Advertisement

Mathematical Model for Ergonomic Job Rotation Scheduling to Balance the Workload of Employees in Assembly Lines

  • Esra DinlerEmail author
  • Selin Işık
Conference paper
  • 12 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1216)

Abstract

Assembly lines generally consist of a large number of repetitive manual tasks. Workers, performing these routines, are exposed to the risk of musculoskeletal disorders due to biomechanical overload on the limbs caused by repetitive manual tasks and longtime movements throughout the workday. Besides, a high production rate, one of the main objectives of assembly lines in mass production, leads to an increase of the physical workload of operators. For this reason, it is important to balance the workload between the operators in the assembly lines. In this study, the ergonomic risk assessment method, which is defined as an efficient evaluation tool of risks inherited by operators’ posture positions, is used. Then, with the use of this method, a job rotation scheduling model, which is taking into account the capabilities of operators, is developed. The developed mathematical model is applied in an automotive company and the results are obtained.

Keywords

Job rotation Assembly line Workload balancing 

References

  1. 1.
    Carnahan, B.J., Redfern, M.S., Norman, B.: Designing safe job rotation schedules using optimization and heuristic search. Ergonomics 43, 543–560 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tharmmaphornphilas, W., Norman, B.A.: A quantitative method for determining proper job rotation intervals. Ann. Oper. Res. 128, 251–266 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhadury, J., Radovilsky, Z.: Job rotation using the multi-period assignment model. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44, 4431–4444 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tharmmaphornphilas, W., Norman, B.A.: A methodology to create robust job rotation schedules. Ann. Oper. Res. 155, 339–360 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Otto, A., Scholl, A.: Reducing ergonomic risks by job rotation scheduling. OR Spectr. 35, 711–733 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moussavi, S.E., Mahdjoub, M., Grunder, O.: A multi-objective programming approach to develop an ergonomic job rotation in a manufacturing system. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 51, 850–855 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moussavi, S.E., Zare, M., Mahdjoub, M., Grunder, O.: Balancing high operator’s workload through a new job rotation approach: application to an automotive assembly line. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 71, 136–144 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boenzi, F., Digiesi, S., Mossa, G., Mummolo, G., Romano, V.A.: Optimal break and job rotation schedules of high repetitive - low load manual tasks in assembly lines: an OCRA - Based approach. In: 7th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management, and Control, pp. 1896–1901. IFAC-PapersOnline, Saint Petersburg (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boenzi, F., Digiesi, S., Mossa, G., Mummolo, G., Romano, V.A.: Modelling workforce aging in job rotation problems. In: 15th IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing, pp. 604–609. IFAC-PapersOnLine, Ottawa (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boenzi, F., Digiesi, S., Facchini, F., Mummolo, G.: Ergonomic improvement through job rotations in repetitive manual tasks in case of limited specialization and differentiated ergonomic requirements. In: 8th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management and Control MIM, pp. 1667–1672. IFAC-PapersOnLine, Troyes (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mossa, G., Boenzi, F., Digiesi, S., Mummolo, G., Romano, V.A.: Productivity and ergonomic risk in human based production systems: a job-rotation scheduling model. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 171, 471–477 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Song, J., Lee, C., Lee, W., Bahn, S., Jung, C., Yun, M.H.: Development of a job rotation scheduling algorithm for minimizing accumulated work load per body parts. Work 53, 511–521 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Micheli, G.J.L., Marzorati, L.M.: Beyond OCRA: predictive UL-WMSD risk assessment for safe assembly design. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 65, 74–83 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Senyigit, E., Atici, U.: Scheduling with job dependent learning effect and ergonomic risk deterioration. In: 2nd International Symposium on Multidisciplinary Studies and Innovative Technologies, pp. 63–66. IEEE Press, Turkey (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McAtamney, L., Hignett, S.: Rapid entire body assessment. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. Appl. Ergon. 31, 201–205 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoon, S.Y., Ko, J., Jung, M.-C.: A model for developing job rotation schedules that eliminate sequential high workloads and minimize between-worker variability in cumulative daily workloads: application to automotive assembly lines. Appl. Ergon. 55, 8–15 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringBaskent UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations