Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 367–378 | Cite as

An efficient multiobjective genetic algorithm for mixed-model assembly line balancing problem considering demand ratio-based cycle time

  • Wenqiang Zhang
  • Mitsuo Gen


Mixed-model assembly lines (mALs) are becoming more and more important by producing different models of the same product on an assembly line. How to calculate the cycle time based on demand of different models also making problem more difficult. According to different work experiences and skill level, the processing time of a given task and the operating costs such as wages differ among workers. Appointing the proper worker to the proper station and assigning the suitable task to the suitable station in order to decrease the cycle time, increase the line efficiency, and reduce the total cost make the problem more complex. This paper proposes a new concept for calculating the cycle time based on demand ratio of each model and another one for calculating the human resource cost. A generalized Pareto-based scale-independent fitness function genetic algorithm (gp-siffGA) is described for solving mixed-model assembly lines balancing (mALB) problems to minimize the cycle time, the variation of workload and the total cost under the constraint of precedence relationships at the same time. The gp-siffGA uses Pareto dominance relationship to solve the problems without using relative preferences of multiple objectives. Comparisons with existing multiobjective genetic algorithms demonstrate that our approach efficiently solves mALB problems.


Mixed-model assembly line balancing Worker allocation Multiobjective genetic algorithm Demand ratio-based cycle time Pareto dominance relationship 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akagi F., Osaki H., Kikuchi S. (1983) A method for assembly line balancing with more than one worker in each station. International Journal of Production Research 21(5): 755–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bean J. (1994) Genetic algorithms and random keys for sequencing and optimization. ORSA Journal On Computing 6(2): 154–160Google Scholar
  3. Becker C., Scholl A. (2006) A survey on problems and methods in generalized assembly line balancing. European Journal of Operational Research 168(3): 694–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen J. H., Ho S. Y. (2005) A novel approach to production planning of flexible manufacturing systems using an efficient multi-objective genetic algorithm. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 45(7–8): 949–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dar-EI E. (1973) MALB-a heuristic technique for balancing large single-model assembly lines. AIIE Transactions 34: 343–356Google Scholar
  6. Deb K. (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley Interscience Series in Systems and Optimization. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Gen M., Cheng R. (1997) Genetic algorithms and engineering design. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gen M., Cheng R. (2000) Genetic algorithms and engineering optimization. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Gen M., Cheng R., Lin L. (2008) Network models and optimization: Multiobjective genetic algorithm approach. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Graves S. C., Holmes C. R. (1988) Equipment selection and task assignment for multi-product assembly system design. The International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 1: 31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ho S. Y., Shu L. S., Chen J. H. (2004) Intelligent evolutionary algorithms for large parameter optimization problems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 8(6): 522–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hopp W., Tekin E., Van M. P. (2004) Benefits of skill chaining in serial production lines with cross-trained workers. Management Science 50(1): 83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levitin G., Rubinovitz J., Shnits B. (2006) A genetic algorithm for robotic assembly line balancing. European Journal of Operational Research 168(3): 811–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lutz C., Davis K. R., Turner C. F. (1994) Development of operator assignment schedules: A DSS approach. Omega 22(1): 57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moed, M. C., Stewart, C. V., & Kelly, R. B. (1991). Reducing the search time of a steady state genetic algorithm using the immigration operator. Proceedings of IEEE international conference tools for artificial intelligence (pp. 500–501).Google Scholar
  16. Pinto P. A., Dannenbring D. G., Khumawala B. M. (1983) Assembly line balancing with processing alternatives: An application. Management Science 29(7): 817–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rekiek B., Dolgui A., Delchambre A., Bratcu A. (2002) State of art of optimization methods for assembly line design. Annual Reviews in Control 26(2): 163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scholl, A. (1993). Data of assembly line balancing problems. Schriften zur Quantitativen Betriebswirtschaftslehre 16/93, Th Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  19. Scholl A., Becker C. (2006) State-of-the-art exact and heuristic solution procedures for simple assembly line balancing. European Journal of Operational Research 168(3): 666–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tasan S. O., Tunali S. (2008) A review of the current applications of genetic algorithms in assembly line balancing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 19(1): 49–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weng J. H., Banno M., Onari H. (2006) A study on line operation planning for sewing works. Journal of Japan Industrial Management Association 56(6): 471–477Google Scholar
  22. Weng J., Banno M., Okubo H., Onari H. (2007) An integrated algorithm for operation assignment and worker allocation in assembly lines. Journal of Japan Industrial Management Association 58(5): 383–394Google Scholar
  23. Wilson J. (1986) Formulation of a problem involving assembly lines with multiple manning of work stations. International Journal of Production Research 24(1): 59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhang W., Lin L., Gen M. (2008) A multiobjective genetic algorithm based approach to assembly line balancing problem with worker allocation. Journal of Society of Plant Engineers Japan (SOPEJ) 19(4): 61–72Google Scholar
  25. Zitzler E., Thiele L. (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strengthen Pareto approach. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation 4(3): 257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduated School of Information, Production and SystemsWaseda UniversityKitakyushu CityJapan

Personalised recommendations