You are on page 1of 13

Mahmut Kayar,

*Öykü Ceren Akyalçin


Applying Different Heuristic Assembly Line
Balancing Methods in the Apparel Industry
and their Comparison
Department of Textile Education, Abstract
Faculty of Technical Education, The problem of assembly line balancing is extremely important for apparel companies. It
E-mail: mkayar@marmara.edu.tr, indicates the necessity of a well-balanced assembly line since the process of the production
of clothes is complicated and it consists of many processes. A well-balanced assembly line
*Department of Textile Engineering, enables to produce a product in an optimum time, as a result of which it allows to use fewer
Institute of Pure and Applied Sciences, machines as well as less material and labour during this production. In this article, studies
Marmara University,
performed on assembly line balancing were theoretically analysed, and then a time study of
Istanbul, Turkey,
E-mail: cerenakyalcin@hotmail.com T-shirt production with respect to assembly line balancing was performed and data needed
for assembly line balancing acquired. In parallel to these data obtained, firstly assembly
line balancing was applied using 5 different heuristic methods, and then the assembly line
was balanced using the classical method. The results of the solutions for the assembly line
are compared. The aim of this study was to establish the assembly lines which have the
GENERAL PROBLEMS OF THE FIBRE AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES

highest line efficiency and to research the applicability of the methods examined in ready-
to-wear assembly lines.

Key words: assembly line balancing, ready-made clothing, heuristic assembly line bal-
ancing methods, hoffman method, ranked positional weight method, COMSOAL method,
moodie & young method, kilbridge & wester method, largest candidate rule method, clas-
sical method.

Held-Shareshian), Kilbridge-Wester
 Introduction method, candidate matrix method (Salve-
Assembly lines are places where the son), probabilistic assembly line balanc-
parts and components of the products are ing method (Elsayed-Boueher), grouping
pieced together and treated in different method (Tonge), shortest path method
ways. The basic specialty of an assem- (Klein-Gutjahr), Raouf-Tsui-Elsayed
bly line is to transfer work pieces from method, related activity method (Agraw-
one station to another [1]. Assembly line al), and basic heuristic method [7 - 9].
balancing or line balancing is used to
achieve operations required during prod- The assembly line balancing method,
uct formation at assembly stations in a which is called the classical method is
way that the duration of lost time can be one which is frequently used by ready to
reduced. In other words it is described as wear companies. By this method, firstly
allocating work pieces to operation sys- the daily total production amount is cal-
tems [2]. culated considering the number of ma-
chines and operators that are available to
Assembly lines are classified according be used and the standard time of produc-
to the number of models and products tion. How many machines and operators
that are treated. They are divided into needed, on the basis of the operation, to
groups according to the way they are pro- carry out each operation is also estimat-
duced. Assembly line balancing methods ed. After that operations which are car-
are separated into three groups according ried out by the same type of machine are
to the solution approach: single model, proportionately assigned to machines.
multi-model and mixed-model assembly The aim of this placement is to enable
lines [3 - 5]. each operator and machine to function
in the most effective way and to evenly
Assembly line balancing method based distribute the tasks among machines [10].
solution approaches are threefold: Heu-
ristic methods, analytical methods and In this study, time studies of t-shirt pro-
simulation techniques [6]. duction, examined with respect to assem-
bly line balancing, were carried out and
Although there are quite a lot of heu- data which are necessary for balancing
ristic methods, some basic ones taken obtained. In conjunction with these ob-
from literature can be listed as follows: tained, assembly line balancing studies
ranked positional weight method (Helge- were performed by heuristic balancing
son-Birnie), enumeration method (Jack- methods, which are called the Hoffman,
son), Hoffman method, Moddie-Young ranked positional weight, COMSOAL,
method, COMSOAL method (Arcus), Moodie & Young, Kilbridge & Wester
dynamic programming method (Karp- and Largest Candidate Rule and Clas-

8 Kayar M, Akyalçin ÖC. Applying Different Heuristic Assembly Line Balancing Methods in the Apparel Industry and their Comparison.
FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014; 22, 6(108): 8-19.
sical Methods. The results obtained by In a study conducted by Dündar and his
applying heuristic methods after studies collagues, a ready-to-wear assembly line
of assembly line balancing and those re- balancing study was conducted by using
ceived by applying classical methods are the graph theory [30].
comparatively given.
In a study conducted by Güner and his
The aim of this study was to create as- colleagues, the Longest Operation Time
sembly lines which have the highest line Method, Ranked Positional Weight
efficiency and to reveal the applicabil- Method, Shortest Operation Time Meth-
ity of heuristic assembly line balancing od, Most Following Tasks Method and
methods for a ready-to-wear assembly Fewest Following Tasks Method were
used [31]. Figure 1. Model of t-shirt.
line.

Literature review In another study carried out by Eryuruk, Experimental


a ready-to-wear assembly line study was
Researchers have studied the subject of In this research a t-shirt is analysed.
undertaken by applying the Largest Set
balancing assembly lines in many differ- A model of the t-shirt used is shown in
Rule Algorithm developed by Agrawal
ent industrial areas. The first line balanc- Figure 1.
and the Probabilistic Line Balancing
ing researches were applied to the auto-
Technique by El-Sayed and Boucher
motive sector. Up to now, assembly line The t-shirt which is shown in Figure 1
[32].
balancing studies have been conducted in consists of 5 parts including a front, back,
the textile industry as in other industries. sleeve (2) and collar (1). The t-shirt was
In a study carried out by Kayar, assem-
bly line balancing was conducted by ap- produced on appropriate machines ac-
When the history of researches assembly cording to the operation order. Figure 2
plying the Hoffman Method and Classi-
line balancing is considered, it appears cal Method to a ready-to-wear assembly shows the production flow that is neces-
that the idea of assembly line balancing line [10]. sary for producing the t-shirt.
was originally suggested by Bryton in
his article called “Balancing of Continu-
ous Production Line” in 1954 [11]. The
first research published was called “The Neck Neck
Collar Front Back
binding label
assembly Line Balancing Problem”, con-
ducted by Salveson in 1995 [12]. After
Collar
this study a great variety of researches 2
inseam
were conducted by academics who gave
1 Shoulder sewing
their name to assembly line balancing
methods. The names of the research-
ers that can be given as an example are 3 Collar sewing

Bowman in 1960, Kilbridge and Wester,


Helgeson and Birnie, Tonge in 1961, 4 Neck label sewing
Hoffman in 1963, Moodie and Young in
Care 5 Neck binding sewing
1965, Arcus in 1966, Talbotin 1975 and label Sleeve
the following years, F.B. and Patterson, 6 Binding control -
J.H, Gehrlein, W. V in 1984 and 1986, regulated
8
Care label
Agrawal ve El-Sayed ile Boucher in preparing 7 Sleeve sewing
1985, Baybars in 1986 and Hoffman in
1990 [13 - 26].
9 Side seam

When the studies of assembly line bal- 10 Sleeve hem


cover seam
ancing in the ready-to-wear industry are 11 Sleeve hem
reinforcem seam
reviewed, it can be seen that in one con-
Flag 12 Hem cover seam
ducted by Basmak, a new method was label
developed for the assembly line balanc-
13 Hem reinforcem seam
ing problem [27].

In the studies conducted by Eryuruk and 14 Flag label sewing


his colleagues, a ready-to-wear assembly
15 Ironing
line balancing study was carried out by
applying the probabilistic line balanc-
ing technique developed by El-Sayed
and Boucher and the Ranked Positional
Weight Technique by Helgeson and
Birnie [28, 29]. Figure 2. Operations and flow chart of the operations in t-shirt production.

FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014, 9


Vol. 22, 6(108)
and 17.94 pm. In resolving the formula
8 considering these rates, the measurement
number is calculated as 4.38 = 5.

1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Time studies also necessitate unorthodox


usage of techniques such as performance
assessment to attain the operation speed
2 and link it with the standard operation
pace [33].
Figure 3. Priority diagram for t-shirt sewing.
Performance estimation is a process that
Table 1. Operation times, machine types used and previous operations for t-shirt sewing. really requires being experienced and
having vast knowledge [36]. While op-
Operation
Operations Machine type
Operation Previous eration durations are being measured,
number times, min operations
performance assessment is done for each
1 Shoulder sewing 4 thread overlock machine 0.29 -
operation.
2 Collar inseam Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.08 -
3 Collar sewing 4 thread overlock machine 0.34 1-2
The normal duration, which is estimated
4 Neck label sewing Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.25 3
by multiplying the time measured with
5 Neck binding sewing Chain stitch sewing machine 0.35 4
6 Binding control – regulated Hand-made 0.08 5
the distilled performance, needs some
7 Sleeve sewing 4 thread overlock machine 0.36 6
additions. Some operations that cannot
8 Care label preparing Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.09 -
be repeated in every loop, with an unpre-
9 Side seam 4 thread overlock machine 0.43 7-8
dictable loss of time, where some reasons
10 Sleeve hem cover seem Blade cover stitch machine 0.42 9
such as fatigue require an increased nor-
11 Sleeve hem reinforcement Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.13 10 mal duration with deliberately appointed
12 Hem cover seam Blade cover stitch machine 0.33 11 additions called tolerance (highly forgiv-
13 Hem reinforcement Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.06 12 ing) [34].
14 Flag label sewing Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.25 13
15 Ironing Iron 0.45 14 During an interview conducted with ex-
Total time 3.91 ecutives of the company in which t-shirts
are produced, it was stated that the toler-
ance share was calculated as 15%, as a
Time study are provided by means of the formula
result of previous measurements, which
Before constituting a production line for given below. These measurements are re-
is used to estimate the standard time.
a t-shirt it is necessary to obtain informa- peated by considering the data which are
tion about the assembly line that will be generated. In this statistical method, sev-
Afterwards the standard time is calculat-
used. In consequence of the time study, eral pre-observations (nı) are conducted
ed for each operation using the formula
data about the name of the operation, the firstly. Afterwards the formula given be-
shown below.
duration and order of operations, the ma- low is solved for the 95, 45 security level
chines used during the operation, and the and ± 5% error margin [35]. ST = MT × R + MT × R × t (2)
operations undertaken by operators are where: ST is the standard time, MT the
1
clear. (1) measured time, R the performance, and t
is the tolerance [37].
The time study provides information where: n is the actual sample size, n1 the
needed to design, plan, organise and con- number of pre-observations, and x is the The durations obtained as a result of the
trol the production process. It should be time measured. measurements made for each operation
done by considering the structure of the by considering the tolerance share, the
company and its financial means [33, 34]. Pre-observations are made for each op- performance assessments performed and
The time study method most widely used eration (the number of pre-observations the arithmetic mean of performance rates
in companies is called the stopwatch is 5). In conjunction with these pre-ob- in terms of PM, which are measured us-
technique [10]. servations, the formula is solved to de- ing a stopwatch, are shown in Table 1.
termine how many times operations are As is shown in Table 1, t-shirt sewing on
All operation durations are measured us- needed to be measured. The maximum an assembly line with manual machine
ing a stopwatch to determine the stand- rate regarding measurement numbers for operation involves 15 operations and the
ard time of production of t-shirt sewing. all operations is found to be 15. As well total sewing duration of jean trousers is
Measurements are made in PM (percent- as this result taken from pre-observations 3.91 minutes.
age- minute) and are turned into minutes 10 measurements are made for every op-
(percentage-minute/60) by calculating eration. Assembly line balancing studies
their arithmetic means. Assembly line balancing studies werer
For instance the durations which are carried out for t-shirt production which
As these measurements are being done, measured by stopwatch as a result of consists of 15 operations, shown in Fig-
data on how many measurements are observations during shoulder sewing are ure 3 with its diagram. The operation
necessary to be made for each operation established as: 16.20, 17.43, 16.72, 18.81 time of t-shirt production, machines used

10 FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014,


Vol. 22, 6(108)
Table 2. Solution matrix 1 – 3.
a)
b)
Op. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 c)
1 1 Op 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
2 1 2 1 Op 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
3 1 3 1 3 1
4 1 4 1 4 1
5 1 5 1 5 1
6 1 6 1 6 1
7 1 7 1 7 1
8 1 8 1 8 1
9 1 9 1 9 1
10 1 10 1 10 1
11 1 11 1 11 1
12 1 12 1 12 1
14 1 13 1 13 1
14 1 14 1 14 1
15 15 15
Code Code Code
No 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 No 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 No 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

during this operation and previous opera- work station. But since it is carried out by tion is calculated as C - t2 = 0.45 - 0.08 =
tions are shown in Table 1. different types of machine, the operation 0.37 minutes.
numbered 2 cannot be assigned to the 1st
The cycle time in the assembly line bal- work station. The time of the second operation, which
ancing studies was accepted as 0.45 min- has a rate of 0, (operation number 8) is
ute. The loss of balance of assembly The time of the third operation, which 0.09 minutes. As it is shorter than the
lines, their efficiency and their daily total has a rate of 0 (operation number 8), is remaining time of the 2nd work station,
production amounts were estimated us- 0.09 minutes, which is shorter than the in which the same types of machines are
ing the formulas given below. remaining time of the 1st work station. used, operation number 8 is assigned to
LB = [(nC – ∑ Co)/nC)] 100 (3) But since it is conducted by different ma- the 2nd work station. The remaining time
chines operation number 8 cannot be as- of the 2nd work station is calculated as
LE = (1 – LB) 100 (4) signed to the 1st work station. C - t8 = 0.37 - 0.09 = 0.28 minutes.
PA = T/C (5)
To make an assignment of the 2nd work To make an assignment to the 3rd work
where: LB is the loss of balance, LE the station, a new priority matrix is obtained station a new priority matrix is designed
line efficiency, C the cycle time, n the to- by crossing out thw line and column num- by crossing out lines and columns num-
tal number of work stations, Co the aver- ber 1 in the priority matrix (Table 2.b). bered 1 and 8 in the priority matrix (Ta-
age work station time, PA the daily total ble 2.c).
production amount and T is the daily total
The first rate 0, which is left to right in
production time [10]. As can be seen in the assignment exam-
the code number array, can be seen in
operation number 2. As this operation ple for the 1st and 2nd work stations, one
In all assembly line balancing stud-
cannot be assigned to the 1st work sta- can achieve a solution. Solution results
ies carried out within the scope of this
tion it is assigned to the 2nd work station. for designing an assembly line using the
research, it is supposed that handwork
The remaining time of the 2nd work sta- Hoffman method are shown Table 3.
operations are done by all operators on
condition that operations are done by the
Table 3. Line balancing results.
same types of machines.
Workstation Operation Time, Total time for Remaining
Machine type
Hoffman method number No min work station (x) time (C - x)
Firstly a priority matrix is designed for 1 0.29
1 4 thread overlock hand - made 0.37 0.08
the assembly line constituted using the 6 0.08
2 0.08
Hoffman method (Table 2.a). There are
2 4 Lock - stitch sawing machine 0.09 0.42 0.03
3 operations (1, 2 and 8), which have a
8 0.25
rate of 0 in the code number array. The
3 3 4 thread overlock 0.34 0.34 0.11
operation numbered 1, which is the first 4 5 Chain stitch sawing machine 0.35 0.35 0.10
one among them, is assigned to the 1st 5 7 0.36 0.36 0.09
work station. The cycle time is 0.45 min- 4 thread overlock
6 9 0.43 0.43 0.02
ute. As the time of the first operation is 7 10 Blade cover sawing machine 0.42 0.42 0.03
0.29 minutes, the remaining work station 11 0.13
time is calculated as C - t1 = 0.45 - 0.29 = 8 13 Lock - stitch sawing machine 0.06 0.44 0.01
0.16 minutes. The time of the second op- 14 0.25
eration, which has a rate of 0 (operation 9 12 Lock - stitch sawing machine 0.33 0.33 0.12
numbere 2), is 0.08 minutes, which is 10 15 Iron 0.45 0.45 0.00

shorter than the remaining time of the 1st Total time 3.91 3.91 0.59

FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014, 11


Vol. 22, 6(108)
Table 4. Solution of problem using the ranked positional weight method. assigned, although the time of operation
number 2 is shorter than the remaining
Operation Time, Ranked positional
No min
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
weight value
time of the station, it can be assigned to
1 0.29 1 + + + + + + + + + + + 3.74 different types of machines used. Among
2 0.08 1 + + + + + + + + + + + 3.53 the rest of the operations, another one
3 0.34 1 + + + + + + + + + + 3.45 cannot be assigned to this station when
4 0.25 1 + + + + + + + + + 3.11 precedence and the types of machines
5 0.35 1 + + + + + + + + 2.86 used are considered. The remaining time
6 0.08 1 + + + + + + + 2.51 of the 1st work station is calculated as
7 0.36 1 + + + + + + 2.43 C - t1 = 0.45 - 0.29 = 0.16 minutes. Opera-
8 0.09 1 + + + + + + 2.16 tion number 2 is assigned to the 2nd work
9 0.43 1 + + + + + 2.07 station. The residual time of the 2nd work
10 0.42 1 + + + + 1.64
station is C - t2 = 0.45 - 0.08 = 0.37 min-
11 0.13 1 + + + 1.22
utes. After the assignment of operation
12 0.33 1 + + 1.09
number 2, since the time of operation
13 0.06 1 + 0.76
14 0.25 1 0.70
number 3, which has a higher position
15 0.45 0.45 weight, is longer than the remaining time
of this operation, where different types of
machines are used, it cannot be assigned.
Table 5. Line balancing results. Among the rest of the operations, where
precedence and the types of machines
Workstation Operation Time, Total time for Remaining
number No
Machine type
min workstation (x) time (C - x) are considered, only operation number
1 1 4 thread overlock machine 0.29 0.29 0.16 8 is assigned to the 2nd work station and
2 0.08 the remaining time of the 2nd work sta-
2 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.17 0.28
8 0.09 tion is calculated as C - t8 = 0.37 - 0.09 =
3 3 4 thread overlock machine 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.28 minutes. Operation number 3 is as-
4 4 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.25 0.25 0.20 signed to the 3rd work station. After the
5 Chain stitch sewing machine 0.35 assignment, since the time of operation
5 0.43 0.02
6 hand-made 0.08
number 4, which has a higher positional
6 7 4 thread overlock machine 0.36 0.36 0.09
weight, is longer than the operation’s
7 9 4 thread overlock machine 0.43 0.43 0.02
residual time and different types of ma-
8 10 Blade cover stitch machine 0.42 0.42 0.03
9 11 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.13 0.13 0.32
chines are used, it cannot be assigned.
10 12 Blade cover stitch machine 0.33 0.33 0.12
Among the rest of the operations where
13 0.06
precedence and the type of machine are
11 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.31 0.14 considered, another operation cannot be
14 0.25
12 15 Iron 0.45 0.45 0.00 assigned to this station. The remaining
Total Time 3.91 3.91 1.49 time of the 3rd station is C - t3 = 0.45 +
- 0.34 = 0.11 minutes.
As can be deduced from Table 3, the as- which is written in the midsection, rep- As can be seen in the assignment exam-
sembly line is designed for a`` 0.45 min- resents the action which immediates an ple done for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd work sta-
ute cycle time with 10 work stations. The operation, and “+” represents that which tions, one can achieve a solution. The so-
loss of balance and assembly line effi- immediates an operation because of its lution results for designing an assembly
ciency of the assembly line designed are relation with another operation. In the line using the ranked positional weight
shown below. last column positional weights for each method are shown in Table 5.
factor are given. Positional weights are
LB = [[( 10 × 0.45) + (6) estimated by adding the operation time As can be deduced from Table 5, the as-
– (3.91)]/(10 × 0.45)] × 100 = 13.11% of each factor to the standard time of all sembly line is designed for a 0.45 minute
LE = (1 – 0.1311) × 100 = 86.89% (7) operations that follow this one [3]. cycle time with 12 work stations. The
loss of balance and assembly line effi-
For instance, the positional weight of op- ciency of the assembly line designed are
Ranked positional weight method eration number 8 is the total of its own shown below.
To be able to apply this method to as- operation time and that of those num-
sembly line balancing, a table as shown LB = [[(12 × 0.45) + (9)
bered 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, which
below must be created (Table 4). – (3.91)]/(12 × 0.45)] × 100 = 27.59%
follow operation number 8.
(0.09 + 0.43 + 0.42 + 0.13 + 0.33 + LE = (1 – 0.2759) × 100 = 72.41% (10)
In Table 4, operation numbers are shown (8)
in the first column and operation times in + 0.06 + 0.25 + 0.45 = 2.16)
COMSOAL method
the second. In the mid section of the table To be able to apply this method, a table
factor priorities are given. While making the valuation, firstly op- as shown below must be designed (Ta-
eration number 1, which has the highest ble 6.a). In the first column of the table,
For instance, the 1st operation is followed positional weight, is assigned to the 1st operation numbers are shown. In the sec-
by the 3rd, 7th, 8th and 9th operations. “1”, work station. After operation number 1 is ond column, the amounts of the previous

12 FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014,


Vol. 22, 6(108)
operation (APO) are shown. In the third Table 6. Solution stages of problem using the COMSOAL method.
column, the operation without a previous
one (OWPO) takes place. a)
b)
Op. No APO OWPO c)
d)
1 0 1 Op. No APO OWPO
While assignments for the work stations
2 0 2 2 0 2 Op. No APO OWPO
are being made, any operation among
3 2 8 3 1 8 3 0 3 Op. No APO OWPO
those in the 3rd column is chosen ran-
4 1 4 1 4 1 8 4 0 4
domly. The operation selected is deleted
5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 8
from the 1st column and the Table 6.a is 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1
formed again. Factors which initiate the 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1
operation chosen and have no anoth fac- 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0
tors that follow them are added to the 3rd 9 2 9 2 9 2 9 2
column. This procedure continues until 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1
the cycle time at the station and work 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1
factors run short and are not able to be 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1
assigned new factors. After then the mak- 13 1 13 1 13 1 13 1
ing of assignments starts at the next sta- 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1
tions. 15 1 15 1 15 1 15 1

In Table 6, the first 3 steps of applying Table 7. Line balancing results.


the method are given, as in the examples.
Workstation Operation Time, Total time for Remaining
Machine Type
number No min workstation (x) time (C - x)
In Table 6, which is formed while ap-
1 4 thread overlock machine 0.29
plying the method, operation number 1, 1
6 hand-made 0.08
0.37 0.08
which is written in the 3rd column, is se- 2 0.08
lected for first work station assignment. 2 4 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.25 0.42 0.03
The remaining time of the 1st work sta- 8 0.09

tion is calculated as C - t1 = 0.45 - 0.29 = 3 3 4 thread overlock machine 0.34 0.34 0.11

= 0.16 minutes. In table 6-b operation 4 5 Chain stitch sewing machine 0.35 0.35 0.10
number 2 in the 3rd column is selected. 5 7 4 thread overlock machine 0.36 0.36 0.09

The time of the operation is shorter than 6 9 4 thread overlock machine 0.43 0.43 0.02

the residual time of the 1st work sta- 7 10 Blade cover stitch machine 0.42 0.42 0.03
11 0.13
tion (0.16). It cannot be assigned to the 8 13 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.06 0.44 0.01
1st work station since different types of 14 0.25
machines are used during the operation. 9 12 Blade cover stitch machine 0.33 0.33 0.12
Therefore operation number` 2 is as- 10 15 Iron 0.45 0.45 0.00
signed to the 2nd work station and the Total time 3.91 3.91 0.59
remaining time of the 2nd work station
is calculated as C - t2 = 0.45 - 0.08 =
tion. The solution results for designing ing times are shown. While formulating
= 0.37 minutes. Afterwards operation
an assembly line using the COMSOAL this table, if one process is not followed
number 2 is deleted from Table 6.b and
Table 6.c is derived. In Table 6.c opera- method are shown in Table 7. by another, the “–“ symbol is written in
tion number 3 in the 3rd column is select- the second column. In the beginning, the
ed. The type of machine which is used As can be deduced from Table 7 above, same symbols are written in the control
during the operation is same as that at the assembly line is designed with a column [29].
the first work station though its operation 0.45 minute cycle time for 10 work sta-
time is 0.349 minutes. An assignment tions. The loss of balance and assembly The operation which has the longest time
cannot be made as it is higher than the re- line efficiency of the assembly line de- is selected as (1) and is assigned to work
sidual time of the 1st work station (0.26). signed are shown below. station number 1. And the residual time
The operation time (0.34) is shorter than of the 1st work station is calculated as
the remaining time of the 2nd work sta- LB = [[( 10 × 0.45) + (11) C - t1 = 0.45 - 0.29 = 0.16 minutes. A new
– (3.91)]/(10 × 0.45)] × 100 = 13.11% table (Table 8.b) is formulated by delet-
tion (0.37) though different times of the
machine is used and it cannot be assigned LE = (1 – 0.1311) × 100 = 86.89% (12) ing operation number 1 from Table 8.a.
to the work station. As a result operation
number 3 is assigned to the 3 rd work sta- The operation which has the longest time
tion. The remaining time of the 3rd work Moddie & Young method is chosen among the available operations
station is calculated in minutes. By delet- To be able to apply this method, first a ta- (2 and 8) in Table 8.b. The time of the op-
ing operation number 3 from Table 6.c, ble as must be formulated (Table 8.a, see eration is 0.09. Although it is shorter than
Table 6.d is derived. page 14). In the first column of the table, the remaining time of the 1st work station
the operation number(s) are shown. In the (0.16), it cannot be assigned because of
As can be seen in the assignment exam- second column the previous operation(s) the difference between machines which
ple, which is done for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd are given. In the third column the next are used during the operation. Operation
work stations, one can achieve a solu- operation(s) and in the fourth process- number 8 is assigned to the 2nd work sta-

FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014, 13


Vol. 22, 6(108)
Table 8. Solution stages of problem using the Moodie & Young method.

a) b)
Operation Previous Next
Time, min Control Operation Previous Next
No operation(s) operation(s) Time, min Control
No operation(s) operation(s)
1 - 3 0.29 -
2 - 3 0.08 - 2 - 3 0.08 -
3 1-2 4 0.34 3 2 4 0.34
4 3 5 0.25 4 3 5 0.25
5 4 6 0.35 5 4 6 0.35
6 5 7 0.08 6 5 7 0.08
7 6 9 0.36 7 6 9 0.36
8 - 9 0.09 - 8 - 9 0.09 -
9 7-8 10 0.43 9 7-8 10 0.43
10 9 11 0.42 10 9 11 0.42
11 10 12 0.13 11 10 12 0.13
12 11 13 0.33 12 11 13 0.33
13 12 14 0.06 13 12 14 0.06
14 13 15 0.25 14 13 15 0.25
15 14 - 0.45 15 14 -

tion and the remaining time of the 2nd chine, therefore it can be assigned to the and 2nd work stations’ remaining time
work station is C - t8 = 0.45 - 0.09 = 2nd work station, with the remaining time and it is carried out by different types of
= 0.36 minutes. of the second work station found to be machines, assigned to the 3rd work sta-
0.28 minutes. tion. The remaining time of the 3rd work
By considering this result, the only avail- station is calculated as 0.11 minutes.
able operation is operation number 2. After the assignment of operation num-
The time of operation number 2 (0.08) ber 2, since the operations which come As can be seen in the assignment exam-
is shorter than the remaining time of the before operation number 3 are assigned, ple, which is done for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
second work station and these operations operation number 3 becomes available; work stations, one can achieve a solu-
are carried out by the same type of ma- its remaining time is longer than the 1st tion.. Solution results for designing an
assembly line using the Moodie & Young
Table 9. Line balancing results. Method are shown in Table 9.

Workstation Operation Time, Total time for Remaining


number No
Machine type
min workstation (x) time (C - x) As can be deduced from Table 9, the as-
1 1 4 thread overlock machine 0.29 0.29 0.16 sembly line is designed with a 0.45 min-
2 0.08 ute cycle time for 12 work stations. The
2 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.17 0.28
8 0.09 loss of balance and assembly line effi-
3 3 4 thread overlock machine 0.34 0.34 0.11 ciency of the assembly line designed are
4 4 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.25 0.25 0.20 shown below.
5 Chain stitch sewing machine 0.35
5 0.43 0.02
6 hand-made 0.08 LB = [[(12 × 0.45) + (13)
6 7 4 thread overlock machine 0.36 0.36 0.09 – (3.91)]/(12 × 0.45)] × 100 = 27.59%
7 9 4 thread overlock machine 0.43 0.43 0.02
8 10 Blade cover stitch machine 0.42 0.42 0.03
LE = (1 – 0.2759) × 100 = 72.41% (14)
9 11 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.13 0.13 0.32
10 12 Blade cover stitch machine 0.33 0.33 0.12 Kilbridge & Western method
13 0.06 To be able to apply this method, Figure 4
11 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.31 0.14
14 0.25 is formed according to the priority dia-
12 15 Iron 0.45 0.45 0.00 gram in Figure 3.
Total time 3.91 3.91 1.49

As can be interpreted from Figure 4, 13


work stations are initially required. In
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 other words 13 columns correspond to
13 work stations. If 13 work stations are
8
used, assembly line productivity decreas-
es since the total time of the work stations
1 3 6 7
is below their cycle time. Consequently
4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
the operations which can be carried out
in different columns without disordering
2 the process must be taken into account.
In the c column of Table 10, the columns
which a operation can be assigned to are
Figure 4. Priority diagram for Kilbridge & Wester method. shown.

14 FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014,


Vol. 22, 6(108)
To assign elements to workstations, start Table 10. Operations arranged according to columns.
with column 1 elements. Continue the as-
signment procedure in order of column Column Operation(s) Transfer Time, min Total time for Cumulative time,
number (a) No (b) (c) (d) workstation (e) min (f)
number until the cycle time is reached. 1 - 0.29
Results of the solution for the assembly 1 2 - 0.08 0.46 0.46
8 3-4-5-6-7 0.09
line balancing study are shown in Ta-
2 3 - 0.34 0.34 0.80
ble 11.
3 4 - 0.25 0.25 1.05
4 5 - 0.35 0.35 1.40
As can be deduced from Table 11, the 5 6 - 0.08 0.08 1.48
assembly line is designed with a 0.45 6 7 - 0.36 0.36 1.84
minute cycle time for 12 work stations. 7 9 - 0.43 0.43 2.27
The loss of balance and assembly line 8 10 - 0.42 0.42 2.69
efficiency of the assembly line designed 9 11 - 0.13 0.13 2.82
are shown below. 10 12 - 0.33 0.33 3.15
11 13 - 0.06 0.06 3.21
LB = [[(12 × 0.45) + (15)
12 14 - 0.25 0.25 3.46
– (3.91)]/(12 × 0.45)] × 100 = 27.59%
13 15 - 0.45 0.45 3.91
LE = (1 – 0.2759) × 100 = 72.41% (16)
Table 11. Line balancing results.
Largest candidate rule method
Workstation Operation Time, Total time for Remaining
To be able to apply this method, Ta- number No
Machine type
min workstation (x) time (C - x)
ble 12.a must firstly be formulated. In 1 1 4 thread overlock machine 0.29 0.29 0.16
this table operations are ordered from the 2 2 Lock – stitch 0.08 0.08 0.37
longest to the shortest . When ordering 3 3 4 thread overlock machine 0.34 0.34 0.11
the operations, the one which is of the 4 0.25
4 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.34 0.11
first priority among them with the same 8 0.09
operation time is written first. 5 Chain stitch sewing machine 0.35
5 0.43 0.02
6 hand-made 0.08
6 7 4 thread overlock machine 0.36 0.36 0.09
The most appropriate operations to be as- 7 9 4 thread overlock machine 0.43 0.43 0.02
signed are numbered 1, 8 and 2. 8 10 Blade cover stitch machine 0.42 0.42 0.03
9 11 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.13 0.13 0.32
The operation which has the longest time 10 12 Blade cover stitch machine 0.33 0.33 0.12
is operation number 1. Operation num- 13 0.06
11 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.31 0.14
ber 1 is assigned to the 1st work station 14 0.25
12 15 Iron 0.45 0.45 0.00
and its remaining time is calculated as
Total time 3.91 3.91 1.49
C - t1 = 0.45 - 0.29 = 0.16 minutes. Al-
though the times of operations 2 and 8
are shorter than for the 1st work station, Table 12. Solution stages of the problem using of the largest candidate method.
they can not be assigned to the 1st work
station because of the difference in the a) b) c)
Op. Time, Previous
machine types. Table 12.b is derived by No min operation(s) Op. Time, Previous
crossing out operation number 1 from No min operation(s) Op. Time, Previous
15 0.45 14
Table 12.b. No min operation(s)
9 0.43 7-8 15 0.45 14
10 0.42 9 9 0.43 7-8
The operation which has the long- 7 0.36 6 10 0.42 9 15 0.45 14
est time is chosen among the avail- 5 0.35 4 7 0.36 6 9 0.43 7
able operations (2 and 8) in Table 12.b. 3 0.34 1-2 5 0.35 4 10 0.42 9
The operation numbered 8 is assigned to 12 0.33 11 3 0.34 2 7 0.36 6
the 2nd work station. The remaining time 1 0.29 - 12 0.33 11 5 0.35 4
of the 2nd work station is calculated as 4 0.25 3 4 0.25 3 3 0.34 -
C - t8 = 0.45 - 0.09 = 0.36 minutes. 14 0.25 13 14 0.25 13 12 0.33 11
The time of operation number 2 is shorter 11 0.13 10 11 0.13 10 4 0.25 3
than the remaining time of the 2nd work 8 0.09 - 8 0.09 - 14 0.25 13

station and is carried out by the same 2 0.08 - 2 0.08 - 11 0.13 10

type of machine. This operation is also 6 0.08 5 6 0.08 5 6 0.08 5


13 0.06 12 13 0.06 12 13 0.06 12
assigned to the 2nd work station. The re-
maining time is found to be C - t2 = 0.36 +
- 0.08 = 0.28 minutes. Table 12.c is de- As can be seen in the assignment ex- The solution results for designing an as-
rived by crossing out operations number ample, which is done for the 1st and 2nd sembly line using the largest candidate
8 and 2 in Table 12.b. work stations, one can achieve a solution. rule method are shown in Table 13.

FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014, 15


Vol. 22, 6(108)
Table 13. Line balancing results. machines and operators required to carry
out each operation based on the daily
Workstation Operation Time, Total time for Remaining total production amount (PA = 1200) is
Machine type
number No min workstation (x) time (C - x)
calculated firstly (Table 14) using the for-
1 1 4 thread overlock machine 0.29 0.29 0.16
mula which is given below [10].
2 0.08
2 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.17 0.28
8 0.09
RMO = (OP × PA)/T (19)
3 3 4 thread overlock machine 0.34 0.34 0.11
4 4 Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.25 0.25 0.20 Where: RMO is the number of machines
5
5 Chain stitch sewing machine 0.35
0.43 0.02
– operators required, OP the opera-
6 Hand-made 0.08 tion time, PA the daily total production
6 7 4 thread overlock machine 0.36 0.36 0.09 amount and T is the daily total produc-
7 9 4 thread overlock machine 0.43 0.43 0.02 tion time.
8 10 Blade cover stitch machine 0.42 0.42 0.03
Lock – stitch
9 11
sewing machine
0.13 0.13 0.32 For example, the standard time of opera-
10 12 Blade cover stitch machine 0.33 0.33 0.12
tion 1 is 0.19 minutes.
13 Lock – stitch 0.06 RMO = (0.29 × 1200)/540 = 0.644. (20)
11 0.31 0.14
14 sewing machine 0.25
12 15 Iron 0.45 0.45 0.00
Total time 3.91 3.91 1.49 Secondly operations are classified ac-
cording to the types of machines, and the
total number of machines required is de-
Table 14. Number of machines – operators required for the operations.
termined (Table 15).
Number of
Operation Operation required As can be seen in Table 15, 10 machines/
Operation Machine type
No time, min machine-
operator operators including 2 lock–stitch ma-
1 Shoulder sewing 4 thread overlock machine 0.29 0.644 machine chines, 4 thread overlock machines, 2
2 Collar inseam Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.08 0.178 machine blade cover stitch machines, 1 chain
3 Collar sewing 4 thread overlock machine 0.34 0.756 machine stitch machine and 1 iron are required to
4 Neck label sewing Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.25 0.556 machine set up an assembly line. No assignment
5 Neck binding sewing Chain stitch sewing machine 0.35 0.778 machine will be made for handwork operations.
6 Binding control – regulated Hand-made 0.08 0.178 operator A handwork operation will be carried out
7 Sleeve sewing 4 thread overlock machine 0.36 0.800 machine using appropriate machines as the assem-
8 Care label preparing Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.09 0.200 machine bly line is being balanced.
9 Side seam 4 thread overlock machine 0.43 0.956 machine
10 Sleeve hem cover seem Blade cover stitch machine 0.42 0.933 machine
After the calculations, each operator is
11 Sleeve hem reinforcement Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.13 0.289 machine
given a task in such a way that they work
12 Hem cover seam Blade cover stitch machine 0.33 0.733 machine
540 minutes (daily total working time).
13 Hem reinforcement Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.06 0.133 machine
Giving such a task, at the same time,
14 Flag label sewing Lock – stitch sewing machine 0.25 0.556 machine
15 Ironing Iron 0.45 1.000 machine
points out that the operation which is
Total time 3.91 8.700 m-o carried out by the same type of machine
must be assigned according to the num-
ber of machines required. In this way
As can be deduced from Table 13, the as- LB = [[(12 × 0.45) + (17) each operator is given a task in a such
sembly line is designed with a 0.45 min- – (3.91)]/(12 × 0.45)] × 100 = 27.59% way that they will work for 540 minutes.
ute cycle time for 12 work stations. The LE = (1 – 0.2759) × 100 = 72.41% (18) The narrow gap that can result from the
difference between the numbers of ma-
loss of balance and assembly line effi- Classical method chines required is resolved. The assign-
ciency of the assembly line designed are In the assembly line balancing study con- ments of the assembly line can be seen
shown below. ducted using this method, the number of in Table 16.

Table 15. Number of machines – operators required for the operations based on machine type.

Lock – stitch 4 thread overlock Blade cover stitch Chain Stitch sewing
Hand-made Iron
sewing machine machine machine machine
Op. No Quantity Op. No Quantity Op. No Quantity Op. No Quantity Op. No Quantity Op. No Quantity
2 0.178 1 0.644 10 0.933 5 0.778 6 0.178 15 1.000
4 0.556 3 0.756 12 0.733
8 0.200 7 0.800
11 0.289 9 0.956
13 0.133
14 0.556
Total 1.912 3.156 1.666 0.778 0.178 1.000
Total 2 4 2 1 - 1

16 FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014,


Vol. 22, 6(108)
Table 16. Line balancing result.

Assigned operations Work load (Time, minute)


Work-
station Remaining Remaining Remaining
1 2 3 1. Assign 2. Assign 3. Assign
time time time
Binding
Shoulder
1 control / 0.29 × 1200 = 348 192 0.08 x 975 = 78 114
sewing - 1
regulated - 6
Care label
Collar inseam Neck label
2 preparing 0.08 × 1200 = 96 444 0.25 × 1200 = 300 144 0.09 × 1200 = 108 36
–2 sewing – 4
-8
Binding
Collar sewing
3 control / 0.34 × 1200 = 408 132 0.08 × 225 = 18 114
–3
regulated - 6
Neck binding
4 0.35 × 1200 = 420 120
sewing - 5
Sleeve
5 0.36 × 1200 = 432 108
sewing – 7
6 Side seam - 9 0.43 × 1200 = 516 24
Sleeve hem
7 cover seam 0.42 × 1072 = 450 89.76
- 10
Sleeve hem
Hem cover
8 cover seam 0.42 × 128 = 53.8 486.24 0.33 × 1200 = 396 90.24
seam – 12
- 10
Sleeve hem Hem
Flag label
9 reinforcement reinforcement 0.13 × 1200 = 156 384 0.06 × 1200 = 72 312 0.25 × 1200 = 300 12
sewing - 14
– 11 – 13
10 Ironing – 15 0.45 × 1200 = 540 0

Table 17. Results of studies for assembly line balancing.

Assembly line balancing methods


Ranked positional Largest candidate
Workstation Moodie & Young Kilbridge & Wester Hoffman Comsoal Classic
weight rule
Op. Eff., % Op. Eff., % Op. Eff., % Op. Eff., % Op. Eff., % Op. Eff., % Op. Eff.. %
1 1 1
1 1 64.44 1 64.44 1 64.44 1 64.44 82.22 82.22 93.33
6 6 6
2 2 2
2 2 2
2 37.77 37.77 37.77 2 17.77 4 93.33 4 93.33 4 93.33
8 8 8
8 8 8
3
3 3 75.55 3 75.55 3 75.55 3 75.55 3 75.55 3 75.55 78.88
6
4
4 4 55.55 4 55.55 4 55.55 75.55
8
5 5 5 5
5 95.55 95.55 95.55 95.55 5 77.77 5 77.77 5 77.77
6 6 6 6
6 7 80.00 7 80.00 7 80.00 7 80.00 7 80.00 7 80.00 7 80.00

7 9 95.55 9 95.55 9 95.55 9 95.55 9 95.55 9 95.55 9 95.55

8 10 93.33 10 93.33 10 93.33 10 93.33 10 93.33 10 93.33 10 83.37


11 11 11
9 11 28.88 11 28.88 11 28.88 11 28.88 13 97.77 13 97.77 13 97.77
14 14 14
10
10 12 73.33 12 73.33 12 73.33 12 73.33 12 73.33 12 73.33 83.28
12
13 13 13 13
11 68.88 68.88 68.88 68.88
14 14 14 14
12 15 100.00 15 100.00 15 100.00 15 100.00 15 100.00 15 100.00 15 100.00

Line eff., % 72.41 72.41 72.41 72.41 86.89 86.89 86.89

As can be observed from Table 16, the as- Results t-shirt production line with between 10
sembly line is designed for 1200 amounts and 12 workstations.
of the daily total production amount with In this study six different methods used in
The results of the assembly line studies
10 work stations. The loss of balance and assembly line balancing were analysed.
carried out by using the heuristic and
the assembly line efficiency are shown Additionally the results of assembly line
balancing methods applied to produc- classical methods are shown in Table 17.
below.
tion lines were compared with that of the
LB = [[( 10 x 0.45) + (21) As can be concluded from Table 17 the
“classical” method. It is determined that
– (3.91)]/(10 × 0.45)] × 100 = 13.11%
the six different line balancing methods results of the studies conducted using
LE = (1 – 0.1311) × 100 = 86.89% (22) have different efficiency values for a the ranket positional weight Moodie &

FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014, 17


Vol. 22, 6(108)
Table 18. Comparison of the lowest workstation efficiency values of the line balancing References
methods.
1. Kayar M. Production and Productivity -
Methods The lowest workstation efficiency values, % Basic Principles and Applications. Ekin
Ranked positional weight 28.88 Press, Bursa, Turkey, 2012.
2. Erel E, Sabuncuoglu I, Aksu BA. Balanc-
Moodie & Young 28.88
ing of U-Type, Assembly Systems Using
Largest Candidate Rule 28.88 Simulated Annealing. International Jour-
Kilbridge & Wester 17.77 nal of Production Research 2001; 39,
Hoffman 73.33 13: 3004-3015.
Comsoal 73.33 3. Acar N, Estas S. Planning and Control
Classical 77.77 Studies on Discrete Manufacturing Sys-
tems. National Productivity Center Pub-
lications: 309, 3rd Edition, Ankara, 1991.
4. Scholl A, Becker C. A Survey on Prob-
Young and largest candidate rule meth- with the 1st work station, which affects lems and Methods in Generalized As-
ods are same. The only difference of the the 1st work station’s efficiency posi- sembly Line Balancing. European Jour-
Kibridge & Western method, which is an- tively. Data obtained from the analyses nal of Operational Research 2006; 168,
other method with 12 work station, is that done by considering the lowest work 3, 1: 694–715.
5. Scholl A, Becker C. State-of-the-Art Ex-
operation number 8 is assigned to the 4 th station efficiency are shown in Table 18. act and Heuristic Solution Procedures
work station rather than the 2nd work sta- The classical method is the most advan- for Simple Assembly Line Balancing.
tion. The reason for this difference is that tageous with 77.77% and the Killbridge European Journal of Operational Re-
applicability steps are different. Among & Wester method is the most disadvanta- search 2006; 168, 3, 1: 666–693.
6. Suresh G, Vinod VV, Sahu S. A Genetic
the 3 methods with 12 work stations, the geous with 17.77% from among the other Algorithm for Assembly Line Balancing.
lowest work station efficiency is 28.88%, methods. Production Planning and Control 1996;
belonging to work station number 9. The 7, 1: 38–46.
lowest work station efficiency on an as- 7. Cengiz K. An Application with Assem-
sembly line by Kibridge & Western is Conclusions bly Line Balancing and Simulation Ap-
proach on Discrete Manufacturing Flow
17.77%, belonging to work station num- the aim of this study was to design as- Systems. MSc Thesis, Yıldız Teknik Uni-
ber 2, since operation number 8 is carried sembly lines which have the highest per- versity, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2002.
8. Seber S. Study of Line Balancing Ap-
out at a different work station for the first formance, compare the classical method plication and Simulation Approach in a
3 methods. which is used widely in ready-to-wear make-to-order Company. MSc Thesis,
companies with other methods used in Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Tur-
As can be seen from Table 17, the results key, 2004.
assembly line balancing and examine
9. Karademir H. Simulation Approach to
of assembly line balancing studies con- their applicability. Production Line Balancing and an Ap-
ducted by the Hoffman and COMSOAL plication. MSc Thesis, Yildiz Technical
method are the same. In this context the methods which are University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2005.
10. Kayar M. Study of the Causes of Unpro-
named according to the researchers that ductiveness in Apparel Companies and
The difference between the classical conducted the study were applied and re- Fieldwork Analysis for Their Solution.
method, which consists of 10 operations, sults analysed. PhD Thesis, University of Marmara, Is-
from the others is that operations number tanbul, Turkey, 2008.
11. Bryton B. Balancing of a Continuous
3 and 10 are assigned to different work When the results of the study are exam- Production Line. M.S. Thesis, North-
stations. The reason why these operations ined, it can be stated that almost all of the western University, Evanson, ILL, 1954.
are assigned to more than one work sta- heuristic assembly line balancing meth- 12. Salveson ME. The Assembly Line Bal-
tion is to make the efficiency of the work ods can be applied in a ready-to-wear ancing Problem. Journal of Industrial
Engineering 1955; 6, 3: 18-25.
stations the same. For instance, when the assembly line though some have lower 13. Bowman EH. Assembly Line Balancing
operation assignments shown in Table 9 efficiency because of the basic obsta- by Linear Programming. Operations Re-
are considered, it can be understood if cle of applicability. When the classical search 1960; 8, 3: 385-389.
operation number 10 is assigned to the method used in ready-to-wear companies 14. Helgeson WP, Birnie DP. Assembly Line
Balancing Using the Ranked Positional
7th work station, it has to wait 36 minutes these days is considered, the Hoffman Weight Technique. Journal of Industrial
to operate. Consequently the 8th work and COMSOAL method gives nearly the Engineering 1961; 12, 6: 384-398.
station, which the second operation is same results. 15. Kilbridge MD., Wester, L. A Heuristic
assigned to, has to wait 144 minutes to Method for Assembly Line Balancing.
Journal of Industrial Engineering 1961;
operate. As a result of these assignments, The highest efficiency loss results from 12, 4: 292-298.
the time which 7th work station has to the fact that different operations cannot 16. Tonge FM. A Heuristic Program of As-
wait to operate again is 89.76 (work sta- be assigned to machines used for only sembly Line Balancing. Prentice-Hall
one operation, as can be seen from the Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1961.
tion efficiency 83.37%), and the time of 17. Hoffman TR. Assembly Line Balancing
8th is - 90.24 (work station efficiency example of an operation where chain with a Precedence Matrix. Management
83.28%). stitch machines are used. On the other Science 1963; 9, 4.
hand the problem that the same operation 18. Moodie CL, Young HH. A Heuristic Meth-
cannot be assigned to a different work od of Assembly Line Balancing for As-
On the other hand operations number 6, sumptions of Constant or Variable Work
which are handwork operations, are car- station in the methods except from the Element Times. Journal of Industrial En-
ried out with operations number 5 on an classical method affects assembly line gineering 1965; 16, 1: 23-29.
efficiency negatively. 19. Arcus AL. COMSOAL: A Computer
assembly line which consists of 12 work Method of Sequencing for Assembly
stations and on an assembly line which Lines. International Journal of Produc-
consists of 10 work stations, carried out tion Research 1966; 4, 4: 259-277.

18 FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014,


Vol. 22, 6(108)
20. Gehrlein WV, Patterson JH. Sequenc-
ing for Assembly Lines with Integer Task
Times. Management Science 1975; INSTITUTE OF BIOPOLYMERS
21, 9.
21. Talbot FB, Patterson JH. An Integer Pro-
AND CHEMICAL FIBRES
gramming with Network Cuts for Solving
the Assembly Line Balancing Problem.
Management Science 1984; 30, 4. LABORATORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
22. Talbot FB, Patterson JH, Gehrlein WV.
A Comparative Evaluation of Heuristic
Line Balancing Techniques. Manage-
ment Science 1986; 32, 4.
The Laboratory works and specialises in three fundamental fields:
23. El-Sayed EA, Boucher TO. Analysis and R&D activities:
Control of Production Systems. Prentice  research works on new technology and techniques, particularly envi-
Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1985. ronmental protection;
24. Agrawal PK. The Related Activity Con-  evaluation and improvement of technology used in domestic mills;
cept in Assembly Line Balancing. Inter-  development of new research and analytical methods;
national Journal of Production
Research 1985; 23, 2: 403-421.
research services (measurements and analytical tests) in the field of en-
25. Baybars I. A Survey of Exact Algorithms
for the Simple Assembly Line Balancing vironmental protection, especially monitoring the emission of pollutants;
Problem. Management Science 1986;
32, 8: 909. seminar and training activity concerning methods of instrumental
26. Hoffman TR. Assembly Line Balancing: analysis, especially the analysis of water and wastewater, chemicals
A Set of Challenging Problems. Interna- used in paper production, and environmental protection in the paper-
tional Journal of Production Research making industry.
1990; 28: 1807-1815.
27. Baskak M. A New Method for Multiple
Model Assembly Line Balancing. PhD Since 2004 Laboratory has had the accredi-
Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Is- tation of the Polish Centre for Accreditation
tanbul, 1998.
28. Eryuruk SH, Kalaoglu F, Baskak M. As- No. AB 551, confirming that the Laboratory
sembly Line Balancing in a Clothing meets the requirements of Standard PN-EN
Company. Fibres & Textiles in Eastern
2008; 16, 1, 66: 93-98.
ISO/IEC 17025:2005. AB 388
29. Eryuruk SH, Kalaoglu F, Baskak M. As-
sembly Line Balancing by Using Statisti- Investigations in the field of environmental protection technology:
cal Method in Clothing Production. Tek- Research and development of waste water treatment technology, the
stil ve Konfeksiyon 2011; 1: 65-71. treatment technology and abatement of gaseous emissions, and the
30. Dundar P, Guner M, Colakoglu O. An utilisation and reuse of solid waste,
Approach to the Modular Line Balancing Monitoring the technological progress of environmentally friendly technol-
Problem for an Apparel Product Manu-
ogy in paper-making and the best available techniques (BAT),
facturing with Graph Theory. Tekstil ve
Konfeksiyon 2012; 4: 369-374. Working out and adapting analytical methods for testing the content of
31. Guner M, Yucel O, Unal C. Applicabil- pollutants and trace concentrations of toxic compounds in waste water,
ity of Different Line Balancing Methods gaseous emissions, solid waste and products of the paper-making indus-
in the Production of Apparel. Tekstil ve try,
Konfeksiyon 2013; 1: 77-84. Monitoring ecological legislation at a domestic and world level, particu-
32. Eryuruk SH. Clothing Assembly Line larly in the European Union.
Design Using Simulation and Heuristic
Line Balancing Techniques. Tekstil ve
Konfeksiyon 2012; 4: 360-368. A list of the analyses most frequently carried out:
33. Prokopenko J. Productivity Manage- Global water & waste water pollution factors: COD, BOD, TOC, suspend-
ment: A Practical Handbook. 2nd Edition, ed solid (TSS), tot-N, tot-P
International Labour Office, Geneva, Halogenoorganic compounds (AOX, TOX, TX, EOX, POX)
Switzerland, 1992. Organic sulphur compounds (AOS, TS)
34. Kobu B. Production Management. Ex- Resin and chlororesin acids
panded and Revised 13th Edition, Beta Saturated and unsaturated fatty acids
Printing and Publishing, pp. 3-5, Istan-
bul, Turkey, 2006.
Phenol and phenolic compounds (guaiacols, catechols, vanillin, veratrols)
35. Kanawaty G. Work Study. International Tetrachlorophenol, Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Labour Office (ILO), 6th Edition, National Hexachlorocyclohexane (lindane)
Productivity Center Publications /ILO: Aromatic and polyaromatic hydrocarbons
29, pp. 22-23, Ankara, Turkey, 2004. Benzene, Hexachlorobenzene
36. Ercan MN. Time and Motion Study.  Phthalates  Polychloro-Biphenyls (PCB)
Expanded 3rd Edition, Dokuz Eylul Uni-  Carbohydrates  Glyoxal
versity Publications, No: 4, pp. 95-103,
Izmir, Turkey, 2004.
 Glycols  Tin organic compounds
37. Kayar M. Comparison of Different Pro-
duction Technologies’ Productivity in Contact:
Jean Trousers Sewing By Simulation
Technique. MSc. Thesis, University of INSTITUTE OF BIOPOLYMERS AND CHEMICAL FIBRES
Marmara, Istanbul, Turkey, 2003. ul. M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 19/27, 90-570 Łódź, Poland
Małgorzata Michniewicz Ph. D.,
tel. (+48 42) 638 03 31, e-mail: michniewicz@ibwch.lodz.pl

Received 22.11.2013 Reviewed 03.03.2014

FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2014, 19


Vol. 22, 6(108)