THESIS DEFENCE PRESENTATION

IPE 4000
14TH SEPTEMBER, 2021

Department of Industrial and Production Engineering

Bangladesh Army University of Science and Technology
A Comparative Study Of Line Balancing Algorithms
in a Manufacturing Industry

Thesis Supervisor:
Mst. Anjuman Ara
Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial and Production
Engineering

Thesis Co-Supervisor:
Risat Rimi Chowdhury
Lecturer, Department of Industrial and Production Engineering

Presented by:
Nafisa Anjum (160204004)
Dilir Ahbab (160204018)
Mushfica Takia Siddika (160204023)
 OUTLINE
Background
Introduction
Objectives
LiteratureReview
Methodology
Discussion
Conclusion
 BACKGROUND
Motivation behind this work:
 Comparison between largest candidate rules,kilbridge and wester
method and ranked positional weight method and solve a problem.
 Get the most efficient line balancing method between these three
method.
 CONT’D

Why we are working with line balancing??

 INTRODUCTION
The textile and garments industry is one of the largest in the world.As one
learns about the various aspects of textiles and garment production, it is
apparent that it plays a major role in the economy of a country.
1. There are various algorithms of line balancing available, it is essential
to compare them in order to achieve the best solution for line balancing
problems.
2.Each line balancing problems may have different line balancing
algorithms as the solution.
3.And there is a critical need to compare and determine which algorithms
work best for the line balancing problem among largest candidate
rules,kilbridge and wester method and ranked positional weight method.
6
 OBJECTIVES

Objectives of this study are:

1. To improve the productivity through line balancing algorithms.
2. To increase line efficiency and provide standard time for assign
work stations.
3. To compare and analyze the results of line balancing algorithms.
4.To recommend improvement based on the line balancing algorithm.

7
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Name of Authors
1. Sivasankaran ET AL. (2014)
2.Mengistu Manaye ET AL. (2019)
3.Ahmed ET AL. (2020)
4. Ozan Yilmazlar ET AL. (2020)
5. Supriyono ET AL. (2020)
6. Jaganathan ET AL. (2014)
Research Work
1. To minimize the number of workstations for a given cycle
time and minimize the maximum of the times of workstations
for a given number of workstation.
2. Increasing the accuracy of standard time by time study and
rearranging the work arrangement among the operators and
work stations.
3.Reducing the idle time, work station number, and manpower
requirement while improving the efficiency to meet the target
production.
4. Minimizing the number of workers and MInimizing cycle
time of ALB problems and metaheuristics to solve this complex
problem.
5.Optimizing Line Balancing (RPW) method by calculating the
amount of processing time, Balance Delay, Smoothness Index,
the largest track efficiency, and station efficiency.
6.This paper focuses specifically on line balancing and layout
modification. And largest Candidate Rule Algorithm (LCR) has
been deployed in this paper.
5
 METHODOLOGY
Identification of existing
Scopes of line balancing Industry selection
problem

Problem Analysis Data collection

Applying line balancing algorithm

Comparative analysis of result

Fig 01: Methodology 9

 SCOPES OF LINE BALANCING
 Minimizing the number of workstations for a given cycles.
 Minimizing the cycle time for a given numbers of workstations.
 Minimizing the balance delay (or) maximizing the balancing efficiency.
 Minimizing the total idle time.
INDUSTRY SELECTION & PROBLEM
STATEMENT
 Primary data was collected from the Deshbandhu Textile mill ltd. for “Basic
long pant”.They have two sewing floor. Sewing floor no.1 was selected as our
case study area.
 The purpose of this work was to propose a layout to change the traditional
line & Increase line efficiency..
 DATA COLLECTION
Company Data table:
..\Documents\Company Data Table.docx
 CURRENT COMPANY SCENARIO & DATA
3 4 6 7 9 10 11
1 2 5 8
0.35s
0.15s 0.24s 0.34s 0.35s 0.40s 0.36s 0.24s 0.16s 0.38s 0.45s

16 15 14 13 12

17 18 19 20 21 22 0.25s 0.20s
0.45s 0.32s 0.38s

0.10s 0.38s 0.38s 0.28s 0.24s 0.22s

27 28 29 30 31
23 24 25 26
0.40s 0.50s 0.38s 0.60s 0.42s
0.20s 0.32s 0.40s 0.35s
39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32
42 41 40
0.65s 0.45s 0.34s 0.40s 0.38s 0.60s 0.55s 0.32s
0.18s 0.48s 0.75s
Fig 02: Precedence diagram of the process with data
 DNL/S SLP EYLET
S/NL/S S/NL/S S/NL/S Table S/NL/S
BAR HOLE

Table DNL/S S/NL/S Table 5TO/L S/NL/S

S/NL/S S/NL/S S/NL/S S/NL/S FOA S/NL/S

S/NL/S S/NL/S S/NL/S Table 5TO/L S/NL/S

S/NL/S 3TO/L 5TO/L S/NL/S S/NL/S Table

S/NL/S DNL/S FOA Table S/NL/S Table

KANSAI
3TO/L 2NFL 5TO/L FOA E/CUTTER
MC

Fig 6: Company existing Layout

 CONT’D

Demand = 510 unit/day

=147390 unit/year(289 working day per year)
Daily working time = 9 hr/day
Total loss = 1 hr/day
Line operates = 48 weeks/year
6 day/week
8 hr/shift
Daily Production = 480 unit/day
 CONT’D
Planned
•   efficiency= 70%
Repositioning Time loss= 0.018
Avg. standard time = 15.29 min
Hourly production rate Rp==64 unit/hr
Up time line efficiency=*100%=88.88%
Cycle time Tc==.833min
Service available time=.833-0.018=.815min
Here work element number 37 consuming most time so it was the bottleneck station in
accordance with and the collected cycle time for that was 0.833 min.
The target output of the factory at 70% labor efficiency was 64 pieces per hour.
The current line balancing efficiency:
 CONT’D
•  
Line Efficiency=*100%
=*100%
=43.70%
 DATA TABLE FOR CALCULATION
..\Documents\Calculation table.docx
 LARGEST CANDIDATE RULES
•By
 listing all elements in descending order of work element value according to the
procedure followed by LCR.Considering the highest cycle time 1.2.

Line Efficiency=*100%
=*100%
=80%
Assignment of work element according to largest candidate rule was shown in Figure
3 and in Figure 4 same colour within a box indicates the same workstation.
LCR data table:
..\Documents\Largest Candidate rules data table.docx
 CONT’D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

W/S3 0.73S W/S4 0.75S W/S5 0.76S W/S60.38S W/S7 0.80S

16 15 14 13 12
W/S8 0.45S
w/s10 0.55s w/s9 0.7s
17 18 19 20 21 22

w/s11 0.76s w/s12 0.74s

27 28 29 30 31
26
23 24 25 w/s13 0.4s w/s14 0.5s w/s15 w/s16 w/s17
0.38s 0.6s 0.74s
W/S1 0.52S W/S2 0.75S
39 38 37 36 35 34 32
33
41 40
42 w/s22 w/s21 0.79s w/s20 0.78s w/s19 w/s18
w/s23 0.65s 0.60s 0.55s
w/s24 0.66s 0.75s Fig 03:Assignment of work element according to LCR
 EYIEI
Table 3TO/L S/NL/S 5TO/L FOA
HOLE

S/NL/S DNL/S S/NL/S Table 5TO/L S/NL/S

Table 2NFL DNL/S FOA S/NL/S BT

S/NL/S 3TO/L S/NL/S 5TO/L S/NL/S S/NL/S

DNL/S SLP
S/NL/S S/NL/S FOA E/CUTTER S/NL/S
BAR

KANSAIM
Table S/NL/S S/NL/S 5TO/L S/NL/S
C

S/NL/S S/NL/S S/NL/S S/NL/S Table Table

Fig 7: Largest candidate rules proposed layout

 KILBRIDGE & WESTER METHOD
•To  Assignwork element into various work station in KWM, arrangement of work elements
according to column was needed that could be obtained from previous figure. While assigning
the work elements, it was considered that the assignment does not violate the precedence
constraints and cycle time.
Now work elements could be assigned to work stations according to KWM.
Line Efficiency=*100%
=*100%=76.4%
Assignment of work element according to Kilbridge & Wester method was shown in Figure 4
and in Figure 4 same colour within a box indicates the same workstation.
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

w/s 8 w/s 9 w/s 10

w/s 1 w/s 3 w/s 4 w/s 5 w/s 6 w/s 7

16 15 14 13 12

w/s 13 w/s 12 w/s 11

17 18 19 20 21 22

w/s 2 27 28 29 30 31

w/s 14 w/s 15 w/s 16 w/s 17

23 24 25 26

37 33 32
38 36 35 34
41 40 39
42 w/s 18
w/s 22 w/s 21 w/s 20 w/s 19
w/s 24 w/s 23
w/s 25 Fig 03:Assignment of work element according to K&W
 EYLET
Table 5TO/L S/NL/S 5TO/L FOA
HOLE

S/NL/S S/NL/S FOA Table 5TO/L S/NL/S

S/NL/S FOA 3TO/L S/NL/S S/NL/S BT

DNL/S SLP
S/NL/S S/NL/S 2NFL S/NL/S S/NL/S
BAR

S/NL/S S/NL/S DNL/S S/NL/S E/CUTTER S/NL/S

KANSAI
Table S/NL/S 3TO/L DNL/S S/NL/S
MC

Table 5TO/L S/NL/S S/NL/S Table Table

Fig 8: kilbridge and wester method proposed layout

RANKED POSITIONAL WEIGHT METHOD
RPW calculation:
RPW1= 0.15+12.27=12.42
RPW2= 0.24+12.03=12.27
RPW3=.34+11.69=12.03
RPW4=.35+11.34=11.69
RPW5=.40+10.94=11.34
RPW6=.36+10.58=10.94
RPW7=.24+10.34=10.58
RPW8=.16+10.18=10.34
RPW9=.38+9.8=10.18
RPW10=.45+9.35=9.8
RPW11=.35+9=9.35
RPW12=.20+8.8=9.00
RPW13=.25+8.55=8.8
RPW14=.38+8.17=8.55
RPW15=.32+7.85=8.17
RPW16=.45+7.4=7.85
RPW17=.10+8.9=9.00
RPW18=.38+8.52=8.9
RPW19=.38+8.14=8.52
RPW20=.28+7.86=8.14
 CONT’D
RPW21=.24+7.62=7.86 RPW31=.42+5.10=5.52
RPW22=.22+7.4=7.62 RPW32=.32+4.78=5.10
RPW23=.20+5.85=6.05 RPW33=.55+4.23=4.78
RPW24=.32+5.53=5.85 RPW34=.60+3.63=4.23
RPW25=.40+5.13=5.53 RPW35=.38+3.25=3.63
RPW26=.35+4.78=5.13 RPW36=.40+2.85=3.25
RPW27=.40+7.00=7.40 RPW37=.34+2.51=2.85
RPW28=.50+6.5=7.00 RPW38=.45+2.06=2.51
RPW29=.38+6.12=6.50 RPW39=.64+1.41=2.06
RPW30=.60+5.52=6.12 RPW40=.75+.66=1.41
RPW41= .48+.18=.66 RPW42= 0.18
 CONT’D
•While
  assigning the work elements, it was considered that the assignment does not
violate the precedence constraints and cycle time.
Now,
Line efficiency= *100%=80%
Assignment of work elements according to RPW method was shown in Figure 5
andsame colour work elements within a box indicates that those are assigned to the
same workstation.
Data Table of Ranked positional weight method:
..\Documents\Ranked positional weight method data table 1.docx
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

w/s2 0.75s w/s3 0.76s w/s4 0.38s w/s5 0.8s

w/s1 o.73s

16 15 14 13 12

w/s8 0.55s w/s7 0.7s w/s6 0.45s

17 18 19 20 21 22

w/s9 0.76s w/s10 0.74s

27 28 29 30 31

23 24 25 w/s13 0.40s w/s15 .38s w/s160.6s

26 w/s14 .50s

w/s11 0.52s w/s12 0.75s

36 35 34 32
38 37 33
41 40 39
42 w/s20 0.78s w/s19 .60s w/s18 .55s w/s17 .74s
w/s21 0.79s
w/s23 w/s22
w/s24 0.66s 0.75s 0.65s Fig 05:Assignment of work element according to RPW
 DNL/S SLP EYLET
S/NL/S S/NL/S 5TO/L FOA
BAR HOLE

Table DNL/S S/NL/S Table 5TO/L S/NL/S

S/NL/S S/NL/S S/NL/S S/NL/S S/NL/S BT

S/NL/S S/NL/S S/NL/S Table S/NL/S S/NL/S

S/NL/S 3TO/L 5TO/L S/NL/S E/CUTTER S/NL/S

KANSAI
S/NL/S DNL/S FOA Table S/NL/S
MC

3TO/L 2NFL 5TO/L FOA Table Table

Fig 9: Ranked positional weight method proposed layout

 RESULT
Among three of the method we can see that largest candidate rules and ranked
positional weight method efficiency is 80%.And Kilbridge and wester method
efficiency 76.4%.And we are proposing RPW method layout for the industry.
comparati ve result
comparative result

80.00% 80.00%
76.40%

43.70%

I n d u st r y LCR K & W m et h o d RPW

 DISCUSSION
In the largest candidate rule method, the work elements are arranged in descending
order according to their work element time values. Kilbridge and Wester Method is a
heuristic procedure that selects work elements for assignment to stations according to
their position in the precedence diagram. This solves the problems with largest
candidate rule and Ranked positional weight method in which an element may be
selected because of a high work element time value ignoring its position. In general,
the Kilbridge and Wester method provides a superior line balance solution. The three
heuristics are far more superior than the present situation of the manufacturing process
in terms of efficiency, man power, and number of workstation as three systems reduce
the idle time (non-value added time) significantly. Among the three models, the
LCR&RPW method gives the better result because the LCR&RPW takes into account
both the work elements time value and its position. So elements are compiled into a list
according to their LCR&RPW value. For that reason the rank positional weight method
and largest candidate rule always have the better efficiency, lower number of
workstations, and less man power. LCR&RPW method is highly recommended for
improving overall efficiency of this project.
 CONCLUSION

 Based on the analysis in both method in this study, the

implementation of line balancing algorithms on the industry
categories are successful.
Applying the suggested workstation design (according to RPW
method) will improve the productivity significantly Now
workstation needed 24 from 42. Line balancing efficiency
increased from 37.69% to 79%. To meet the target
production,manpower reduced 54 from 62.

32
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
RECOMMENDATION
 Rebalancing may cause disruptions to production and loss of production
time.
 Changes to production lines may lead to out of balane flows.
 Production, planning and control is generally challenging.
In company they can use ranked positional weight method and its layout by
using it there productivity and efficiency will increase.
THANK YOU