International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.
68 (2015)
© Research India Publications; httpwww.ripublication.comijaer.htm
Simulation of Mixed Model Assembly Line
Sequencing
Using PRO-Model Software
J . Jayaprakash
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Dr.MGR Educational Research Institute University,
Chennai-600095,India; e-mail: profjaya@gmail.com
Abstract—Mixed-model assembly line sequencing involves
determining a production sequence for multiple products along a
single assembly line. The objective of the study is to maximize
percentage of utilization and minimize makespan to improve
productivity in an assembly line. In this paper, four different
methods of line sequencing have been considered. Discrete event
simulation software (Pro-Model) is used to model the assembly
line operation setup and evaluate the best sequence. It is observed
that the method 4 has minimum makespan time and maximum
percentage of utilisation with less number of setups.
Keywords— Assembly line sequencing, Simulation, Makespan,
Operation setup;
I. INTRODUCTION
In order to increase sales and thereby revenues, firms are
under constant pressure to produce an increased number of
models of a basic end product. A mixed-model assembly line
(MMAL) is a type of production line where a variety of
product models similar in product characteristics are
assembled. The products usually involve different assembly
tasks, methods and standard time with the requirement of
different facilities, components and raw materials. Such an
assembly line is increasingly accepted in industry to scope
with the recently observed trend of diversification of customer
demands.
Considering an automotive company which may make a 4-
door sedan with and without automatic transmission, air
conditioning, etc will have effect on the demand and base
model. This requirement translates directly into increased
demands on the manufacturing unit of the firm. For instance,
the production function may consequently be asked to operate
a mixed model assembly line, i.e., a single line capable of
making several different models at a time. Often the relative
mixture of models produced on the line will vary as customers
change their preferences.
Various approaches have been developed to address the
design of mixed-model assembly lines, the most notable of
which is Toyota's Goal Chasing Algorithm [8]. In particular,
854
K.Manoj Kumar Reddy b, P.Ambedkar b
b
PG Student, Industrial Engineering, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Dr.MGR Educational Research
Institute University, Chennai-600095,India
discrete event simulation software (PRO_MODEL) is used to
improve upon feasible sequences, thereby mitigating
production bottlenecks and inventory build-ups, and hence
reducing costs to the firm.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
The use of a hybrid simulation and analytical
approaches has been previously reported in the literature for
dealing with single-model assembly line problems[1-14].
McMullen and Frazier [15] used simulation and data
envelopment analysis to compare assembly line balancing line
problems to obtained feasible and acceptable solution. Lee et
al. [16] used simulation and genetic algorithms to analyze
assembly lines, through the optimization of line throughput,
machine utilization and tardiness. Hsieh [17] presented a case
study in which a hybrid analytic and simulation approach were
used in designing a multi-stage, multi-buffer electronic device
assembly line.
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
Balancing and sequencing are two most important
short-term planning issues in mixed model assembly line
balancing systems. The balancing objective is to determine an
allocation of assembly tasks for a mix of products among the
assembly stations with limited work space so as to balance the
station workloads. In contrast, the scheduling objective is to
determine the detailed sequencing and timing of all assembly
tasks for each individual product, so as to maximize the line’s
productivity, which may be defined in terms of makespan,
percentage of utilization.
In this paper sequencing problem has been taken for
analysis and assumed the production line is well balanced. It
has five balanced workstations and three different products to
be assembled in four different methods of sequencing in a
single production line.
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Fig 3.1 Balanced Assembly line
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.68 (2015)
© Research India Publications; httpwww.ripublication.comijaer.htm
n
S1,S2,..,S5=Balanced Work Stations Total demand = ∑ Di
i =1
(1)

Products Demands where Di = demand of i products.

12 i= 1,2,…n number of products.
8
4 Di
Demand factor = (2)
∑i =1 Di
n

Total demand 24 nos

n

∑ Di
i =1
Fig 3.2 Method 1 Demand average = (3)
(n − 1)

V. ILLUSTRATION
Fig 3.3 Method 2
Using the developed simulation models the makespan for
all the four methods were calculated using the equation (1,2,3)
and given in Table 5.1. Percentage of utilization was
Fig 3.4 Method 3 calculated and presented in Table 5.2. From the results the
method 4 is better the remaining three methods.
Table 5.1. Makespan Time

Fig 3.5 Method 4 Methods Makespan in sec

M1 220
M2 222
IV. IMPLEMENTATION M3 227
M4 219
The first step in simulation is to create/build the
model. For building the model, locations, entities, processing Table 5.2. Percentage of utilization
parameters and arrival parameters are to be defined.
Percentage of utilization
1. Building the Locations: Station Station Station Station Station
In this paper five well balanced assembly work Methods 1 2 3 4 5
stations have been considered (Fig 3.1) in the Graphic window M1 92.27 92.73 94.09 95.45 36.36
and Capacity of location to produce 24 numbers which is the M2 92.34 93.24 94.14 94.59 36.04
total number of products to be manufactured in the assembly M3 92.51 92.95 94.27 92.51 35.24
line.
M4 94.52 93.61 95.89 95.89 36.53
2. Building the Entities:
VI. CONCLUSION
Three entities models have been considered.
Simulation models were developed for assembly line
3. Defining the Processing Parameters:
sequencing problem using Pro Model simulation software and
Define the processing time of each model in each
tested four different sequencing methods. Good sequencing
station using WAIT command. This command is used to halt
helps to achieve higher percentage of utilization and
the product for processing in each station. Then select the
minimizing makespan. The Fig.6.1 shows makespan time of
starting and destination of the process of each model on each
various methods, from which method 4 has a minimum
station.
makespan of 219 minutes where as the maximum makespan
time for other method is 227 minutes.
4. Defining the Arrival Parameters:
Define the arrival sequence of each model based
weights function (demand factor and demand average) on the
four different methods as shown in Fig 3.2 to 3.5. This is user-
defined distributions.

855
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol. 10 No.68 (2015)
© Research India Publications; httpwww.ripublication.comijaer.htm
[3] Miller S., Pegden D., 2000, “Introduction to manufacturing simulation”,
228 Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference,pp.63-66.
226
Makspan Time
[4] Harrell C R., Price R N., 2000, “Simulation modelling and optimization
224
using promodel”, Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation
222
Conference,pp. 197-202.
220
218 [5] Williams E J., Haldun Çelik., 1998, “Analysis of conveyor systems
within automotive final assembly”, Proceedings of the 1998 Winter
216
Simulation Conference,pp. 915-920.
214
[6] Gujarathi N S., Ogale R M., and Gupta T., 2004, “Production capacity
m1 m2 m3 m4
analysis of a shock absorber assembly line using simulation” ,
Methods Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference,1213-1217 pp.
[7] Mane A., Nahavandi S., and Zhang J., 2002, “Sequencing production on
an assembly line using goal chasing and user defined algorithm”,
Proceedings of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference,pp, 1269-1273.
Fig 6.1 Comparison of Makespan Time for various methods
[8] Monden, Y., 1998, “Toyota Production System An Integrated Approach
to JIT, Third Edition”, Engineering and Management Press.
As per the percentage of utilization point of view the [9] Miltenburg J., Sinnamon., 1992, “Algorithms for Scheduling Multi
method 4 has higher value and also the number of setups Level Just-in-Time Production Systems”, IIE Transactions, Vol:24,
between the models launched into the projection line has No:2, pp. 121 – 130.
minimum 6 number of set ups. Method 4 has more productive [10] Miltenburg J., 1989. “Level Schedules for Mixed-Model Assembly
than the other models because, it has minimum makespan and Lines in Just in Time Production Systems Algorithms for Scheduling
Multi Level Just-in-Time Production Systems” Management Science,
maximum percentage of utilization of the production lines 35, 2:,pp.192 – 207.
with minimum number of set-up. [11] Sumichrast, R. T., Russell R. S., and Taylor-III B. W., 1992. “A
Comparative Analysis of Sequencing Procedures for Mixed-Model
Assembly Lines in a Just-in-Time Production System”. Int. J. of Prod.
Res., 30, 1:,pp.199 – 214.
100 [12] Fields J., Davis D., and Taylor A., 2000, “Simulation of the remote unit
assembly and test: a case study”, Proceedings of the 2000 Winter
80 Simulation Conference,pp.1351-1354
[13] Schulze T., Schumann M., 2000, “Language based simulation models as
TILISATION

60 management tools for assembly lines”, Proceedings of the 2000 Winter

Simulation Conference,pp. 1393-1400.
[14] Otamendi J., 2001,“Mixed simulation decision support system for
40 sequencing”,International Journal of simulation, Vol 6 : 12-13,pp.35-44 .
[15] McMullen P. R., Frazier G. V., 1999, “Using simulation and data
20 envelopment analysis to compare assembly line balancing solutions”,
Journal of Productivity Analysis, 11, pp.149–168.
Fig 6.2 Comparison of percentage of utilization of work [16] Leemis L., 1999, “Simulation input modelling”, Proceedings of the 1999
stations for various methods. Winter Simulation Conference,pp. 14–23.
[17] Hsieh S. J., 2002, “In which a hybrid analytic and simulation modelling
approach is used in designing a multi-stage, multi-buffer electronic
device assembly line”, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 10,
From the results it is inferred that: pp. 87–108.
• Products must be launched in different sequences
rather than in batches.
• In different sequences, the product which has more
demand must be launched more frequently.
• When the demand becomes equal for all products,
they must be launched in the alternative sequences.
Future works:
Simulation of mixed model assembly line can be
done by considering setup time, time takes to transfer to the
next station and cost associate with station equipment and
labour cost.

REFERENCES
[1] Andersson M., Göte Olsson., 1998, “A simulation based decision
support approach for operational capacity planning in a customer order
driven assembly line”, Proceedings of the 1998 Winter Simulation
Conference,pp. 935-941.
[2] Jerry banks., 2000, “Introduction to simulation”, Proceedings of the
2000 Winter Simulation Conference,pp. 9-16.

856