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

net/publication/236858857

Sustainable Operator Assignment in an Assembly Line Using Genetic

Algorithm

Article in International Journal of Production Research · February 2012

DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2011.636764

CITATIONS READS

20 866

3 authors, including:

Tanzina Zaman Sanjoy Paul

University of South Carolina University of Technology Sydney
3 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS 145 PUBLICATIONS 3,616 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Post COVID-19 Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Emerging Markets View project

Special Issue "Sustainable Assessment in Supply Chain and Infrastructure Management" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sanjoy Paul on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [UNSW Library]
On: 19 May 2013, At: 21:11
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Production Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Sustainable operator assignment in an assembly line

using genetic algorithm
a a a
Tanzina Zaman , Sanjoy Kumar Paul & Abdullahil Azeem
a
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering
and Technology, Dhaka – 1000, Bangladesh
Published online: 21 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Tanzina Zaman , Sanjoy Kumar Paul & Abdullahil Azeem (2012): Sustainable operator assignment in an
assembly line using genetic algorithm, International Journal of Production Research, 50:18, 5077-5084

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.636764

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Production Research
Vol. 50, No. 18, 15 September 2012, 5077–5084

Sustainable operator assignment in an assembly line using genetic algorithm

Tanzina Zaman, Sanjoy Kumar Paul* and Abdullahil Azeem

Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology,
Dhaka – 1000, Bangladesh
(Received 13 April 2011; final version received 23 October 2011)

This paper addresses the operator assignment in predefined workstations of an assembly line to get a
sustainable result of fitness function of cycle time, total idle time and output where genetic algorithm is used as
a solving tool. A proper operator assignment is important to get a sustainable balanced line. To improve the
efficiency and meet the desired target output within the time limit, a balanced assembly line is a must. Real
world lines consist of a large number of tasks and it is very time consuming and crucial to choose the most
suitable operator for a particular workstation. In addition, it is very important to assign the suitable operator
at the right place as his skill of operating machines finally reflects in productivity or in the cost of production.
Downloaded by [UNSW Library] at 21:11 19 May 2013

To verify better assignments of workers, a genetic algorithm is adopted here. A heuristic is proposed to find
out the sustainable assignment of operators in the predefined workstations.
Keywords: operator assignment; line balancing; assembly line; genetic algorithm

1. Introduction
Assembly line balancing (ALB) is one of the important problems of the production/operations management area.
As small improvements in the performance of the system can lead to significant monetary consequences, it is of
utmost importance to develop practical solution procedures that yield high-quality design decisions with minimal
computational requirements. Basically, assembly line balancing problems (ALBP) seek to assign a set of assembly
tasks to an ordered sequence of workstations in such a way that precedence constraints are maintained and a given
efficiency measure (e.g. number of workstations or the cycle time) is sustainable. In the classic scheduling problem
no matter how many machines (work stations, processors, etc.) are involved, the number of operators (workers) at
each machine may be ignored or assumed to be constant and is not taken into consideration. However, in some
cases, assigning more workers to work on the same job will decrease job completion time. Hence, ignoring worker
assignment decisions may cause managerial problems. In order to solve these problems and improve the overall
performance, decisions about job scheduling and operator assignment need to be resolved together.
The mathematical formulation of the ALBP for simple assembly lines was first stated by Salveson (1955) and
since then, extensive research has been done in the area. Numerous studies on ALBPs have been reported, including
those by Rekiek et al. (2002), Becker and Scholl (2006) and Boysen et al. (2007). Despite the vast search space, many
attempts have been made in the literature to solve the ALBP using optimum seeking methods, such as linear
programming (Salveson 1955), integer programming (Bowman 1960) and dynamic programming (Held et al. 1963).
However, none of these methods has proven to be of practical use for large problems due to their computational
inefficiency. Hence, numerous research efforts have been directed towards the development of heuristics such as
Baybars’ LBHA (1986) and meta-heuristics such as simulated annealing (Suresh and Sahu 1994) and tabu search
(Peterson 1993) have been applied more recently. Genetic algorithm is a stochastic search method inspired by
concepts from Darwinian evolution theory and belongs to a class of meta-heuristic methods known as evolutionary
algorithm (EA). Leu et al. (1994) developed a GA to solve SALB Type-1 problems. Anderson and Ferris (1994)
presented a GA application to the SMALB Type-2 problem which shows the effective use of GAs solving
combinatorial optimisation problems. Rubinovitz and Levitin (1995) used a GA to obtain SALB Type-2 problem in
which the processing times of a task was dependent upon workstation assignment. Kim (1996) used a genetic
algorithm to solve the assembly line balancing problem of how to minimise the number of workstations and cycle
time, and how to maximise workload smoothness and work relatedness. Ponnambalam et al. (2000) in their paper,

*Corresponding author. Email: sanjoy@ipe.buet.ac.bd

ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online

 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.636764
http://www.tandfonline.com
 5078 T. Zaman et al.

proposed a multi-objective genetic algorithm to solve assembly line balancing problems. The performance criteria
considered are the number of workstations, the line efficiency, the smoothness index before trade and transfer, and
the smoothness index after trade and transfer. The developed genetic algorithm is compared with six popular
heuristic algorithms. Sabuncuoglu et al. (2000) proposed an efficient heuristic to solve the deterministic and
single-model ALB problem. Wong et al. (2005) adopted a genetic algorithm proposed for optimising the assignment
of operators in an assembly line. The impact of a different level of skill inventory SIn on the assembly makespan is
also investigated in order to find out the optimal number of task skills an operator should possess in the apparel
assembly process. Boutevin et al. (2006) proposed hybrid methods for line balancing problems. The objective of his
study was to assign operations to workstations in order to minimise, the number of required workstations. The basic
constraints were cycle time and precedence constraints. In the research paper of Baykasoğlu and Özbak|r (2007), a
new multiple-rule-based genetic algorithm (GA) is proposed for balancing U-type assembly lines with stochastic
task times. Rajakumar et al. (2007) in their research used genetic algorithm (GA) to solve the parallel machine
scheduling problem of the manufacturing system with the objective of workflow balancing. Kulak et al. (2008)
proposed a GA-based solution approach for balancing printed circuit board assembly lines where a single type of
PCB is assigned to high-precision placement machines to minimise the assembly cycle time. Guo et al. (2008)
proposed a genetic-algorithm-based optimisation model for scheduling flexible assembly lines where the objectives
of minimising the weighted sum of tardiness and earliness penalties and balancing the production flow of the FAL.
Tseng et al. (2008) worked with integrated sequence planning problem, which is solved using a genetic algorithm
Downloaded by [UNSW Library] at 21:11 19 May 2013

approach with an objective of lowest operation costs. Hwang et al. (2008) presented a multi-objective genetic
algorithm (moGA) to solve the U-shaped assembly line balancing problem (UALBP) considering the number of
workstations (the line efficiency) and the variation of workload. Akgündüz and Tunli (2010) proposed an adaptive
genetic algorithm approach to solve mixed-model assembly line sequencing problem (MMALSP) where multiple
objectives such as variation in part consumption rates, total utility work and setup costs are considered
simultaneously. Hwang and Katayama (2010) presented an amelioration structure with genetic algorithms to
improve the variation of workload on assembly line production systems considering the number of workstations
(the line efficiency) and the variation of workload. Süer and Tummaluri (2007) dealt with assigning operators to
various operations in a labour-intensive cellular environment considering operator skill levels and skill-based
operation times are used as opposed to the classical approach of using standard times.
The above works are mainly focused on job assignment in workstations and optimising the number of
workstations, cycle time, workload smoothness work relatedness, consumption rates, total utility work and setup
costs. The effect of machine dependency of operators is not focused on in any of the above studies. This paper
focuses on finding an approach for sustainable operator assignment in Simple Assembly Line Balancing (SALB)
Type-2 not being limited to any specific assembly process. As many attempts have been made to assign jobs to
workstations, only operator assignment is considered here assuming that jobs are already assigned to workstations.

2. Problem definition
In an assembly line, there are a number of tasks and a number of machines in which the tasks are processed. Each
task may not be processed on each machine. For a balancing assembly line, tasks are assigned to a set of
workstations where tasks are processed in a pre-defined sequence. While assigning operators in workstations, it is
assumed that every operator is capable of operating each machine. But in practical cases operating skill may vary
depending on the type of machines.
A typical scenario of assembly line is shown in Figure 1. There are M workstations and N types of machines are
to get the complete product. Every station may not have all the types of machines. Only one operator is assigned to
each station. Efficiency level of operators varies from r1 to r2, considering average task time as the base. Skill
combinations of h types to operate N types of machines can be represented by skill matrix of h  N. The effective
working hours in a day is dependent upon the efficiency factor, E which ranges from E1 to E2.

3. Assumptions of the study

Assumptions of operator assignment in a simple assembly line balancing problem (SALBP) are as follows:
(i) Only one operator is assigned to each workstation.
(ii) Operator’s skill is task independent but machine dependent.
 International Journal of Production Research 5079

WS 3
WS 1
F

A B C

WS 5
G

D E H J K

WS 2
I
WS 4
Downloaded by [UNSW Library] at 21:11 19 May 2013

Figure 1. A typical scenario of task assignment in an assembly line.

(iii) Each entity of skill matrix represents the percentage of average task time taken to complete that particular
task in that particular machine. An average operator takes 100% of task time to complete that task, where a
skilled one takes less time to perform.
(iv) The number of workers assigned to each machine needs to be decided before any job can be processed and
they will not be reassigned until all the jobs have been completed.
(v) Job processing time t is independent of the job sequence.
(vi) Machines will never breakdown and are available throughout the scheduling period.
(vii) Theoretical cycle time, Cth and total idle time, Ith are calculated considering the largest task time, tmax as
theoretical cycle time, Cth.
(viii) Daily production rate, Pth are calculated considering that all the operators are 100% efficient.

4. Genetic algorithm approach

Genetic algorithm is based on the heuristic concept for solving complex optimisation problems that manipulate a
population of solutions by genetic operators like selection, crossover and mutation. The main challenge of GA
application to the assembly line balancing problem is the development of good encoding schemes and genetic
operators in order to attain feasible solutions.

4.1 Representation scheme

Each chromosome is a string of length M (number of workstations) where each element represents a workstation
and the value of each element represents the skill combination of operator of value h from skill matrix. For example,
the first element of the chromosome, ‘2’ means the operator who has skill combination of type 2, is assigned to
workstation 1. This representation of the chromosome is shown in Table 1. The concept of skill combination is
introduced here to get a better and balanced assembly line. Each row of the skill combination table represents the
type of skill of a worker to operate different machines. The number of columns will never be greater than the
number of machines used in the line. Skill combination of type 2 means that the operator is the most efficient in
handling machine type 3 and can complete a task using 80% of the average task time. And he is the least efficient in
machine type 2 as he takes 110% of the average task time to complete a task using that machine. The skill matrix for
different machine types and skill combinations is shown in Table 2.
 5080 T. Zaman et al.
Table 2. Representation of skill matrix.
Table 1. Representation of chromosome.
N Machine Machine Machine Machine
h type 1 type 2 type 3 type 4
Chromosome 2 1 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 3
Workstation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Skill combination 1 0.80 1.10 1.00 0.90
Combination type 2 1 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 3 Skill combination 2 0.90 1.10 0.80 1.00
Skill combination 3 1.00 0.80 1.10 0.90

4.2 Fitness function

The chromosome is selected on the basis of a fitness function which is dependent on production rate (P), cycle time
(C) and total idle time (I).
Production rate, P ¼ daily available time=xmax ð1Þ
where, xmax ¼ highest station time after assignment of operator in workstation
Cycle time, C ¼ xmax ð2Þ
Downloaded by [UNSW Library] at 21:11 19 May 2013

X
m
Total idle time, I ¼ ðxmax  twsi Þ ð3Þ
i¼1

where, twsi ¼ total task time of workstation i.

If weights of production rate (P), cycle time (C) and total idle time (I ) are w1, w2 and w3 respectively, then the
fitness function will be
Fitness value ¼ P  w1 þ w2 =C þ w3 =I: ð4Þ
The chromosome with the higher fitness value will be preferred.

4.3 Selection and genetic operators

Firstly, initial population is generated randomly. Then parents are selected from the population using a roulette
wheel that gives a higher probability of selecting the individual having better fitness as a parent. Then two genetic
operators are used as crossover and mutation. During crossover two parents are selected randomly and the
crossover point is also generated randomly between 1 to M. The child with the better fitness value is kept and the
other one is discarded. The crossover probability is 1.0. The other operator is mutation whose probability is 0.5.
During mutation, the child that survived after crossover is selected and the mutation point is generated randomly
between 1 to M.
The problem is to assign operators to workstations in such a way that cycle time, C, and total idle time, I, is
minimised and daily production rate, P, is increased compared to theoretical cycle time, Cth, total idle time, Ith, and
daily production rate, Pth. The simulation will be terminated after generating yth population or after yielding output
that is z times of Pth whichever comes first. Figure 2 represents the genetic algorithm approach for operator
assignment in assembly line, which is described in Section 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.

5. Determination of operator assignment using GA

In this work, a genetic algorithm is used to reduce the computational complexities and furthermore, possible
sustainable solutions can be judged. It is assumed that jobs are already assigned to workstations. Several input
variables, e.g. number of workstations, types and number of machines in each workstation, task performed in each
machine in each workstation, average task time, range of desired efficiency, dimension of skill matrix, range of
operators skill, population size, termination criteria, etc.
First of all theoretical cycle time, Cth, total idle time, Ith and daily production rate, Pth are calculated assuming
that each operator assigned to each workstation can complete the respective task utilising fully the average task
time. This means that operators are considered as primarily having equal capability to operate each machine.
 International Journal of Production Research 5081

Randomly generate initial population

of chromosomes

Evaluate each chromosome in the

current population

Parents

Selection

Crossover

Mutation No

Generate new chromosome

Downloaded by [UNSW Library] at 21:11 19 May 2013

Offspring

Meet stopping criteria?

Yes

Return the chromosome as the

sustainable solution

Figure 2. Genetic algorithm approach for operator assignment in assembly line.

But if their capability is found to be machine dependent, the scenario would be different. The possible skill
combinations are represented by skill matrix of dimension h  N. The operator with a suitable combination of skills
is assigned to the workstation.

6. Result analysis
The algorithm developed for operator assignment in an assembly line using GA, is coded in Cþþ programming
language. Genetic algorithm is used here to verify possible combinations of operator assignment and to get the
better solution that will indicate the sustainable skill level of the operator and their assignment to workstations. A
case study is presented here where GA is used to assign an operator.
Hypothetical data is used here to represent a simple assembly line balancing problem for producing composite
product. Nineteen tasks are performed in four types of machines to get a completed job. Nineteen tasks are assigned
to 10 workstations according to the longest task time rule. Separate machines are provided for each task. Depending
upon the ability to operate a particular type of machines, skill combinations of the operator are varied. The
precedence diagram of the considered assembly line is presented in Figure 3.
Table 3 summarises the tasks assigned to workstations, individual task data, total idle time for each station, and
the type of machine by which they are processed, in this case study. The task data can be obtained from any
 5082 T. Zaman et al.
Table 3. Information about tasks in different workstations.

Task Task Machine Idle

1 2 13 WS number number time type time/WS

1 1 14 1 2
5 6 7 8 9 3 10 2
4 14
2 2 18 4 22
3 4 3 5 15 3 0
14
6 25
4 7 8 4 22
10 11 12
13 10 2
17 15 5 8 14 2 8
9 18
6 10 15 2 5
18 16 11 10
12 10 3
7 14 30 1 10
19 8 15 40 3 0
9 16 13 2 17
19 10 3
Downloaded by [UNSW Library] at 21:11 19 May 2013

Figure 3. Precedence diagram of assembly line. 10 17 20 1 7

18 13 4

company’s production department which is generally recorded after a detailed time study and in this case study,
cycle time is considered as the largest task time, as assumed before.
In this case study, it is considered that workers work in an eight hour shift and 50 minutes is considered for down
time. So, at 100% working efficiency, available time for a day is 25,800 seconds. At 80% working efficiency,
. Maximum possible output, Pth ¼ 516 pcs.
. Cycle time, Cth ¼ 40 seconds.
. Total idle time, Ith ¼ 93 seconds.
Moreover, the set of operator efficiency depending on operating a particular machine is considered,
A ¼ {85%, 95%, 100%, 110%, 120%}. From this set of efficiency four values of efficiency will be picked up for
skill matrix.
In this case study, three different situations are considered: maximisation of productivity, minimisation of cycle
time and minimisation of total idle time. In this study, 150 populations will be generated before termination if 1.5
times of Pth is not achieved.

6.1 Situation 1; maximisation of productivity (P)

For w1 ¼ 7, w2 ¼ 1, w3 ¼ 1, the following results are obtained using the developed algorithm. Best fit-
ted chromosome is 2 1 4 4 1 1 1 4 2 1, with a fitness value ¼ 4249.46, where skill combination matrix is shown in
Table 4.
In this situation, Pcalculated ¼ 607.06 pcs, productivity increased by 17.647%
Ccalculated ¼ 34 seconds, decreased by 15%.
Icalculated ¼ 50.15 seconds, decreased by 46.075%.
As obtained by GA, the first gene (2) of the best fitted chromosome represents that, in workstation 1 (WS 1) that
operator should be assigned who has the skill combination of type 2 to achieve the above mentioned results. It
means that he/she should take 95% of the task time to complete a task using machine type 1, take 85% of the task
time using machine type 2, 120% of task time using machine type 3 and 100% of that using machine type 4. From
this, it can be understood that WS1 requires an operator who is the most efficient in handling machine type 2.
Similar representations for the rest of the genes of the chromosome can be obtained.
 International Journal of Production Research 5083
Table 4. Skill combination matrix for maximisation of Table 5. Skill combination matrix for minimisation of cycle
productivity. time.

Machine Machine Machine Machine Machine Machine Machine Machine

Skill combination type 1 type 2 type 3 type 4 Skill combination type 1 type 2 type 3 type 4

1 1.10 0.95 1.00 0.85 1 1.10 0.95 1.20 1.00

2 0.95 0.85 1.20 1.00 2 1.20 0.85 1.10 0.95
3 1.10 1.20 0.95 1.00 3 0.95 0.85 1.20 1.00
4 1.00 1.20 0.85 0.95 4 1.10 0.95 0.85 1.20

Table 6. Skill combination matrix for minimisation of idle time.

Skill combination Machine type 1 Machine type 2 Machine type 3 Machine type 4

1 1.20 1.00 1.10 0.95

2 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.20
3 1.20 1.10 0.85 1.00
4 1.10 1.20 0.85 0.95
Downloaded by [UNSW Library] at 21:11 19 May 2013

6.2 Situation 2; minimisation of cycle time (C)

For w1 ¼ 1, w2 ¼ 7, w3 ¼ 1, following results are obtained using the developed algorithm. Best fitted chromosome is 3
4 4 3 2 3 4 4 1 3, with a fitness value ¼ 607.28, where skill combination matrix is shown in Table 5.
In this situation, Pcalculated ¼ 607.06 pcs, productivity increased by 17.647%.
Ccalculated ¼ 34 seconds, decreased by 15%.
Icalculated ¼ 50.04 seconds, decreased by 46.194%.

6.3 Situation 3; minimisation of total idle time (I)

For w1 ¼ 0.5, w2 ¼ 1, w3 ¼ 8, using the same algorithm the following results are obtained. Best fitted chromosome is 2
2 3 3 1 2 4 3 3 4, with a fitness value ¼ 300.63, where skill combination matrix is shown in Table 6.
In this situation, Pcalculated ¼ 600.87 pcs, productivity increased by 16.448%.
Ccalculated ¼ 34.35 seconds, decreased by 14.125%.
Icalculated ¼ 47.8 seconds, decreased by 48.6%.

7. Conclusions
The operator assignment problem in an assembly line has been considered in this research where a sustainable result
was obtained checking possible solutions using genetic algorithm. Objectives like maximisation of productivity,
minimisation of cycle time and minimisation of total idle time have been considered to choose the sustainable
assignment, while it has been assumed that an operator’s skill is machine dependent and task independent.
Situations can be different depending on the weights given upon productivity, cycle time and idle time. When a
particular factor is considered as a prime concern, more weight is given to that factor in the fitness function.
Chromosome with maximum fitness value is considered as a sustainable operator assignment. A particular
chromosome represents the assignment of operators having a particular skill combination in a number of
workstations in the assembly line. Each element of the chromosome is referred to the skill matrix. As an operator is
not equally efficient in operating each machine, his efficiency is represented by skill combination in operating
different machines. The sustainable assignment of operators is represented by the best fitted chromosome. This
work can be extended considering operators’ efficiency on completing tasks and operating machines as well.
 5084 T. Zaman et al.

References

Akgündüz, O.S. and Tunli, S., 2010. An adaptive genetic algorithm approach for the mixed-model assembly line sequencing
problem. International Journal of Production Research, 48 (17), 5157–5179.
Anderson, E.J. and Ferris, M.C., 1994. Genetic algorithms for combinatorial optimisation: The assembly line balancing problem.
ORSA Journal on Computing, 6 (2), 161–173.
Baybars, I., 1986. A survey of exact algorithms for the simple assembly line balancing problem. Management Science, 32 (8),
909–932.
Baykasoğlu, A. and Özbak|r, L., 2007. Stochastic U-line balancing using genetic algorithms. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 32 (1–2), 139–147.
Becker, C. and Scholl, A., 2006. A survey on problems and methods in generalised assembly line balancing. European Journal of
Operations Research, 168 (3), 694–715.
Boutevin, C., et al., 2006. Hybrid methods for line balancing problems. Supply Chain Optimisation, Applied Optimisation, 94 (II),
119–133.
Bowman, E.H., 1960. Assembly line balancing by linear programming. Operations Research, 8 (3), 385–389.
Boysen, N., Fliedner, M., and Scholl, A., 2007. A classification of assembly line balancing problems. European Journal of
Operations Research, 183 (2), 674–693.
Guo, Z.X., et al., 2008. A genetic-algorithm-based optimisation model for scheduling flexible assembly lines.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 36 (1–2), 156–168.
Held, M., Karp, R.M., and Shareshian, R., 1963. Assembly line balancing-dynamic programming with precedence constraints.
Downloaded by [UNSW Library] at 21:11 19 May 2013

Operations Research, 11 (3), 442–459.

Hwang, R.K. and Katayama, H., 2010. Uniform workload assignments for assembly line by GA-based amelioration approach.
International Journal of Production Research, 48 (7), 1857–1871.
Hwang, R.K., Katayama, H., and Gen, M., 2008. U-shaped assembly line balancing problem with genetic algorithm.
International Journal of Production Research, 46 (16), 4637–4649.
Kim, Y.K., Kim, Y.J., and Kim, Y.H., 1996. Genetic algorithms for assembly line balancing with various objectives.
Computers and Industrial Engineering, 30 (3), 397–409.
Kulak, O., Yilmaz, I.O., and Günther, H.O., 2008. A GA-based solution approach for balancing printed circuit board assembly
lines. OR Spectrum, 30 (3), 469–491.
Leu, Y.Y., Matheson, L.A., and Rees, L.P., 1994. Assembly line balancing using genetic algorithms with heuristic generated
initial populations and multiple evaluation criteria. Decision Sciences, 25 (4), 581–606.
Peterson, C., 1993. A tabu search procedure for the simple assembly line balancing problem. Proceedings of the Decision Science
Institute conference, 21–23 November, Washington, 1502–1504.
Ponnambalam, S.G., Aravindan, P., and Naidu, G.M., 2000. A multi-objective genetic algorithm for solving assembly line
balancing problem. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 16 (5), 341–352.
Rajakumar, S., Arunachalam, V.P., and Selladurai, V., 2007. Workflow balancing in parallel machines through genetic
algorithm. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 33 (11–12), 1212–1221.
Rekiek, B., et al., 2002. State of art of optimisation methods for assembly line design. Annual Reviews in Control, 26 (2), 163–174.
Rubinovitz, J. and Levitin, G., 1995. Genetic algorithm for assembly line balancing. International Journal of Production
Economics, 41 (1–3), 343–354.
Sabuncuoglu, I., Erel, E., and Tanyer, M., 2000. Assembly line balancing using genetic algorithms. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 11 (3), 295–310.
Salveson, M.E., 1955. The assembly line balancing problem. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 6 (3), 18–25.
Süer, G.A. and Tummaluri, R.R., 2007. Multi-period operator assignment considering skills, learning and forgetting in
labour-intensive cells. International Journal of Production Research, 46 (2), 469–493.
Suresh, G. and Sahu, S., 1994. Stochastic assembly line balancing using simulated annealing. International Journal of Production
Research, 32 (8), 1801–1810.
Tseng, Y.J., Lin, C.H., and Lin, Y.H., 2008. Integrated assembly and machining planning for electronic products using a genetic
algorithm approach. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 36 (1–2), 140–155.
Wong, W.K., Mok, P.Y., and Leung, S.Y.S., 2005. Developing a genetic optimisation approach to balance an apparel
assembly line. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 28 (3–4), 387–394.

View publication stats