G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-330; No. of Pages 9

Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmansys

Assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment

Banu Sungur , Yasemin Yavuz 1
Department of Business, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Erciyes University, 38039 Kayseri, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 9 March 2013
Received in revised form 25 July 2014
Accepted 29 August 2014
Available online xxx
Keywords:
Assembly line balancing
Hierarchical workforce
Integer programming

a b s t r a c t
In this paper, we introduce a new assembly line balancing problem in which tasks differ with respect
to their qualication requirements and the qualication levels of workers are ranked hierarchically. In
the hierarchical workforce structure, a lower qualied worker can be substituted by higher qualied
ones with a higher cost. The resulting problem is referred to as assembly line balancing with hierarchical
worker assignment (ALBHW). The ALBHW problem consists in nding the optimal assignment of workers
and tasks to the stations such that total cost is minimized. We have formulated an integer linear programming model to solve this problem. The computational results are obtained and analyzed on a large
number of ALBHW instances.
2014 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The simple assembly line balancing (SALB) problem is concerned
with the manufacturing systems in which a single type of product
is repeatedly produced on a straight assembly line. The assembly
process consists of a number of indivisible work elements (tasks),
among which there exist technological precedence relations. Each
station is arranged in a serial manner along the assembly line and
performs a given subset of tasks on each product unit arriving
to that station at xed time intervals. This interval is referred to
as cycle time. The SALB problem consists of nding an optimal
assignment of the tasks to the stations such that the precedence
constraints are satised. With regard to the objective function, two
types of SALB problem are often considered in the literature: SALB1 minimizes the number of stations for a given cycle time, while
SALB-2 minimizes the cycle time for a xed number of stations.
This paper deals with an extension of SALB-1 problem.
The SALB problem assumes that all stations are equally equipped
with respect to machines and workers [1]. As a result of this
assumption, SALB deals only with the assignment of tasks to the

Abbreviations: ALBHW, assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment; ALD, assembly line design; ALWAB, assembly line worker assignment and
balancing; CALB, cost-oriented assembly line balancing; SALB, simple assembly line
balancing.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 352 207 6666; fax: +90 352 437 5239.
E-mail addresses: bitgenb@erciyes.edu.tr (B. Sungur), yaseminy@erciyes.edu.tr
(Y. Yavuz).
1
Tel.: +90 352 207 6666; fax: +90 352 437 5239.

stations without considering resources. However, the real-life production processes are usually composed of a wide variety of tasks
which require different levels of worker qualication. We have
considered here a hierarchical workforce structure in which the
qualication levels of the workers are ranked hierarchically. There
is a downward substitutability in the hierarchy such that a lower
qualied worker can be substituted by higher qualied ones, but
not vice versa [2,3]. In other words, the workers at a higher level
can perform the tasks of workers at lower levels in the hierarchy.
Such a hierarchical workforce structure exists in a wide variety of
practical applications, such as health-care, military, manufacturing,
maintenance, etc.
In this paper, hierarchical worker assignment has been incorporated into assembly line balancing. The resulting problem has been
referred to as assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker
assignment, ALBHW, in short. In this problem, the workers have
to be assigned to the stations such that the qualication level of
the worker is compatible with the tasks assigned to that station.
Since a higher qualied worker implies a higher cost, the balancing
decision should take into consideration the total cost. The ALBHW
problem is then to nd the optimal worker/tasks combination for
each station, such that total cost is minimized for a given cycle time.
We have formulated an integer linear programming model to solve
this problem. The computational results are obtained and analyzed
on a large number of ALBHW instances.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2,
a literature review is presented. Section 3 is devoted to the formal
denition and mathematical formulation of ALBHW problem. The
computational results are presented in Section 4. Finally, concluding remarks are given in Section 5.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.08.004
0278-6125/ 2014 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Sungur B, Yavuz Y. Assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment. J Manuf Syst (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.08.004

G Model
JMSY-330; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Sungur, Y. Yavuz / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxxxxx

2. Literature review
Due to its high computational complexity as well as practical
importance, the assembly line balancing problem has received considerable attention from scientic community. Since the pioneering
work of Salveson [4], a great deal of study has been carried out in
this eld. Among the enormous body of research on the assembly line balancing (see review papers of [59]), this section has
been conned to three related problems in the literature, which
are referred to as assembly line design (ALD), assembly line worker
assignment and balancing (ALWAB), and cost-oriented assembly line
balancing (CALB) problems, respectively. Afterwards, we have provided a brief review on the hierarchical workforce literature.
With regard to the resource assignment characteristics, Boysen
et al. [1] have dened two types of assembly line balancing problem,
which are abbreviated as equip and res . In the former type (equip),
the balancing problem is combined with equipment selection problem in which one equipment for each station is to be chosen out
of a set of predetermined alternatives. As for the later one (res ),
the equipment of a station is congured along with the task assignment such that synergies can be realized by combining tasks which
require the same resources. For this type of problem,  = max refers
to the situation where tasks differ with respect to resource quality
(e.g., speed, capabilities, qualication etc.), and hence, the resources
have to be selected such that they fulll the maximum demand level
of tasks assigned to the station. For instance, if workers require a
specic qualication to perform difcult tasks, the most challenging task assigned to a station determines the necessary qualication
level of the worker, and thereby, the wage cost to be paid at that
station [1]. Boysen et al. [1] have classied ALD and ALWAB as equip,
while CALB as resmax type problem. The ALBHW problem addressed
in this paper corresponds to a combination of both equip and resmax
types of assembly line balancing problem.
In the literature, the integrated problem of line balancing and
equipment selection is called as the ALD problem [1018]. The
ALD problem consists of simultaneously selecting the equipment
and assigning tasks to stations with the objective of minimizing
total equipment costs. The ALWAB problem has been introduced in
Miralles et al. [19] as an extension of the SALB-2. The problem is
to nd an optimal assignment of the tasks and workers to a given
number of stations such that the cycle time is minimized. Several
exact and heuristic procedures have been proposed for the original ALWAB problem and its several variants [2027]. In ALWAB
problem, task times are worker-dependent, however, worker costs
are not considered. Hence, there is no time/cost trade-off in this
problem. The ALD and ALWAB problems do not include resmax type
resource assignment restrictions and hierarchical time/cost structure as in the ALBHW problem addressed in this paper. However, to
incorporate the hierarchical workforce into the model, we have utilized the equipment selection approach [1] in which a single resource
is selected out of a set of predetermined alternatives by excluding
incompatible ones prior to modeling. Thus, the resulting mathematical formulation for the ALBHW problem is similar to the equip
type problems.
The CALB problem has been studied in the literature as a generalized version of SALB-1 [2835]. In this problem, each task has a
specic wage rate in line with its qualication requirement. Since
the most demanding task in a station determines the required
qualication level of the worker, the station wage rate is given by
the highest wage rate over all the tasks assigned to that station.
For a given cycle time, the objective is to minimize the total cost
per product unit. Unlike ALBHW, the CALB problem does not consider worker assignment in the line balancing, since each worker is
assumed to be able to perform any task within the same duration.
The hierarchical workforce has been introduced in the literature by Emmons and Burns [2]. The authors have investigated a

hierarchical workforce scheduling problem in which the objective

is to nd the most economical mix of worker types satisfying the
labor requirements and desired work characteristics. The problem is based on the assumption that less qualied workers cost
less. Since then, the hierarchical workforce has been studied in a
variety of staff scheduling problems. Hung and Emmons [36] have
addressed the multiple-shift hierarchical workforce scheduling
problem under compressed workweeks. Hung [37] has considered single-shift off-day scheduling of hierarchical workforce and
proposed a simple heuristic method which frequently results in
minimal labor cost. Narasimhan [38] has developed an exact algorithm for nding the optimal solution of single-shift hierarchical
workforce scheduling problem. Billionnet [3] has formulated an
integer programming model to solve the problem considered in
Hung [37]. Seckiner et al. [39] have incorporated compressed workweeks into the model of Billionnet [3] to reduce labor cost. As an
extension of the model in Seckiner et al. [39], Pastor and Corominas [40] have proposed a bi-criteria integer programming model,
in which the rst criteria is the labor cost and the second one is the
suitability of task assignment to individual workers.
In the paper, we have introduced for the rst time a formal definition and mathematical model for assembly line balancing with
hierarchical worker assignment. To our knowledge, the hierarchical
workforce has not been considered in the assembly line balancing
literature so far. This paper contributes to the existing literature
by introducing an interesting problem which has high relevance in
practice.
3. Problem denition and mathematical formulation
This section presents a formal denition and mathematical formulation for the ALBHW problem. First, we give the notation which
will be used throughout the section:
i, j
h
s
m
n

T
S
K
H
Pi
A
G
Ts
hs
ki
ch
tih
Z

vs
xihs
yhs
yh
C

tasks (i, j T)
worker types (h H)
stations (s S)
upper bound on the number of stations
number of tasks
number of task/worker types
set of tasks
set of stations
set of task types
set of worker types
set of immediate predecessors of task i
set of precedence relations
precedence graph
set of tasks assigned to the station s
type of worker assigned to the station s
type of task i
cost of type-h worker
time of task i when it is performed by type-h worker
cycle time
1, if station s is established; 0, otherwise (s S)
1, if task i is assigned to station s equipped with type-h
worker; 0, otherwise (i T, h H | h ki , s S)
1, if type-h worker is assigned to station s; 0, otherwise
(h H, s S)
total number of type-h workers assigned to the stations
(h H)
total cost

As an extension of simple assembly line balancing, the ALBHW

problem can be stated as follows. A single type of product is to be
produced on a straight assembly line which is composed of several
stations. The assembly process consists of n indivisible tasks, each of

Please cite this article in press as: Sungur B, Yavuz Y. Assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment. J Manuf Syst (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.08.004

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-330; No. of Pages 9

B. Sungur, Y. Yavuz / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxxxxx

which can be assigned to only one station. The sets of S = {1, . . ., m}

and T = {1, . . ., n} denote the stations and tasks, respectively, where
the number of tasks is an upper bound on the number of stations,
i.e., m = n. The technological precedence relations exist between the
tasks. The immediate predecessors of task i are given by set Pi . The
tasks and their precedence relations can be represented by precedence graph G = (T, A), where T is the set of tasks (nodes) and A = {(j,
i)|i T, j Pi } is the set of the precedence relations (arcs) between
the tasks. An arc (j, i) denotes that task j belongs to the set of immediate predecessors Pi of task i. Task i cannot be started before each
of its predecessors j Pi has been completed. Therefore, each task
j Pi has to be assigned to an earlier or the same station to which
task i is assigned. The set Ts denotes the tasks assigned to the station
s. For each station, the time available to perform the tasks in Ts is
limited by a given cycle time Z.
In the ALBHW problem, the tasks and workers are classied into
 types of qualication levels. K = {1, . . ., } and H = {1, . . ., } denote
the sets of task types and worker types, respectively. The qualication levels of the tasks and workers are hierarchically ranked.
Type-1 represents the most qualied tasks/workers, while type-
denotes the least qualied ones. The type of task i is given by ki .
In the hierarchical workforce structure, task i can be performed
only by type-h workers, where h ki . Thus, the worker assignment
restriction in the ALBHW problem can be expressed as follows:
A single worker will be assigned to each station s such that the
restriction h min {ki |i Ts } is satised.
Different from SALB, the task times are worker-dependent in
the ALBHW problem. Let tih denote the time of task i when it is performed by type-h worker. We assume that the processing time of
task i increases as the qualication level of the worker decreases,
i.e., ti1 < ti2 < <ti As expected, the cost of workers increases in line
with their qualication levels: c < c2 < c1 . Then, a lower qualied worker can be substituted by higher qualied ones with an
advantage of lower task time, but with a higher cost. The total cost
should be therefore considered in the line balancing decision. For a
given cycle time Z, the ALBHW problem consists in nding the best
combination of (Ts , hs ) for each station s, such that total cost C is
minimized. The integer linear programming model for the ALBHW
problem can be formulated as follows:
min C =

ch yh

(1)

subject to


hki

xihs = 1, i T

(2)

yhs = s , s S

(3)

xihs nyhs , h H, s S

(4)

yhs = yh , h H

(5)


i

(2,3,4)
2
3
(6,8,10)
1
3

(2,3,-)
6
2

3
(6,8,10)
8
3

(5,-,-)
10
1
(4,5,6)
11
3

(5,6,-)
3
2
(7,9,11)
4
3

(3,4,-)
7
2

(5,6,8)
9
3

(1,-,-)
5
1

Fig. 1. An example of ALBHW problem.

yhs {0, 1}, h H, s S

(11)

The objective function (1) minimizes the total cost. The constraints are as follows: (2) guarantees that each task i is assigned to
exactly one station equipped with one worker of type-h. (3) ensures
that a single worker is assigned to each station established on the
line. (4) denes the relation between xihs and yhs variables: If type-h
worker is not assigned to the station s, i.e., yhs = 0, then the values of
all related xihs variables are forced to be zero as well. (5) determines
the total number of type-h workers that are assigned to the stations. (6) ensures that the precedence relations between the tasks
are satised; that is, no task is assigned to an earlier station than
its predecessors. (7) prevents that the total task time of any station
exceeds the cycle time Z. (8) ensures the consecutive establishing
of stations. (9)(11) dene the binary restrictions on the variables.
The ALBHW problem has been illustrated on the well-known
example of Jackson [41] with n = 11 tasks. The modied precedence
graph for the Jackson example is given in Fig. 1 There are =3 types
of tasks and workers in the modied example. Each task i is represented by a node along with its type ki . The type-1 tasks 5 and
10 can be performed only by type-1 workers. The type-2 tasks 3, 6,
and 7 can be performed by type-1 and type-2 workers, while the
remaining type-3 tasks can be performed by all types of workers.
The task times tih are shown above the corresponding nodes in the
order of (ti1 , ti2 , ti3 ), where - is used for h > ki . The task times in the
original example have been assigned to the type-1 workers. The
cost of workers are c1 = 100, c2 = 70 and c3 = 49, respectively. The
cycle time is Z = 10.
The integer programming model has been applied on the illustrative example. The optimal solution given in Table 1 has been
obtained, where y1 = 2, y2 = 2, y3 = 2, and accordingly C = 438. When
we solve the same problem as SALB-1, in which all workers are
assumed to be homogeneous with respect to task time and cost, a
solution with ve stations has been obtained. In a cost-oriented
ALBHW solution, the total number of stations established may
increase as compared to SALB-1.
4. Computational results


hkj

hki



sxjhs


hki

sxihs , (j, i) A

(6)

tih xihs Z, s S

(7)

s s+1 , s S|s < m

(8)

s {0, 1}, s S

(9)

xihs {0, 1}, i T, h H|h ki , s S

(10)

In the ALBHW problem, a time/cost trade-off affects the balancing decision. We have carried out a computational experiment to
investigate the effects of time and cost factors on the total cost and
the total number of different types of workers assigned to the stations. We have also empirically analyzed the solution difculty of
ALBHW problem.
4.1. Problem instances
The integer programming model has been applied on a large
number of ALBHW instances, which have been generated by modifying SALB-1 instances proposed by Otto et al. [42]. The SALB-1

Please cite this article in press as: Sungur B, Yavuz Y. Assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment. J Manuf Syst (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.08.004

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-330; No. of Pages 9

B. Sungur, Y. Yavuz / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxxxxx

4
Table 1
The solutions for the example problem.
Station

1
2
3
4
5
6
Total cost

ALBHW

SALB-1

Tasks assigned

Worker type

Station time

Tasks assigned

1
2,3
4,5,6
8
7,9
10,11
438

3
2
1
3
2
1

10
9
10
10
10
9

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

Worker type

Station time

1
1
1
1
1

10
7
10
10
9

500

have been determined as ti,h+1 = w1 ti,h , by rounding the resulting values to the nearest integers. The similar setting exists in an
industrial case presented by Corominas et al. [43]: A task requires
standard time when it is performed by a skilled worker. If the task
is assigned to an unskilled worker, the standard time is multiplied
by a factor greater than 1. This factor is approximately equal for all
the tasks that the unskilled workers can perform. We have determined the costs of workers by using ch+1 = w2 ch , where the cost of
type-1 worker has been set to c1 = 100. We have called w1 (w1 > 1)
and w2 (0 < w2 < 1) as time and cost factors, respectively. In the
computational experiment, these parameters have been considered to be main factors and analyzed at the following two levels:
w1 {1.10, 1.20} and w2 {0.70, 0.85}.
For each instance selected from the SALB-1 data set, we
have generated four ALBHW instances with each combination
of (w1 , w2 ). The ALBHW corresponds to the SALB-1, when both
parameters are set to 1.00. By including the combination of (1.00,
1.00), we have solved a total of 45 5 = 225 small and 45 5 = 225
medium instances in the experiment. For each instance solved, the
cycle time has been set to Z = 1000 as in the original SALB-1 data
set.

data set has been characterized by the following parameters: number of tasks (small, medium, large, and very large), order strength
(0.20, 0.60, and 0.90), distribution of task times (PB: peak at the
bottom, PM: peak in the middle, and BM: bimodal), and type of
the precedence graph (bottleneck, chain, and mixed). The data
set contains 25 different instances for each combination of these
parameters.
We have used small and medium data sets with mixed
precedence graph, three types of order strength and three types
of task time distributions for generating ALBHW instances. The
small and medium instances contain 20 and 50 tasks, respectively. For each parameter combination, we have selected ve out
of 25 instances with respect to their trickiness category, in the
order of extremely tricky (ET), very tricky (VT), tricky (TR),
and less tricky (LT). For example, one VT instance (313), two
TR instances (297 and 303), and the rst two LT instances (291
and 292) have been chosen from the small data set with mixed
precedence graph, 0.20 order strength and PB task time distribution. There are one VT, two TR, and 22 LT instances available in
this category. Thus, in total, 3 3 5 = 45 small and 3 3 5 = 45
medium SALB-1 instances have been selected from the original
data set as a basis for generating ALBHW instances used in the
experimental analysis.
We have maintained original precedence graphs and task times
in the SALB-1 instances. The parameters (ki , tih , ch ) pertinent to the
ALBHW problem have been determined as follows: The tasks have
been grouped into =3 task types according to their qualication
requirements. The percentages of type-1, type-2, and type-3 tasks
have been taken as 20%, 30%, and 50%, respectively. The types of the
rst 0.20 n tasks have been dened as ki = 1. The types of subsequent
0.30 n tasks are ki = 2, while that of the last 0.50 n tasks are ki = 3.
Thus, ki = 1 for i = {1, . . ., 4}, ki = 2 for i = {5, . . ., 10}, and ki = 3 for
i = {11, . . ., 20} in the small instances with n = 20 tasks. Similarly,
ki = 1 for i = {1, . . ., 10}, ki = 2 for i = {11, . . ., 25}, and ki = 3 for i = {26,
. . ., 50} in the medium instances with n = 50 tasks.
The original task times in the SALB-1 instances have been
assigned to the type-1 workers, i.e., ti1 is equal to the time of task
i in the SALB-1 data. The task times for type-2 and type-3 workers

4.2. Experimental analysis

The integer programming model has been coded in AIMMS 3.11
optimization software and the solver CPLEX 12.3 has been used
to solve the ALBHW instances described above. The models have
been run on a PC with Intel Core i7-3630QM CPU 2.40 GHz processor and 8.00 GB RAM. The running time has been limited to 7200 s.
We have presented detailed computational results in appendix
Tables A.1 and A.2.
On the obtained results, the analysis of variance has been carried
out to identify the main and interaction effects of two parameters
(time and cost factors) on the variables of interest. The response
variables are the total cost (C) and the total number of type-h workers (yh ) assigned to the stations. In Table 2, we have summarized
the average results for each level of time and cost factors. Table 3

Table 2
Average results for small and medium ALBHW instances.
Response variable

Factor levels

# Type-1 workers (y1 )

0.70
0.85
Overall
0.70
0.85
Overall
0.70
0.85
Overall
0.70
0.85
Overall

# Type-2 workers (y2 )

# Type-3 workers (y3 )

Total cost (C)

Small

Medium

1.10

1.20

Overall

1.10

1.20

Overall

1.82
3.67
2.74
2.51
1.89
2.20
3.38
1.16
2.27
524
610
567

2.04
5.09
3.57
2.56
1.07
1.81
3.60
0.42
2.01
560
630
595

1.93
4.38
3.16
2.53
1.48
2.01
3.49
0.79
2.14
542
620
581

4.07
7.11
5.59
5.58
5.09
5.33
8.78
4.42
6.60
1227
1462
1345

4.76
11.38
8.07
6.00
3.47
4.73
8.91
1.27
5.09
1332
1524
1428

4.41
9.24
6.83
5.79
4.28
5.03
8.84
2.84
5.84
1280
1493
1386

Please cite this article in press as: Sungur B, Yavuz Y. Assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment. J Manuf Syst (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.08.004

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-330; No. of Pages 9

B. Sungur, Y. Yavuz / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Table 3
Results of analysis of variance for small and medium ALBHW instances.
Response variable

# Type-1 workers (y1 )

# Type-2 workers (y2 )

# Type-3 workers (y3 )

Total cost (C)

Source of variation

Instance
Time
Cost
Time*Cost
Error
Total (corrected)
Instance
Time
Cost
Time*Cost
Error
Total (corrected)
Instance
Time
Cost
Time*Cost
Error
Total (corrected)
Instance
Time
Cost
Time*Cost
Error
Total (corrected)

Small

Medium

Sum of squares

DF

Mean square

F-ratio

p-value*

Sum of squares

DF

Mean square

F-ratio

p-value*

361.64
30.42
268.89
16.20
122.49
799.64
354.24
6.81
50.14
8.45
117.36
536.99
345.28
2.94
328.05
10.27
148.99
835.53
16,572,134
34,973
277,773
3133
135,423
17,023,435

44
1
1
1
132
179
44
1
1
1
132
179
44
1
1
1
132
179
44
1
1
1
132
179

8.22
30.42
268.89
16.20
0.93

8.86
32.78
289.77
17.46

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

16.31
53.73
204.45
28.01

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.006
0.000
0.002

10.24
4.20
26.65
12.19

0.000
0.042
0.000
0.001

7.85
2.94
328.05
10.27
1.13

6.95
2.60
290.64
9.10

0.000
0.109
0.000
0.003

42.07
102.76
1620.00
121.69
6.93

6.08
14.84
233.95
17.57

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

376,639
34,973
277,773
3133
1026

367.12
34.09
270.75
3.05

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.083

44
1
1
1
132
179
44
1
1
1
132
179
44
1
1
1
132
179
44
1
1
1
132
179

83.85
276.27
1051.25
144.01
5.14

9.06
7.66
56.40
9.50

3689.41
276.27
1051.25
144.01
678.72
5839.66
1736.80
16.20
102.76
47.02
509.02
2411.80
1851.14
102.76
1620.00
121.69
914.06
4609.64
121,737,108
312,084
2,044,375
21,190
499,676
124,614,433

2,766,753
312,084
2,044,375
21,190
3785

730.90
82.44
540.07
5.60

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.019

8.05
6.81
50.14
8.45
0.89

39.47
16.20
102.76
47.02
3.86

p-value < 0.05 is indicated in bold.

Fig. 2. Main effect and interaction plots for medium ALBHW instances.

Please cite this article in press as: Sungur B, Yavuz Y. Assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment. J Manuf Syst (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.08.004

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMSY-330; No. of Pages 9

B. Sungur, Y. Yavuz / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Table 4
Results of Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test for small and medium ALBHW instances.
Compared pairs

Small

Negative ranks
(B < A)

(1.00, 1.00)

(1.10, 0.70)
(1.10, 0.85)
(1.20, 0.70)
(1.20, 0.85)
(1.10, 0.85)
(1.20, 0.70)
(1.20, 0.85)
(1.20, 0.70)
(1.20, 0.85)
(1.20, 0.85)

(1.10, 0.70)

(1.10, 0.85)
(1.20, 0.70)

Medium

Number

Mean

1
0
0
0
19
18
28
16
29
37

26.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.32
17.14
21.93
16.75
25.41
23.96

Positive ranks
(B > A)
Number
44
45
45
44
26
27
14
28
16
7

p-value*
(2-tailed)

Z-value

Mean
22.93
23.00
23.00
22.50
22.77
26.91
20.64
25.79
18.63
14.79

5.55
5.84
5.84
5.78
0.84
2.36
2.03
2.65
2.48
4.57

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.400
0.018
0.042
0.008
0.013
0.000

Negative ranks
(B < A)
Number

Mean

4
2
1
2
14
4
11
2
5
19

21.25
20.00
14.00
19.50
11.43
7.25
10.27
10.50
13.20
11.37

Positive ranks
(B > A)
Number
27
29
30
29
9
20
12
19
16
3

Z-value

p-value*
(2-tailed)

Mean
15.22
15.72
16.07
15.76
12.89
13.55
13.58
11.05
10.31
12.33

3.19
4.08
4.59
4.10
0.67
3.46
0.76
3.29
1.72
2.91

0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.503
0.001
0.447
0.001
0.085
0.004

Descriptive statistics

(1.00, 1.00)

(1.10, 0.70)

(1.10, 0.85)

(1.20, 0.70)

(1.20, 0.85)

(1.00, 1.00)

(1.10, 0.70)

(1.10, 0.85)

(1.20, 0.70)

(1.20, 0.85)

Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum
Maximum
25th percentile
50th percentile (median)
75th percentile

1.59
5.91
0.05
40
0.19
0.36
1.19

31.79
113.31
0.59
739
1.05
3.84
13.50

27.02
61.66
0.39
301
1.20
4.92
11.50

190.51
700.99
0.56
4225
1.06
5.31
26.50

21.98
78.08
0.36
502
0.95
3.69
9.35

2608.58
3313.67
12
7200
28
162
7200

3740.91
3438.66
60
7200
235.50
2102
7200

4121.58
3494.89
26
7200
111
7200
7200

4392.49
3248.27
186
7200
319
7200
7200

4056.18
3425.27
38
7200
161
7200
7200

p-value < 0.05 is indicated in bold.

presents the results of analysis of variance which has been performed by blocking on test instances.
For the medium instances, the results of analysis of variance
show that the main and interaction effects of time and cost factors
on all of the response variables are statistically signicant at the
= 0.05 signicance level (p-value < 0.05). The similar results have
been obtained on the small instances. However, the main effect
of time factor on the number of type-3 workers (p = 0.109) and the
interaction effect of time and cost factors on the total cost (p = 0.083)
are not signicant. The magnitude of the F-ratios in Table 3 indicates
that the cost factor has the most important effect on the analyzed
response variables for both small and medium instances. We do not
consider the effect of problem instances which has been treated as
a blocking factor in the experiment.
The main and interaction effects of the considered factors are
plotted in Fig. 2 for the medium instances. The plots of small
instances display the same behavior. It can be observed from Fig. 2
that the number of type-1 workers and total cost increases, while
the number of type-2 and type-3 workers decreases as the level
of cost factor increases. The time factor has the same effect on the
number of each type of workers and total cost. However, the cost
factor has a greater effect than time factor on all of the response
variables analyzed. The interaction plots of two factors indicates
that, with increasing levels of cost factor (from 0.70 to 0.85), the
change in the number of type-1, type-2 and type-3 of workers is
greater when the time factor is at the high (1.20) level. The effect of
time factor on the number of type-1, type-2 and type-3 of workers
is very small when the cost factor is at the low (0.70) level.
Finally, we have analyzed the obtained results from a computational point of view. As mentioned above, the ALBHW problem
is equivalent to SALB-1 when it is solved with a parameter combination of (1.00, 1.00), i.e. the task times and the costs of the
workers are assumed to be same. By using Wilcoxon matched pairs
signed ranks test, we have compared the CPU times required to
solve the same model with the ve parameter combinations of
(1.00,1.00), (1.10,0.70), (1.10,0.85), (1.20,0.70), and (1.20,0.85). The
results presented in Table 4 indicates that the median difference
between pairs matched with (1.00,1.00) is statistically signicant at
the = 0.05 signicance level for both small and medium instances
(p-value < 0.05). This result suggests that the computational effort

to solve an ALBHW instance is more likely higher than SALB-1. Furthermore, Table 4 indicates that the combination of (1.20,0.70),
i.e., high level of time and low level of cost factor, requires
signicantly higher CPU time than the other three parameter combinations for ALBHW problem.
5. Concluding remarks
The hierarchical workforce structure exists in a wide variety of
practical applications, however, it has not been considered in the
assembly line balancing literature so far. This paper contributes to
the literature by introducing, for the rst time, an assembly line
balancing problem with hierarchical worker assignment. We have
formulated an integer programming model to solve the ALBHW
problem.
A computational experiment has been carried out to investigate
the effects of time and cost factors on the total cost and the total
number of different types of workers assigned to the stations. As
the level of cost factor increases, the number of the most qualied
worker and total cost increases, while the number of lower qualied
workers decreases. Although the time factor has the same effect,
the results indicate that the cost factor has a greater effect on all of
the variables analyzed. The effect of cost factor on the number of
type-h workers is greater when the time factor is at the high level.
The effect of time factor on the number of type-h workers is very
small when the cost factor is at the low level.
We have also empirically analyzed the solution difculty of
ALBHW problem. The results show that the computational effort
to solve an ALBHW instance is more likely higher than SALB-1.
The combination of high and low level of time and cost factors, respectively, takes much more time when compared to other
parameter combinations for ALBHW problem.
In this paper, the ALBHW problem has been dened as an extension of SALB problem. In a hierarchical workforce environment, the
performance of straight and U-type assembly line balancing can
be analyzed as a future study. Also, a heuristic approach can be
developed to solve the ALBHW problem.
Appendix A.
Tables A.1 and A.2.

Please cite this article in press as: Sungur B, Yavuz Y. Assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment. J Manuf Syst (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.08.004

SALB1

ALBHW

No.

(1.00, 1.00)

(1.10, 0.70)

0.2/PB/LT
0.2/PB/LT
0.2/PB/TR
0.2/PB/TR
0.2/PB/VT
0.2/PM/ET
0.2/PM/VT
0.2/PM/VT
0.2/PM/ET
0.2/PM/ET
0.2/BM/TR
0.2/BM/TR
0.2/BM/TR
0.2/BM/TR
0.2/BM/TR
0.6/PB/TR
0.6/PB/TR
0.6/PB/VT
0.6/PB/VT
0.6/PB/TR
0.6/PM/ET
0.6/PM/VT
0.6/PM/ET
0.6/PM/ET
0.6/PM/ET
0.6/BM/VT
0.6/BM/TR
0.6/BM/VT
0.6/BM/TR
0.6/BM/VT
0.9/PB/TR
0.9/PB/TR
0.9/PB/TR
0.9/PB/TR
0.9/PB/VT
0.9/PM/TR
0.9/PM/TR
0.9/PM/VT
0.9/PM/VT
0.9/PM/VT
0.9/BM/VT
0.9/BM/TR
0.9/BM/ET
0.9/BM/TR
0.9/BM/TR

# Stat.

Total
cost

CPU
time

Gap %

y1

y2

y3

3
3
3
3
3
10
14
12
9
10
5
5
5
4
6
3
3
3
3
3
11
11
11
12
10
5
6
5
5
6
3
3
3
3
3
13
13
11
11
13
6
6
6
5
5

300
300
300
300
300
1000
1400
1200
900
1000
500
500
500
400
600
300
300
300
300
300
1100
1100
1100
1200
1000
500
600
500
500
600
300
300
300
300
300
1300
1300
1100
1100
1300
600
600
600
500
500

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.9
1.4
1.8
2.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.5
4.2
2.3
40
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.3
1.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
1.2
1.7
1.4
1.2
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
2
4
2
2
2
2
1

2
2
1
1
1
4
4
6
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
3
5
5
2
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
6
5
4
2
2
2
2
2

0
0
2
2
2
7
8
5
4
6
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
8
6
5
5
4
2
2
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
5
6
3
5
7
3
2
3
2
3

(1.10, 0.85)
Total
cost
240
240
268
268
268
823
972
865
746
804
438
387
387
317
466
268
268
268
268
268
902
844
855
895
846
438
478
387
387
466
268
268
268
268
268
995
974
867
795
1023
487
438
487
438
387

(1.20, 0.70)

(1.20, 0.85)

CPU
time

Gap %

y1

y2

y3

Total
cost

CPU
time

Gap %

y1

y2

y3

Total
cost

CPU
time

Gap %

0.8
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.7
37
16
10
153
739
6.6
16
3.8
2.0
14
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.8
0.6
33
46
37
35
179
4.8
8.2
1.5
3.7
7.0
1.2
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.8
6.4
12
13
12
8.9
4.3
1.1
2.0
3.4
1.5

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
6
4
2
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
6
7
5
5
4
5
4
1
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
6
5
6
4
8
5
2
4
5
3

2
2
0
0
0
4
2
3
6
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
2
3
5
5
0
2
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
4
5
3
6
3
1
2
2
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
2
7
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
2
2
0
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
2
1
2
0
2
0
0
2

270
270
300
300
300
984
1174
1043
882
940
485
442
485
385
573
285
285
300
300
300
999
1014
971
1069
969
500
570
486
470
573
285
300
285
300
285
1156
1141
999
982
1199
585
514
570
500
444

0.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.5
149
9
19
205
159
18
6.8
7.2
3.7
51
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.9
11
53
12
113
301
4.9
11
6.2
5.2
16
0.5
0.4
1.4
0.6
0.5
7.1
7.0
3.1
8.3
8.1
1.6
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.8

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
5
5
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
5
1
2
2
2
1

1
1
1
1
1
6
6
5
4
3
2
3
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
4
4
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
2
6
5
3
1
2
3
2

2
2
2
2
2
6
7
4
5
8
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
6
7
4
5
2
4
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
8
4
5
4
4
4
1
3

268
268
268
268
268
914
1063
946
825
902
438
408
429
317
508
268
268
268
268
268
951
944
913
976
925
438
506
436
408
536
268
268
268
268
268
1044
1044
932
916
1095
506
466
536
459
387

0.7
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
1490
28
165
46
4225
4.3
13
14
1.7
25
1.3
0.9
0.6
1.7
0.7
164
210
47
265
1734
4.9
9.7
10
7.9
38
1.0
0.7
1.1
0.6
1.0
9.6
8.00
6.9
7.9
5.1
2.9
1.4
7.9
5.3
1.5

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

y1
2
2
3
3
3
10
7
6
9
9
4
3
5
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
8
9
7
6
10
5
5
5
4
6
2
3
3
3
3
7
7
9
7
8
6
3
5
5
3

y2

y3

Total
cost

CPU
time

1
1
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
5
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
4
5
0
2
1
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

285
285
300
300
300
1000
1243
1084
900
985
485
470
500
400
585
300
300
300
300
300
1042
1044
1014
1097
1000
500
585
500
485
600
285
300
300
300
300
1184
1197
1044
1040
1225
600
542
585
500
457

0.5
0.4
0.8
1.2
0.9
11.3
31
10
12
502
12
6.4
7.8
3.7
20
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.5
8.7
19
6.6
91
163
4.2
8.2
8.3
4.4
19
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
2.7
8.0
3.9
5.8
1.6
2.3
1.4
2.0
1.4
1.0

Gap %
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S291
S292
S297
S303
S313
S318
S319
S320
S324
S329
S348
S349
S350
S352
S353
S367
S368
S370
S373
S385
S391
S393
S398
S409
S415
S424
S427
S432
S437
S438
S441
S442
S444
S448
S453
S466
S468
S476
S477
S479
S491
S494
S497
S499
S501

Category

G Model

JMSY-330; No. of Pages 9

Instances

B. Sungur, Y. Yavuz / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Please cite this article in press as: Sungur B, Yavuz Y. Assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment. J Manuf Syst (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.08.004

Table A.1
Computational results for small ALBHW instances.

No.

ALBHW

(1.00, 1.00)

(1.10, 0.70)

(1.10, 0.85)

(1.20, 0.70)

(1.20, 0.85)

# Stat.

Total
cost

CPU
time

Gap %

y1

y2

y3

Total
cost

CPU
time

Gap %

y1

y2

y3

Total
cost

CPU
time

Gap %

y1

y2

y3

Total
cost

CPU
time

Gap %

y1

y2

y3

Total
cost

CPU
time

Gap %

6
7
8
7
7
28
29
27
26
27
10
14
12
11
10
7
8
7
6
7
28
27
27
26
28
11
14
12
12
10
8
7
8
7
6
28
34
31
29
34
12
10
11
12
14

600
700
800
700
700
2800
2900
2700
2600
2700
1000
1400
1200
1100
1000
700
800
700
600
700
2800
2700
2700
2600
2800
1100
1400
1200
1200
1000
800
700
800
700
600
2800
3400
3100
2900
3400
1200
1000
1100
1200
1400

17
13
15
60
12
125
7200
7200
7200
7200
23
7200
7200
1098
2069
27
46
20
34
956
7200
7200
7200
480
7200
386
162
71
6289
4141
22
24
29
15
16
7200
7200
7200
167
7200
30
37
32
38
132

0
0
0
0
0
0
6.9
7.3
3.9
3.3
0
7.1
8.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.6
7.4
7.4
0
3.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.5
12.2
12.9
0
14.7
0
0
0
0
0

2
2
2
2
2
5
8
5
8
6
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
6
8
7
2
2
4
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
6
12
8
9
10
2
3
3
2
4

2
1
2
2
2
10
14
12
11
10
4
4
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
10
10
11
10
11
4
5
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
14
9
15
9
8
5
3
2
7
4

3
5
5
4
4
19
12
17
13
17
6
8
7
7
8
4
4
4
3
4
14
17
16
12
14
7
10
7
8
6
4
3
5
4
3
14
16
12
17
20
7
5
8
5
7

487
515
585
536
536
2131
2368
2173
2207
2133
774
972
853
853
732
536
606
536
487
536
2086
2233
2154
2088
2156
823
1040
953
902
774
606
587
585
536
487
2266
2614
2438
2363
2540
893
755
832
935
1023

236
235
334
111
270
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
1394
196
347
206
124
60
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
2102
878
126
117
100
69
120
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
736
347
590
482
761

0
0
0
0
0
22.8
17.4
22.8
24.9
21.1
3.8
15.2
12.7
3.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
19.9
27.5
26.5
18.1
23.1
0.8
9.7
4.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.4
15.7
19.0
22.9
18.6
0
0
0
0
0

2
2
2
2
2
18
19
16
15
15
3
4
4
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
12
15
15
13
10
2
4
4
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
15
18
19
19
16
3
3
4
6
4

2
5
5
2
2
4
7
8
10
6
6
3
6
3
4
2
3
2
2
2
12
11
6
9
10
9
4
6
3
5
3
2
2
2
2
9
8
7
6
8
7
3
5
2
4

3
0
1
4
4
6
3
4
2
7
2
8
2
7
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
7
5
10
1
8
3
8
3
4
3
5
4
3
4
8
5
4
10
3
5
3
5
7

586
625
697
658
658
2572
2711
2568
2494
2514
954
1231
1054
1059
956
658
743
658
586
658
2508
2579
2514
2425
2570
1037
1316
1126
1131
941
743
686
730
658
586
2553
3056
2855
2698
3000
1111
915
1041
1130
1244

111
101
7200
67
111
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
239
199
257
80
86
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
2173
45
26
105
63
29
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
267
79
752
222
459

0
0
1.3
0
0
14.5
14.5
16.9
16.9
16.3
3.9
18.0
8.6
7.6
12.1
0
0
0
0
0
13.8
19.9
22.6
12.7
21.7
3.5
7.8
4.7
1.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.0
11.9
12.6
16.2
14.7
0
0
0
0
0

2
2
2
2
2
8
11
7
10
6
2
4
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
7
7
8
8
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
13
10
12
11
3
3
3
4
5

4
3
4
2
2
10
15
12
8
15
4
3
4
2
4
3
3
2
4
3
13
11
13
10
11
7
5
4
3
4
3
3
4
2
2
8
11
11
6
11
5
4
4
4
4

1
3
3
5
5
17
8
16
16
13
7
10
7
8
7
4
5
5
1
4
12
19
15
16
15
5
11
7
10
7
5
4
4
5
4
17
15
17
18
17
7
5
7
7
7

529
557
627
585
585
2333
2542
2324
2344
2287
823
1100
923
932
823
606
655
585
529
606
2398
2401
2345
2284
2305
935
1189
1023
1000
823
655
606
676
585
536
2393
2805
2603
2502
2703
993
825
923
1023
1123

207
448
7200
361
191
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
4124
7200
7200
7200
7200
224
1118
281
282
282
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
6884
307
245
294
186
207
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
1960
331
1345
2402
3183

0
0
1.9
0
0
29.0
19.7
25.1
28.3
22.6
0
19.8
12.4
19.5
9.0
0
0
0
0
0
31.9
31.7
23.5
23.4
23.8
13.7
16.2
13.1
6.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.5
15.2
22.7
24.0
18.6
0
0
0
0
0

6
5
4
7
6
21
23
19
20
20
6
9
7
7
10
7
8
7
6
7
18
19
22
22
15
6
6
7
8
10
4
7
8
7
6
19
21
20
22
16
6
9
7
12
10

0
1
4
0
1
2
4
6
4
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
7
3
3
10
6
9
6
5
0
3
0
0
0
0
6
8
8
3
10
7
0
3
0
3

0
1
0
0
0
5
2
3
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
4
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
5
3
4
9
0
1
2
0
1

600
657
740
700
685
2630
2784
2626
2556
2569
1025
1325
1125
1125
1000
700
800
700
600
700
2637
2639
2599
2527
2638
1110
1437
1210
1225
1000
799
700
800
700
600
2626
3140
2896
2743
3098
1195
972
1099
1200
1327

60
166
253
98
218
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
93
381
232
88
95
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
1823
111
38
124
73
64
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
1753
156
1838
818
1246

0
0
0
0
0
17.4
13.5
20.1
18.8
15.1
6.3
15.2
9.5
11.7
11.9
0
0
0
0
0
19.7
20.2
14.9
14.4
16.3
6.4
11.1
9.8
4.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.3
13.4
14.4
10.4
12.4
0
0
0
0
0

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0.2/PB/LT
0.2/PB/LT
0.2/PB/LT
0.2/PB/ET
0.2/PB/TR
0.2/PM/ET
0.2/PM/ET
0.2/PM/ET
0.2/PM/ET
0.2/PM/ET
0.2/BM/ET
0.2/BM/ET
0.2/BM/ET
0.2/BM/ET
0.2/BM/ET
0.6/PB/TR
0.6/PB/ET
0.6/PB/ET
0.6/PB/ET
0.6/PB/ET
0.6/PM/ET
0.6/PM/ET
0.6/PM/ET
0.6/PM/ET
0.6/PM/ET
0.6/BM/ET
0.6/BM/ET
0.6/BM/ET
0.6/BM/ET
0.6/BM/ET
0.9/PB/TR
0.9/PB/VT
0.9/PB/VT
0.9/PB/VT
0.9/PB/ET
0.9/PM/ET
0.9/PM/ET
0.9/PM/ET
0.9/PM/ET
0.9/PM/ET
0.9/BM/ET
0.9/BM/VT
0.9/BM/ET
0.9/BM/ET
0.9/BM/ET

SALB-1

B. Sungur, Y. Yavuz / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxxxxx

M301
M302
M303
M309
M325
M327
M331
M335
M337
M341
M352
M354
M363
M371
M372
M377
M384
M390
M398
M399
M401
M402
M405
M408
M410
M426
M430
M432
M437
M438
M451
M458
M470
M471
M475
M479
M480
M485
M490
M495
M501
M502
M504
M505
M524

Category

G Model

Instances

JMSY-330; No. of Pages 9

Please cite this article in press as: Sungur B, Yavuz Y. Assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment. J Manuf Syst (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.08.004

Table A.2
Computational results for medium ALBHW instances.

G Model
JMSY-330; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Sungur, Y. Yavuz / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2014) xxxxxx

References
[1] Boysen N, Fliedner M, Scholl A. A classication of assembly line balancing problems. Eur J Oper Res 2007;183:67493.
[2] Emmons H, Burns RN. Off-day scheduling with hierarchical worker categories.
Oper Res 1991;39:48495.
[3] Billionnet A. Integer programming to schedule a hierarchical workforce with
variable demands. Eur J Oper Res 1999;114:10514.
[4] Salveson ME. The assembly line balancing problem. J Ind Eng 1955;6:1825.
[5] Baybars I . A survey of exact algorithms for the simple assembly line balancing
problem. Manag Sci 1986;32:90932.
[6] Ghosh S, Gagnon RJ. A comprehensive literature review and analysis of
the design, balancing and scheduling of assembly systems. Int J Prod Res
1989;27:63770.
[7] Erel E, Sarin SC. A survey of the assembly line balancing procedures. Prod Plan
Control 1998;9:41434.
[8] Becker C, Scholl A. A survey on problems and methods in generalized assembly
line balancing. Eur J Oper Res 2006;168:694715.
[9] Scholl A, Becker C. State-of-the-art exact and heuristic solution procedures for
simple assembly line balancing. Eur J Oper Res 2006;168:66693.
[10] Graves SC, Redeld CH. Equipment selection and task assignment for multiproduct assembly system design. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 1988;1:3150.
[11] Pinnoi A, Wilhelm WE. A family of hierarchical models for the design of deterministic assembly systems. Int J Prod Res 1997;35:25380.
[12] Pinnoi A, Wilhelm WE. Assembly system design: a branch and cut approach.
Manag Sci 1998;44:10318.
[13] Bukchin J, Tzur M. Design of exible assembly line to minimize equipment cost.
IIE Trans 2000;32:58598.
[14] Bukchin J, Rubinovitz J. A weighted approach for assembly line design with
station paralleling and equipment selection. IIE Trans 2003;35:7385.
[15] Pekin N, Azizoglu M. Bi criteria exible assembly line design problem with
equipment decisions. Int J Prod Res 2008;46:632343.
[16] zdemir RG, Ayag Z. An integrated approach to evaluating assembly-line design
alternatives with equipment selection. Prod Plan Control 2011;22:194206.
[17] Barutcuoglu S, Azizoglu M. Flexible assembly line design problem with xed
number of workstations. Int J Prod Res 2011;49:3691714.
[18] Li S, Wang H, Hu SJ, Lin Y-T, Abell JA. Automatic generation of assembly system
conguration with equipment selection for automotive battery manufacturing.
J Manuf Syst 2011;30:18895.
[19] Miralles C, Garca-Sabater JP, Andrs C, Cards M. Advantages of assembly
lines in sheltered work centres for disabled. A case study. Int J Prod Econ
2007;110:18797.
[20] Miralles C, Garca-Sabater JP, Andrs C, Cards M. Branch and bound procedures for solving the assembly line worker assignment and balancing
problem: application to sheltered work centres for disabled. Discret Appl Math
2008;156:35267.
[21] Chaves AA, Lorena LAN, Miralles C. Hybrid metaheuristic for the assembly line
worker assignment and balancing problem. In: Blesa M, Blum C, Di Gaspero
L, Roli A, Sampels M, Schaerf A, editors. Hybrid metaheuristics, Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, vol. 5818. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2009. p.
114.
[22] Blum C, Miralles C. On solving the assembly line worker assignment
and balancing problem via beam search. Comput Oper Res 2011;38:
32839.
[23] Moreira MCO, Ritt M, Costa AM, Chaves AA. Simple heuristics for the assembly line worker assignment and balancing problem. J Heuristics 2012;18:
50524.
[24] Arajo FFB, Costa AM, Miralles C. Two extensions for the ALWABP: Parallel
stations and collaborative approach. Int J Prod Econ 2012;140:48395.

[25] Mutlu , Polat O, Supciller AA. An iterative genetic algorithm for the assembly
line worker assignment and balancing problem of type-II. Comput Oper Res
2013;40:41826.
[26] Borba L, Ritt M. A heuristic and a branch-and-bound algorithm for the
assembly line worker assignment and balancing problem. Comput Oper Res
2014;45:8796.
[27] Vil M, Pereira J. A branch-and-bound algorithm for assembly line worker
assignment and balancing problems. Comput Oper Res 2014;44:10514.
[28] Rosenberg O, Ziegler H. A comparison of heuristic algorithms for cost-oriented
assembly line balancing. Z Oper Res 1992;36:47795.
[29] Amen M. An exact method for cost-oriented assembly line balancing. Int J Prod
Econ 2000;64:18795.
[30] Amen M. Heuristic methods for cost-oriented assembly line balancing: a survey. Int J Prod Econ 2000;68:114.
[31] Amen M. Heuristic methods for cost-oriented assembly line balancing:
a comparison on solution quality and computing time. Int J Prod Econ
2001;69:25564.
[32] Amen M. Cost-oriented assembly line balancing: model formulations, solution
difculty, upper and lower bounds. Eur J Oper Res 2006;168:74770.
[33] Scholl A, Becker C. A note on an exact method for cost-oriented assembly line
balancing. Int J Prod Econ 2005;97:34352.
[34] Boysen N, Fliedner M. A versatile algorithm for assembly line balancing. Eur J
Oper Res 2008;184:3956.
[35] Roshani A, Fattahi P, Roshani A, Salehi M, Roshani A. Cost-oriented two-sided
assembly line balancing problem: a simulated annealing approach. Int J Comput
Integr Manuf 2012;25:689715.
[36] Hung R, Emmons H. Multiple-shift workforce scheduling under the 34 compressed workweek with a hierarchical workforce. IIE Trans 1993;25:829.
[37] Hung R. Single-shift off-day scheduling of a hierarchical workforce with variable demands. Eur J Oper Res 1994;78:4957.
[38] Narasimhan R. An algorithm for single shift scheduling of hierarchical workforce. Eur J Oper Res 1996;96:11321.
[39] Seckiner SU, Gkcen H, Kurt M. An integer programming model for hierarchical
workforce scheduling problem. Eur J Oper Res 2007;183:6949.
[40] Pastor R, Corominas A. A bicriteria integer programming model for the hierarchical workforce scheduling problem. J Model Manag 2010;5:5462.
[41] Jackson JR. A computing procedure for a line balancing problem. Manag Sci
1956;2:26171.
[42] Otto A, Otto C, Scholl A. Systematic data generation and test design for solution
algorithms on the example of SALBPGen for assembly line balancing. Eur J Oper
Res 2013;228:3345.
[43] Corominas A, Pastor R, Plans J. Balancing assembly line with skilled and
unskilled workers. Omega 2008;36:112632.
Banu Sungur has graduated from Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and
Administrative Sciences, Business Department in 1996 and began to work as a
research assistant in this department in 1997. She received her M.Sc. degree in 1999
and Ph.D. degree in 2006 from Erciyes University, Turkey. Her areas of studies are
Linear Optimization, Integer Programming and Mathematical Modeling of Personnel Scheduling. She is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Business
at the Erciyes University, Turkey.
Yasemin Yavuz received her B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from the Erciyes University, Turkey in 2003, 2005, and 2011, respectively. In 20092010, she was granted a
one-year scholarship by the Council of Higher Education, Turkey to pursue her Ph.D.
research at the University of Illinois at Chicago, USA as a visiting scholar. Her research
interests are in the eld of Production/Operations Management, with an emphasis
on optimization-based planning and scheduling in manufacturing and service systems. She is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Business at the
Erciyes University, Turkey.

Please cite this article in press as: Sungur B, Yavuz Y. Assembly line balancing with hierarchical worker assignment. J Manuf Syst (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.08.004