ð2; 5Þ þ X ð3; 5Þ þ X ð4; 5Þ þ X ð5; 5Þ þ X ð6; 5Þ þ X ð7; 5Þ þ X ð8; 5Þ þ X ð9; 5Þ þ X ð10; 5Þ  9 ISTð5Þp0;

X ð3; 6Þ þ X ð5; 6Þ þ X ð6; 6Þ þ X ð7; 6Þ þ X ð8; 6Þ þ X ð9; 6Þ þ X ð10; 6Þ þ X ð11; 6Þ  8 ISTð6Þp0;

X ð9; 7Þ þ X ð10; 7Þ þ X ð11; 7Þ  3 ISTð7Þp0;

ISTð1Þ þ ISTð2Þ þ ISTð3Þ þ ISTð4Þ þ ISTð5Þ þ ISTð6Þ þ ISTð7Þp7:

Precedence constraints:
X ð1; 1Þ þ 2 X ð1; 2Þ  X ð2; 1Þ  2 X ð2; 2Þ  3 X ð2; 3Þ  4 X ð2; 4Þ  5 X ð2; 5Þp0;

X ð1; 1Þ þ 2 X ð1; 2Þ  2 X ð3; 2Þ  3 X ð3; 3Þ  4 X ð3; 4Þ  5 X ð3; 5Þ  6 X ð3; 6Þp0;

X ð1; 1Þ þ 2 X ð1; 2Þ  2 X ð4; 2Þ  3 X ð4; 3Þ  4 X ð4; 4Þ  5 X ð4; 5Þp0;

X ð1; 1Þ þ 2 X ð1; 2Þ  X ð5; 1Þ  2 X ð5; 2Þ  3 X ð5; 3Þ  4 X ð5; 4Þ  5 X ð5; 5Þ  6 X ð5; 6Þp0;

X ð2; 1Þ þ 2 X ð2; 2Þ þ 3 X ð2; 3Þ þ 4 X ð2; 4Þ þ 5 X ð2; 5Þ  2 X ð6; 2Þ  3 X ð6; 3Þ  4 X ð6; 4Þ

 5 X ð6; 5Þ  6 X ð6; 6Þp0;

2 X ð3; 2Þ þ 3 X ð3; 3Þ þ 4 X ð3; 4Þ þ 5 X ð3; 5Þ þ 6 X ð3; 6Þ  3 X ð7; 3Þ  4 X ð7; 4Þ  5 X ð7; 5Þ

 6 X ð7; 6Þp0;

2 X ð4; 2Þ þ 3 X ð4; 3Þ þ 4 X ð4; 4Þ þ 5 X ð4; 5Þ  3 X ð7; 3Þ  4 X ð7; 4Þ  5 X ð7; 5Þ  6 X ð7; 6Þp0;

X ð5; 1Þ þ 2 X ð5; 2Þ þ 3 X ð5; 3Þ þ 4 X ð5; 4Þ þ 5 X ð5; 5Þ þ 6 X ð5; 6Þ  3 X ð7; 3Þ  4 X ð7; 4Þ

 5 X ð7; 5Þ  6 X ð7; 6Þp0;

2 X ð6; 2Þ þ 3 X ð6; 3Þ þ 4 X ð6; 4Þ þ 5 X ð6; 5Þ þ 6 X ð6; 6Þ  2 X ð8; 2Þ  3 X ð8; 3Þ  4 X ð8; 4Þ

 5 X ð8; 5Þ  6 X ð8; 6Þp0;

3 X ð7; 3Þ þ 4 X ð7; 4Þ þ 5 X ð7; 5Þ þ 6 X ð7; 6Þ  3 X ð9; 3Þ  4 X ð9; 4Þ  5 X ð9; 5Þ

 6 X ð9; 6Þ  7 X ð9; 7Þx0;

2 X ð8; 2Þ þ 3 X ð8; 3Þ þ 4 X ð8; 4Þ þ 5 X ð8; 5Þ þ 6 X ð8; 6Þ  3 X ð10; 3Þ  4 X ð10; 4Þ  5 X ð10; 5Þ

 6 X ð10; 6Þ  7 X ð10; 7Þp0;

3 X ð9; 3Þ þ 4 X ð9; 4Þ þ 5 X ð9; 5Þ þ 6 X ð9; 6Þ þ 7 X ð9; 7Þ  6 X ð11; 6Þ  7 X ð11; 7Þp0;

3 X ð10; 3Þ þ 4 X ð10; 4Þ þ 5 X ð10; 5Þ þ 6 X ð10; 6Þ þ 7 X ð10; 7Þ  6 X ð11; 6Þ  7 X ð11; 7Þp0:

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

&
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140 139

Appendix B

Objective:
Minimum Z ¼ MAKð1; 1Þ þ MAKð1; 2Þ þ MAKð1; 3Þ þ MAKð1; 4Þ þ MAKð1; 5Þ
þMAKð1; 6Þ þ MAKð1; 7Þ þ MAKð2; 1Þ þ MAKð2; 2Þ þ MAKð2; 3Þ
þ MAKð2; 4Þ þ MAKð2; 5Þ þ MAKð2; 6Þ þ MAKð2; 7Þ
Constraints
Assignment constraints, Precedence constraints, Station constraints and Cycle time constraints are the
same as those given in the model at Appendix A.

Resource constraints:
X ð1; 1Þ  MAKð1; 1Þp0;

X ð1; 2Þ þ X ð3; 2Þ  2 MAKð1; 2Þp0;

X ð4; 2Þ þ X ð6; 2Þ þ X ð8; 2Þ  3 MAKð2; 2Þp0;

X ð3; 3Þ þ X ð7; 3Þ þ X ð9; 3Þ  3 MAKð1; 3Þp0;

X ð4; 3Þ þ X ð6; 3Þ þ X ð8; 3Þ þ X ð10; 3Þ  4 MAKð2; 3Þp0;

X ð3; 4Þ þ X ð7; 4Þ þ X ð9; 4Þ  3 MAKð1; 4Þp0;

X ð4; 4Þ þ X ð6; 4Þ þ X ð8; 4Þ þ X ð10; 4Þ  4 MAKð2; 4Þp0;

X ð3; 5Þ þ X ð7; 5Þ þ X ð9; 5Þ  3 MAKð1; 5Þp0;

X ð4; 5Þ þ X ð6; 5Þ þ X ð8; 5Þ þ X ð10; 5Þ  4 MAKð2; 5Þp0;

X ð3; 6Þ þ X ð7; 6Þ þ X ð9; 6Þ þ X ð11; 6Þ  4 MAKð1; 6Þp0;

X ð6; 6Þ þ X ð8; 6Þ þ X ð10; 6Þ  3 MAKð2; 6Þp0;

X ð9; 7Þ þ X ð11; 7Þ  2 MAKð1; 7Þp0;

X ð10; 7Þ  MAKð2; 7Þp0;

X ð2; 1Þ  MAKð1; 1Þ  MAKð2; 1Þp0;

X ð2; 2Þ  MAKð1; 2Þ  MAKð2; 2Þp0;

X ð2; 3Þ  MAKð1; 3Þ  MAKð2; 3Þp0;

X ð2; 4Þ  MAKð1; 4Þ  MAKð2; 4Þp0;

X ð2; 5Þ  MAKð1; 5Þ  MAKð2; 5Þp0;

X ð5; 1Þ  MAKð1; 1Þ  MAKð2; 1Þp0;

X ð5; 2Þ  MAKð1; 2Þ  MAKð2; 2Þp0;

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

140 &
K. Agpak, H. Gök@en / Int. J. Production Economics 96 (2005) 129–140

X ð5; 3Þ  MAKð1; 3Þ  MAKð2; 3Þp0;

X ð5; 4Þ  MAKð1; 4Þ  MAKð2; 4Þp0;

X ð5; 5Þ  MAKð1; 5Þ  MAKð2; 5Þp0;

X ð5; 6Þ  MAKð1; 6Þ  MAKð2; 6Þp0:

References

’ 1986. A survey of exact algorithms for the simple assembly line balancing problem. Management Science 32 (8), 909–932.
Baybars, I.,
Bryton, B., 1954. Balancing of a continuous production line. M.S. Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Erel, E., Sarin, S.C., 1998. A survey of the assembly line balancing procedures. Production Planning and Control 9 (5), 414–434.
Ghosh, S., Gagnon, J., 1989. A comprehensive literature review and analysis of the design, balancing and scheduling of assembly
systems. International Journal of Production Research 27 (4), 637–670.
.
Gok@en, H., Erel, E., 1998. Binary integer formulation for mixed model assembly line balancing problem. Computers and Industrial
Engineering 34 (2), 451–461.
Graves, S.C., Lamar, B.W., 1983. An integer programming procedure for assembly system design problems. Operations Research 31
(3), 522–545.
Nicosia, G., Pacciarelli, D., Pacifici, A., 2002. Optimally balancing assembly lines with different workstations. Discrete Applied
Mathematics 118, 99–113.
Patterson, J.H., Albracht, J.J., 1975. Assembly line balancing: Zero–one programming with fibonacci search. Operations Research 23,
166–172.
Pinnoi, A., Wilhelm, W.E., 1998. Assembly system design: A branch and cut approach. Management Science 44 (1), 103–118.
Salveson, M.E., 1955. The assembly line balancing problem. Journal of Industrial Engineering 6 (3), 18–25.
Yamada, T., Matsui, M., 2003. A management design approach to assembly line systems. International Journal of Production
Economics 84, 193–204.