J Ind Eng Int

DOI 10.1007/s40092-017-0189-7

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assembly line performance and modeling

Arun B. Rane1 • Vivek K. Sunnapwar2

Received: 29 January 2015 / Accepted: 11 February 2017

Ó The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Automobile sector forms the backbone of man- industry are demands of customers, price sensitivity, envi-
ufacturing sector. Vehicle assembly line is important sec- ronmental and safety concerns, automation, etc. Vehicle
tion in automobile plant where repetitive tasks are assembly line is vast, complex and involves many compo-
performed one after another at different workstations. In nents received from vendors and other departments. Higher
this thesis, a methodology is proposed to reduce cycle time cycle time, lengthy changeover time, unnecessary buffers,
and time loss due to important factors like equipment bottlenecks, inadequate resource utilization are common
failure, shortage of inventory, absenteeism, set-up, material issues. Thus, objective is to analyze and resolve all these
handling, rejection and fatigue to improve output within issues scientifically without increasing manufacturing cost.
given cost constraints. Various relationships between these For improving assembly line performance, different
factors, corresponding cost and output are established by approaches are used by researchers which includes use of
scientific approach. This methodology is validated in three lean techniques, classical mathematical models, process
different vehicle assembly plants. Proposed methodology simulation using commercial software’s, meta-heuristic
may help practitioners to optimize the assembly line using approach, cost based approach, integrated approach, etc.
lean techniques. Few researchers work is presented here in brief.
Gokcen and Erel (1998) demonstrated basic assembly
Keywords Simulation  Optimization  Lean  line balancing model to minimize number of stations.
Mathematical modeling  Line balancing  Output  Bergen et al. (2001) have focused on constraint-based
Utilization  Efficiency  Cost constraint  Downtime vehicle assembly line sequencing. Model was tested with
three different algorithms and two constraints. Distribution
constraint allows the assembly line worker to ensure that at
Introduction least a certain amount of every order is produced prior to
any unexpected line shutdowns while ‘Change-over’ con-
Attaining manufacturing excellence to gain leadership and straints prohibit undesirable transitions. Authors demon-
competitive advantage has become necessity of hour over strated improvements averaging 11.6% using Branch and
last few years. Some of the challenges in automobile Bound algorithm.
Ali and Seifoddini (2006) addressed effect of factors
like machine breakdown, labor dynamics, material arrival
& Arun B. Rane and unpredictable customer orders. Authors have simulated
[email protected]
response to stochastic variations. Sandanayake et al. (2008)
Vivek K. Sunnapwar identified the impact of set-up time, number of worksta-
[email protected]
tions and inspection on process time by regression mod-
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Fr.C. Rodrigues eling. It is also noted that few researchers have used
Institute of Technology, Navi Mumbai, Vashi, India statistical tools. Torenli (2009) improved the output by
2
Lokmanya Tilak College of Engineering, Navi Mumbai, identifying bottlenecks and wastes. New layout was
Kopar Khairane, India suggested.

123
 J Ind Eng Int

Major efforts are seen to develop faster algorithms and buffer on output. However, no work is reported to achieve
to compare their results. Chica et al. (2011) have used cost constrained pragmatic solution for integrated effect of
various search algorithms like Simulated Annealing, set-up, equipment failure, skill level of workers, absen-
Genetic algorithm etc. for minimizing number of work- teeism, material shortage, rejection, fatigue, material han-
stations. Author demonstrated that Genetic Algorithm-II is dling, etc. on output. Also, effect of interaction between
better than others. Kuo and Yang (2011) verified the results these factors on output is not reported.
of FlexSim software with Particle Swarm Optimization to Based on data, literature review and discussion with
reduce waiting time. Kanda et al. (2013) used Maynard domain experts, objective of the present research is to
Operation Sequence Technique (MOST) for improving the propose methodology to ‘‘Optimize vehicle assembly
productivity at Maruti Suzuki. Falck and Rosenqvist (2014) line performance using simulation based approach’’
have explained cost of rejection exhaustively while within imposed cost constraints.
Hakami et al. (2014) presented various mathematical In the present research, detailed analysis of various
models for different assembly line parameters. vehicle assembly lines is conducted at three different
Jadhav et al. (2015) have presented a roadmap for Lean plants; wherein data collection and analysis are carried out.
implementation in Indian automotive component industry.
Authors have proposed Interpretive Structural Model for
sustainable Lean implementation. Chramcov et al. Description of vehicle assembly line at various
(2015)proposed mathematical model for robotic automated plants
line to minimize assembly time. Authors have included
heuristic algorithms in their simulation model for control A typical vehicle assembly line consists of many work-
determining of the assembly line. stations, where the components are assembled sequentially
Lee et al. (2016) have considered effect of monotony on in a fixed pattern repeatedly and continuously as shown in
workers performance to improve the productivity. Authors Fig. 1.
have demonstrated five step design framework towards There is a fixed precedence between these stations.
gamification approach for bolt tightening work. Dao et al. Workers move with the moving conveyor to complete the
(2017) have put forward modern virtual computer-inte- task of that stage and reposition themselves to their initial
grated manufacturing system. Authors have proposed position to work on the subsequent vehicle which might
Genetic algorithm to find optimised solution which is have arrived at the upstream stage. There are three main
verified by a numerical example. Kia et al. (2017) studied a assembly lines viz. Trim, Chassis and Finish. Progress of
dynamic flexible flow line problem with sequence-depen- each vehicle can be tracked by means of its Vehicle
dent set-up times to minimize mean flow time and mean Identification Number and a small radio frequency
tardiness. Authors have used genetic programming as well transponder attached to the chassis. Figure 2 shows the
as discrete-event simulation model to examine the perfor- layout of the assembly line at plant A which is commis-
mances of scheduling rules. sioned on 2nd October 1965.
Due to many factors and complexity of vehicle assembly Trim lines 1 and 2 consist of 33 stations numbered from 41
line, mathematical modeling is tedious. Methodologies to 73. While work is being carried out at Trim line, simul-
developed demands redesigning of line which attracts re- taneously chassis is loaded on chassis line consisting of
investment. Many researchers have studied the influence of workstations numbered from 1 to 17. Finish line starts from
individual factor like skill, breakdown, layout, priority and station 18 till 40. As the chassis passes along the conveyor,

Components added at each workstation

Vehicle Chassis
out Workstation Workstation Workstation Workstation in
n n-1 Conveyor
2 1

Downstream Components added at each workstation Upstream

Fig. 1 Typical assembly line

123
J Ind Eng Int

Trim line 1
Paint shop 41 42 43 44 45 46 to 52 53

Trim line 2
73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 to 55 54

Windshield Electricals

Testing
Chassis line Finish line
1 2 4 5 to 12 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 to 35 36 37
Chassis in

3 14,15,16 38 40 39

Fig. 2 Layout of assembly shop at plant A (Courtesy—M & M)

the body from the Trim line is placed onto the chassis at minimize this time loss to improve the output. As the
workstation 18. Parallel workstations viz. output is governed by the slowest station (bottleneck sta-
3,14,15,16,38,39,40, Windshield and Electricals are called tion), it is necessary to identify bottleneck station.
as Feeder stations. Similarly assembly lines of two more To identify bottleneck station, MOST is used at all sta-
plants were studied. Plant B is commissioned on 31st March tions. MOST divides the task into smallest activities.
2009, manufacturing different models of car while Plant C is Table 1 gives summary of MOST study. At workstation 1,
commissioned on 31st March 2001 and manufactures dif- operator 6 takes maximum time, i.e., 87.17 s, which is ter-
ferent models of commercial vehicles. Lines were studied in med as process time of workstation 1. So product moves out
terms of layout, automation level, inventory, cycle time, of workstation 1 at every 87.17 s to workstation 2. MOST
resources, material handling, ergonomics, etc. data of all station is not presented here due to space con-
straints. In Table 1, W.S. no. and Op indicates workstation
number and operator, respectively. Numbers inside the cell
Selection of factors and data collection (except first column) represents task timing in seconds.
As per Goldratt (1992), cycle time is defined as the time
Output of assembly lines is affected by many factors. taken by the slowest station which will govern the output of
Major factors affecting the output and which are consid- the assembly line. Here, workstation 28 is the bottleneck
ered in this thesis are; (1) time lost due to equipment failure station having process time of 92.34 s. This process time is
(Tbd), 2) time lost due to shortage of material (Tinv), (3) reduced by lean techniques so that bottleneck shifts to
time lost due to absenteeism (Tab), (4) time lost due to set- workstation 34 having process time of 91.85 s. Bottleneck
up (Tsetup), (5) Time lost due to rejection (Trej), (6) time lost keeps shifting till further reduction in time is not possible at
due to material handling (Tmh) and (7) time lost due to a particular station. To optimize the bottleneck station, data
fatigue (Tf). Independent factors are taken as Tbd, Tinv and have to be studied to investigate the losses reducing the
Tab as they control Tsetup, Tmh, Trej and Tf. It is required to output.

Table 1 MOST Study at all

W.S. no. Process time Op 1 Op 2 Op 3 Op 4 Op 5 Op 6 Op 7 Op 8 Op 9
workstations
1 87.17 83.2 72.6 68.3 86.3 82.1 87.2 57.9
2 88.15 81.4 78.3 88.2 80.9 79.4
18 91.25 91 89.9 90.8 90.2 90.2 91.3 82.2
21 91.38 90.6 87.6 88.5 87.6 88.4 81.9 91.4 68.6 88.6
28 92.34 86.5 92.3 75.5 86.5 63.2
34 91.85 91.9 84.1 88.5
36 91.49 82.2 91.5

123
 J Ind Eng Int

Data for 50 days were collected through Integrated Tsetup ¼ 3:34 þ 0:157ðTbd Þ  0:144ðTinv Þ
Production Management System (IPMS) and is given in
 0:040 ðTab Þ þ 0:00183ðTbd Þ2 þ 0:0102ðTinv Þ2
Table 2. Cbd and Cinv are the cost of failure and cost of
inventory, respectively in Rs. lacs. Cab is the cost of þ 0:00655ðTab Þ2
absenteeism in Rs. Cost values are based on cost of spare ð2Þ
parts, equipment, labor, etc. Downtime is in min. Due to
space constraints only 10-day data are presented here. 3. Cubic relationship with interaction effect (R sq—
93.7%)

Development of mathematical formulation Tsetup ¼ 9:6 þ 0:29 ðTbd Þ  0:65 ðTinv Þ þ 1:68ðTab Þ
þ 0:107ðTbd ÞðTinv Þ  0:0878ðTbd Þ T
Literature review clearly reveals that models for time loss
 0:0420 ðTinv ÞðTab Þ  0:00316ðTbd ÞðTinv ÞðTab Þ
and cost in vehicle assembly line are not attempted in
detail. In this thesis these models are developed success-  0:00109ðTbd ÞðTinv Þ2 þ 0:00261ðTinv ÞðTab Þ2
fully by regression technique (Hair et al. 2015) up to third þ 0:00310 ðTab ÞðTbd Þ2  0:000957ðTbd Þ3
degree polynomial. To tradeoff between accuracy and
complexity of various higher degree models, linear models þ 0:000543ðTinv Þ3  0:000747ðTab Þ3
are selected for all seven dependent variables in this study. ð3Þ

Establishing relationship for time loss The small change in accuracy of R-sq value of higher
order models may not affect major number of change in
Step by step evolutions of various models developed during vehicles produced. To trade off between accuracy and
the process are put forward for Tsetup. The philosophy complexity of various higher degree models, linear model
remains same for other dependent factors. As described is selected in the present study for remaining dependent
earlier Tsetup depends on Tbd, Tinv and Tab. Using data from variables which are listed below.
the Table 2, relations between Tsetup and independent fac-
Tmh ¼  0:0079 þ 0:00382ðTbd Þ þ 0:00359ðTinv Þ
tors are developed by regression modeling. Interaction þ 0:00278ðTab Þ ð4Þ
effect of independent variables was checked from accuracy
point of view up to third degree polynomial. Trej ¼ 12:6 þ 0:447ðTbd Þþ 0:512ðTinv Þ þ 0:372ðTab Þ

1. Linear relationship without interaction effect (R sq— ð5Þ

90.6%) Tf ¼ 0:759 þ 0:00200 ðTbd Þ þ 0:00251ðTinv Þ
þ 0:00249ðTab Þ ð6Þ
Tsetup ¼ 5:13 þ 0:247ðTbd Þ þ 0:265ðTinv Þ Any plant is time based and cost based. Literature
þ 0:268ðTab Þ ð1Þ review reveals that models for Cbd, Cinv, Cab in vehicle
2. Quadratic relationship without interaction effect assembly line are not established. This has been demon-
(R sq—91.5%) strated ahead.

Table 2 Downtime and cost

Day Tbd Tinv Tab Tsetup Tmh Trej Tf Cbd Cinv Cab Line output
data at plant A
1 19.87 15.42 34.84 13.19 0.22 17.03 0.92 4.02 7.96 5700.13 237
2 25.66 16.57 20.66 11.15 0.20 15.24 0.90 3.95 8.01 5704.25 232
3 20.04 20.26 24.57 11.79 0.21 16.50 0.92 4.06 7.95 5705.29 236
4 23.27 23.27 23.66 13.07 0.23 17.37 0.91 3.91 8.15 5735.18 232
5 28.27 25.55 28.99 16.90 0.27 24.71 0.95 3.96 8.14 5745.29 231
6 31.24 24.27 31.07 16.90 0.29 25.18 0.97 3.94 8.02 5705.12 227
7 17.99 16.55 17.96 8.22 0.16 11.03 0.88 4.08 7.95 5704.22 236
8 19.27 15.27 19.53 8.81 0.17 11.32 0.89 4.4 8.20 5755.32 236
9 24.66 19.57 22.57 11.23 0.23 15.91 0.91 4.35 8.23 5722.51 234
10 21.27 26.66 28.96 15.80 0.25 21.07 0.95 4.29 8.21 5750.78 234
These data are further analyzed for mathematical formulation

123
J Ind Eng Int

Establishing relationship for cost

As the value of R-sq obtained for linear relationship is
more than 95%, it was selected for the present study due to
If the time lost due to failure is to be reduced, then funds
simplicity of model. Similarly linear models for Inventory
have to be invested in spare parts and machinery. Addi-
and absenteeism were developed and are given below.
tional cost is also involved in deploying more people,
training of the people, etc. So the cost associated with Linear ðR  sq ¼ 95:1%Þ Cinv ¼ 12:45  0:3093ðTinv Þ
failure (Cbd) will increase to minimize this time. Jung et al. ð10Þ
(2007) have presented replacement models but relationship Linear ðR  sq ¼ 96:1%Þ Cab ¼ 601913:35ðTab Þ ð11Þ
between Tbd and Cbd is not demonstrated. Analysis is done
for cubic, quadratic and linear relationship from the data Further, all these developed relationships need to be
given in Table 2. The distribution plot for all the rela- verified before defining objective function.
tionships is shown in Fig. 3.
The models developed are as below. Validation of various dependent functions for time
losses
Linear ðR  sq ¼ 95:8%Þ Cbd ¼ 6:696  0:1356ðTbd Þ
ð7Þ Dependent functions are estimated using three independent
Quadratic ðR  sq ¼ 97:5%Þ Cbd variables from the relationships developed. These are
¼ 9:762  0:3908ðTbd Þ þ 0:005153Þ2 ð8Þ checked with plant actual values to find the deviation as
shown in Table 3.
Cubic ðR  sq ¼ 97:6%Þ Cbd It can be seen very clearly that relationships developed,
¼ 15:51  1:111ðTbd Þ gives result in close agreement within ± 7%. Similarly
þ 0:03471ðTbd Þ2  0:000398ðTbd Þ3 ð9Þ cost models were verified. Thus, developed relationships

Fig. 3 Cbd v/s Tbd

Table 3 Deviation of dependent variables

Day Tbd Tinv Tab (Tsetup)A (Tmh)A (Trej)A (Tf)A Tsetup % Dev Tmh % Dev Trej % Dev Tf % Dev

1 19.87 15.42 34.84 13.19 0.22 17.03 0.92 13.20 -0.09 0.22 -0.33 17.14 -0.63 0.92 -0.78
2 25.66 16.57 20.66 11.15 0.20 15.24 0.90 11.13 0.15 0.21 -1.03 15.03 1.35 0.90 -0.93
3 20.04 20.26 24.57 11.79 0.21 16.50 0.92 11.77 0.15 0.21 -0.24 15.87 3.82 0.91 0.43
4 23.27 23.27 23.66 13.07 0.23 17.37 0.91 13.12 -0.38 0.23 -1.59 18.51 -6.55 0.92 -1.04
5 28.27 25.55 28.99 16.90 0.27 24.71 0.95 16.39 3.04 0.27 -0.14 23.90 3.30 0.95 -0.19
6 31.24 24.27 31.07 16.90 0.29 25.18 0.97 17.34 -2.59 0.28 1.52 25.34 -0.64 0.96 0.75
7 17.99 16.55 17.96 8.22 0.16 11.03 0.88 8.51 -3.55 0.17 -3.74 10.59 3.97 0.88 -0.69
8 19.27 15.27 19.53 8.81 0.17 11.32 0.89 8.91 -1.08 0.17 -2.81 11.09 2.03 0.88 1.09
9 24.66 19.57 22.57 11.23 0.23 15.91 0.91 12.19 -8.53 0.22 2.98 16.83 -5.80 0.91 -0.03
10 21.27 26.66 28.96 15.80 0.25 21.07 0.95 14.95 5.42 0.25 0.19 21.33 -1.21 0.94 1.00

123
 J Ind Eng Int

are validated. As developed relationships are validated, A methodology for optimal solution is proposed based
these models may be used for developing or proposing on objective function and is given in Fig. 4.
optimal solution. Similarly cost models were validated. From Table 1, bottleneck station and corresponding
cycle time can be identified. Cbd, Cinv and Cab are
selected from the Table 2. As per proposed methodol-
Proposed methodology for optimal solution ogy, next step is to estimate independent factors using
Eqs. 7, 10 and 11. The dependent factors are to be
As per Hakami et al. (2014), time (T) required to produce estimated as per the Eqs. 1, 4, 5 and 6. In the next step,
the product is given by, output N is estimated using Eq. 12. In the subsequent
Total working time stage, whether the output can be further improved or not
T¼
Demand is checked. If No, the output is already optimal hence
According to Goldratt (1992), T is known as Time line is optimized. If Yes, lean techniques are used to
Allowed to Complete the Task (TACT) as it varies as per improve output by reducing cycle time and time loss.
demand. Cycle time (Tc) is the time taken by slowest This improved output is to be compared with output of
processing station which governs the output of the line. other workstations. If improved output is not maximum,
Hence, the above equation needs to be modified. So output then output of this particular workstation still needs to
N can be written as, N ¼ Tc Twt
. Where, Twt is actual working be improved. Optimal solution in any vehicle assembly
line can be obtained through the iterative process,
time.
wherein for a particular bottleneck station the maximum
Rejected products cannot be considered in output. As
number of vehicles produced can be identified and fur-
per literature review, time lost due to fatigue (Tf) and time
ther it can be checked whether bottleneck station can be
lost due to rejection (Trej) is ignored in vehicle assembly
shifted by releasing the resource constraint within the
line. In the present study, both Trej and Tf are considered.
given cost constraints. This process will be repeated till
So, the objective function can be written as,
the optimal solution is obtained. This proposed
Maximize output (N),

 methodology is initially validated by using the data
Twt  T bd þ T inv þ T ab þ Tsetup þ Tmh þ Trej þ Tf collected at plant A. The said methodology can also be
N¼
Tc checked whether it can be applied for other plants.
ð12Þ

Fig. 4 Flow chart for the

optimization model Identify the bottleneck station, Select Tc

Select Cbd, Cinv, Cab (cost constraints)

Estimate Tbd, Tinv, Tab (Independent factors)

Calculate Tsetup, Tmh, Trej, Tf (Dependent factors)

Calculate N

No
Line is optimized Can this N be improved?

Improve N

Compare N with other workstations

Is N maximum? Bottleneck shifts

No Yes

123
J Ind Eng Int

Results and discussion cost data are retrieved from Table 2. Estimated values of
time loss and output N using Eqs. 7, 10, 11, 1, 4, 5, 6 and
The present research focuses on optimization of assembly 12, respectively, are given in Table 4. Tl is total time loss.
line performance using simulation based approach. The These estimated values indicates that time loss occurs
optimization model is evolved by using data from plant A due to failure of tyre balancing machine, shortage of tyres,
with three independent and seven dependent factors. Ini- people not reporting in time, adjustments as per wheel
tially proposed model is validated for a particular plant base, defective parts, increase in handling time due to
operation which is presented ahead. tripping of motor, fatigue loss due to improper tools, etc. It
can be seen from Table 4 that absenteeism has major
Validation of model at plant ‘A’ impact followed by equipment breakdown and shortage of
inventory. This initial stage of iterative process in the
From Table 1, bottleneck station can be identified as proposed methodology has predicted 246 numbers of
workstation 28, i.e., tyre fitment. First five critical work- vehicles and can be compared with actual number of
stations in this plant are 28, 34, 36, 21 and 18 having vehicles produced in the same plant under the same cost
process times as 92.34, 91.85, 91.49, 91.38 and 91.25 s, constraints which is 237 and can be seen from Table 2. The
respectively. Process time of workstation 28 is reduced to percentage error seen is 3.8%, i.e., mainly due to cumu-
90 s by maintaining inventory of rims, investing in spares lative error in the multistage approach of mathematical
and new tools, etc. Workstation 34 (Diesel and Battery formulation.
fitment) now becomes a bottleneck station having process Next step as per proposed methodology is to check
time as 91.85 s. Maintenance of hoist, availability of parts whether output can be improved or not. From the objective
and provision of high speed dispensing pump could reduce function it is clear that N can be increased by reducing the
the process time to 88 s. In these circumstances, bottleneck time loss and cycle time. If the output N can not be
is at workstation 36, i.e., Bonnet fitment. Thus, bottleneck improved then it can be deduced that line is optimized.
keeps shifting to other workstations after improvements. Second case of output calculation is again based on the
Process time of all these workstations after improvement bottleneck station as workstation 28 with improved process
is 90, 88, 89, 88 and 89 s. Thus, workstation 28 becomes time as 90 s. Revised data of downtime, cost values and
bottleneck station again. To reduce this time further, it is number of vehicles produced were collected. From these
proposed to use six spindle nut runner and also to automate data, maximum number of vehicles produced in plant is
tyre loading process. This will need additional investment observed as 264. Corresponding to this, new values of cost
and approval. As of now process reached to saturation constraints after improvement in plant A are given in
level, additional investment may not prove to be compet- Table 4 below. Under these revised cost constraints for
itive in the market because as investment increases, cost of improvement of productivity, estimated time loss and
the product also increases. There can be tradeoff between output N are given in Table 5.
the number of vehicles produced and additional investment It is clear that due to various improvement activities,
cost. Therefore, present state can be considered as an time loss is reduced remarkably by 24% while cycle time is
optimal solution for the said plant. reduced by 2.5%. This final stage of iterative process gives
To explain the implementation of proposed methodol- 265 number of vehicles produced. It can be seen that line
ogy for finding the optimal solution, calculations for only output is increased from 237 to 264 which is 11% more. It
two cases viz. initial bottleneck station 28 (process time as can be also seen that the proposed methodology produces
92.34 s) and second again the same bottleneck station 28 result in close agreement with the actual number of vehi-
after the improvement (process time as 90 s) is shown. The cles produced on the same assembly line at plant A.

Table 4 Estimation of time loss and output N before improvement

Cbd Cinv Cab Tbd Tinv Tab Tsetup Tmh Trej Tf Tl N Line output

4.02 7.96 5700 19.735 14.517 23.895 9.995 0.186 12.543 0.894 81.765 246 237

Table 5 Estimation of time loss and output N after improvement

Cbd Cinv Cab Tbd Tinv Tab Tsetup Tmh Trej Tf Tl N Line output

4.12 8.15 5840 18.997 13.902 13.408 6.840 0.152 7.998 0.865 62.162 265 264

123
 J Ind Eng Int

Table 6 Estimation of time loss and output N

Plant Cbd Cinv Cab Tbd Tinv Tab Tsetup Tmh Trej Tf Tl N Average production/shift

B 5.6 10.2 5800 8.01 7.11 16.4 3.13 0.09 0.72 0.8 36.30 221 207
C 5.7 9.89 5790 7.35 8.28 17.2 3.47 0.10 1.3 0.8 38.49 281 267

Testing of proposed model at plant B and C Subsequently, a methodology is proposed to find opti-
mal solution. The proposed methodology helps in pre-
In these plants, equipments are new and average age of dicting the number of vehicles produced under certain
staff is 40 years. In plant B, as models being cars, work constraints. The comparison of predicted number of vehi-
content is more and cycle time is 115 s. Type of assembly cles and actual vehicles produced in the same plant are in
is Monocoque, i.e., a small chassis is provided for engine– close agreement within 4% of error. Once the initial iter-
gear box. Chassis line and finish line are of U type. Six ation for number of vehicles produced is predicted, further
main lines and five feeder lines are available. Number of possible improvements within the imposed cost constraints,
workstations are 100 as against 73 in plant A. Automation in terms of reduction in time loss and cycle time can be
level is higher than plant A with wooden flooring carried out until process reached saturation level, which
throughout, which reduces fatigue. In plant C, models are gives optimal production. In the process, reduction in time
same as plant A. Number of workstations are 41 having loss is 24%. Cycle time is reduced from 92.34 to 90 s
more number of feeder stations. Automation level is more (2.5%). This leads to an increase in actual output from
than plant A and cycle time at bottleneck station is 90 s. initial number of vehicles from 237 to 264 at plant A over a
Under these circumstances, same methodology was period, which is 11% more in output.
tested to check the feasibility of utility of proposed Proposed methodology is effective in practice and
methodology. Downtime and number of vehicles produced numerically less intensive. It is tested satisfactorily at three
per day are acquired for 50 days through IPMS. However, plants having different setup and conditions. Simulation
cost values were not known. Hence for these plants, results predicted by proposed methodology and actual plant
management suggested values of cost constraints are used values are in good agreement. Hence it can be said that
as given in Table 6. Same procedure is followed as men- major contribution of the present research is, proposed
tioned in ‘‘Establishing relationship for time loss’’ section methodology for simulating optimal number of vehicles
to calculate output N. Results are as given in Table 6. produced in a given cost constraints for vehicle assembly
It can be seen from Table 6 that the values of simulation line. Practitioners may use this methodology to reduce
output N and average production per shift are closer but cycle time and time loss by tradeoff between budgeted cost
cannot be compared, as both are not based on the same cost and ROI, to optimize the performance of assembly line
constraints. using simulation approach.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://crea
Concluding remarks tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
To improve output of vehicle assembly line; cycle time and appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
time loss due to major factors like equipment failure, link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made.
shortage of inventory, absenteeism, setup, rejection,
material handling and fatigue has to be reduced. Therefore,
in this study, detailed asymptotic analysis of vehicle References
assembly line at different plants A, B and C is done. MOST
is used for identifying bottleneck station. Based on data, Ali SA, Seifoddini H (2006) Simulation intelligence and modeling for
inter-relationships for dependent functions were formulated manufacturing uncertainties. Proceedings of the 2006 winter
by regression modeling using three independent variables. simulation conference, Monterey, 2006, pp 1920–1928
Bergen ME, Van Beek P, Carchrae T (2001) Constraint based vehicle
To tradeoff between accuracy and complexity of various assembly line sequencing. Advances in artificial intelligence
higher degree models, linear models are selected in the (Lecture notes in computer science), vol 2056. Proceedings
present study. Estimated values of dependent factors were Springer International Publishing, pp 88–99
in agreement within ±7% of actual plant values. Rela- Chica M, Cordon O, Damas S (2011) An advanced multiobjective
genetic algorithm design for the time and space assembly line
tionship between various factors and output was formulated balancing problem. Comput Ind Eng 61(1):103–117
to develop an objective function.

123
J Ind Eng Int

Chramcov B, Marecki F, Bucki R (2015) Heuristic control of the Jung KM, Han SS, Park DH (2007) Optimization of cost and
assembly line. Intelligent systems in cybernetics and automation downtime for replacement model following the expiration of
theory (Advances in intelligent systems and computing), vol 348. warranty. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 93(7):995–1003
Proceedings of the 4th computer science on-line conference Kanda R, Akhai S, Bansal R (2013) Analysis of most technique for
2015 (CSOC2015), vol 2, pp 189–198 elimination of idle time by synchronization of different lines. Int
Dao SD, Abhary K, Marian R (2017) Optimisation of assembly J Res Advent Technol 1(4):151–158
scheduling in VCIM systems using genetic algorithm. J Industrial Kia H, Ghodsypour SH, Davoudpour H (2017) New scheduling rules
Eng Int pp 1–22, First Online: 18 January 2017 for a dynamic flexible flow line problem with sequence-
Falck A-C, Rosenqvist M (2014) A model for calculation of costs of dependent setup times. J Industrial Eng Int pp 1–10, First
poor assembly ergonomics (part 1). Int J Industrial Ergo. Online: 19 January 2017
44(1):140–147 Kuo RJ, Yang CY (2011) Simulation optimization using particle
Gokcen H, Erel E (1998) Binary integer formulation for mixed swarm optimization algorithm with application to assembly line
assembly line balancing problem. Comput Industrial Eng design. Appl Soft Comput 11(1):605–613
34(2):451–461 Lee J, Kim J, Seo K, Roh S, Jung C, Lee H, Shin J, Choi G, Ryu H
Goldratt E (1992) The Goal, 2nd edn. North River Press, New York (2016) A case study in an automotive assembly line: exploring
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Black WC, Babin BJ (2015) Multivariate data the design framework for manufacturing gamification. Advances
analysis, 7th edn. Perason Education Incorporation, USA, in ergonomics of manufacturing: managing the enterprise of the
Published by Dorling Kindersley India pvt. Ltd., Chennai future 2016. Springer International Publishing, New york,
Hakami N, Movahedi MM, Heidarinezhad M (2014) Comparative pp 305–317
study of assembly line balancing methods in an automotive Sandanayake YG, Oduoza CF, Proverbs DG (2008) A systematic
industry. Int J Sci Res 05(02):1–21 modeling and simulation approach for JIT performance opti-
Jadhav JR, Mantha SS, Rane SB (2015) Roadmap for lean mization. Robot CIM Elsevier 24(6):735–743
implementation in Indian automotive component manufacturing Torenli A (2009) Assembly line design and optimization. Chalmers
industry: comparative study of UNIDO Model and ISM Model. University of Tech., Chalmers University of Technology,
J Industrial Eng Int. 11(2):179–198 Goteborg, Sweden, Master of Science thesis

123