Balance 1

Assembly Line Balance

Balance 2
Assembly analysis
Assembly Chart
It shows the sequence of operations in putting
the product together. Using the exploded drawing
and the parts list, the layout designer will diagram
the assembly process.
The sequence of assembly may have several
alternatives.

Time standards are required to decide which
sequence is best. This process is known as assembly
line balancing.

Balance 3
The Assembly Chart
The assembly chart
of a toolbox
Balance 4
Time Standards Are Required for Every Task
Balance 5
Plant Rate and Conveyor Speed
Conveyor speed is dependent on the number and
units needed per minute, the size of the unit, the
space between units. Conveyor belt speed is
recorded in feet per minute.
Example:
Charcoal grill are in cartons 30X30X24 inches
high. A total of 2,400 grills are required every
day.


Balance 6
Plant Rate and Conveyor Speed

Balance 7
Assembly line balancing

The purpose of the assembly line balancing technique is:

1. To equalize the work load among the assemblers
2. To identify the bottleneck operation
3. To establish the speed of the assembly line
4. To determine the number of workstations
5. To determine the labor cost of assembly and packout
6. To establish the percentage workload of each operator
7. To assist in plant layout
8. To reduce production cost

The assembly line balancing technique builds on:
The assembly chart;
Time standards;
Takt time (minutes/piece) (Plant rate, R value,
Pieces/minutes).

Balance 8
Initial assembly line balancing of toolbox
Takt time (for 2,000 units per shift, considering 10%
downtime and 80% efficiency) = .173 minutes per unit.
Balance 9
Assembly line balancing

1. Cost of balancing
Subassemblies that cost too high can be taken off the
line.

SA3 could be taken off the assembly line and handled
completely separate from the main line and we can save money.
SA3 .250 = 240 pieces per hour and .00417 hour each. If balanced,
the standard would be 180 pieces per hour and .00557 hour each.
.0057 balanced cost
- .00417 by itself cost
.00140 savings hour per unit
X 500,000 units per year
700 hours per year
@ $15.00 per hour
= $10,500.00 per year savings
Balance 10
Assembly line balancing

Subassemblies that can be taken off the line must be:

1. Poorly loaded. The less percent that is loaded.
For example, a 60 percent load on the assembly
line balance would indicate 40 percent lost time.
If we take this job off the assembly line (not tied
to the other operators), we could save 40 percent
of the cost.
2. Small parts that are easily stacked and stored.
3. Easily moved. The cost of transportation and the
inventory cost will go up, but because of better
labor utilization, total cost must go down.

Balance 11
Assembly line balancing

2. Improvement of assembly line
Improve the busiest (100 percent) workstation first.
(a) The busiest workstation is P.O. It has .167 minute of work to do
per packer. The next closest station is A1 with .155 minute of
work. As soon as we identify the busiest workstation, we identify
it as the 100 percent station, and communicate that this time
standard is the only time standard used on this line from now
on. Every other workstation is limited to 360 pieces per hour.
Even though other workstations could work faster, the 100
percent station limits the output of the whole assembly line.
(b) The total hours required to assemble one finished toolbox is
.06960 hour. The average hourly wage rate times .06960 hour
per unit gives us the assembly and packout labor cost. Again,
the lower this cost is the better the line balance is.
Balance 12
Assembly line balancing

Balance 13
Assembly line balancing

Balance 14
Assembly line balancing

2. Improvement of assembly line
Improve the busiest (100 percent) workstation first.

Look at the 100 percent station (P.O.).

If we add a fourth packer, we will eliminate the 100 percent station
at P.O.

Now the new 100 percent (bottleneck station) is A1 (93 percent).
By adding this person, we will save 7 percent of 25 people or 1.75
people and increase the percent load of everyone on the
assembly line (except P.O.). We might now combine A1 and A2,
and further reduce the 100 percent.

The best answer to an assembly line balance problem is the
lowest total number of hours per unit. If we add an additional
person, that persons time is in the total hours.
Balance 15
Step-by-step procedure for completing the
assembly line balancing form

Balance 16
Step-by-step procedure for completing the
assembly line balancing form

9. R value
The R value goes behind each operation. The plant rate is the
goal of each workstation, and by putting the R value on each
line (operation), one keeps that goal clearly in focus.

10. Cycle time
The time standard.

11. Number of stations



12. Average cycle time



R
time cycle
stations of number
stations of #
time cycle
time cycle ave.
Balance 17
Step-by-step procedure for completing the
assembly line balancing form

13. Percentage load:
The percentage load tells how busy each workstation is
compared to the busiest workstation.
The highest number in the average cycle time column 12 is
the busiest workstation and, therefore, is called the 100 percent
station.
Now every other station is compared to this 100 percent
station by dividing the 100 percent average station time into
every other average station time. The percent load is an
indication of where more work is needed or where cost
reduction efforts will be most fruitful. if the 100 percent station
can be reduced by 1 percent, then we will save 1 percent for
every workstation on the line.

Balance 18
Step-by-step procedure for completing the
assembly line balancing form

13. Percentage load:

Example: percent load of the toolbox assembly line balance

In Figure 4-11, the average cycle times reveals that .167 is the
largest number and is designated the 100 percent workstation.
The percentage load of every other workstation is determined by
dividing .167 into every other average cycle time:

Operation SSSA1 = .153 / .167 = 92 percent
SSA1 = .146 / .167 = 87 percent
SSA2 = .130 / .167 = 78 percent

and so on.
Balance 19
Step-by-step procedure for completing the
assembly line balancing form

14. Hours per unit:



Example: Hours per unit of the toolbox assembly line balance



The .167 time standard is for one person, if considering the people
number, the hour per unit will be:
Two people = .00557 hour per unit
Three people = .00835 hour per unit
Four people = .01113 hour per unit
hour per minutes 60
time cycle average % 100
h.p.u.
unit per hour .00278
60
.167
h.p.u.
Balance 20
Step-by-step procedure for completing the
assembly line balancing form

15. Piece per hour:
Inversion of hours per unit.

16. Total hours per unit
Sum of the elements in column 14. For this example is .0696
hour.

17. Average hourly wage rate, say $15 per hour

18. Labor cost per unit
Total hours X average hourly wage

19. Total cycle time
It tells us what a perfect line balance would be.
Our example 3.494 minutes divided by 60 minutes per hour
equals .05823 hour per unit.
Balance 21
Efficiency of the assembly line

% 100
balance line 1000 per hours of Sum
1000 per hours of Sum
efficiency Line
% 100
balance line unit per hours of Sum
unit per hours of Sum
efficiency Line
or
For our example:
% 84 % 100
0.06960
0.05823
efficiency Line
Balance 22
Analysis of single model assembly lines
sh w
a
p
H S
D
R
50

Production Rate is given by

where R
p
= average hourly production rate, units/hr;
D
a
= annual demand, units/year;
S
w
= number of shifts/week;
H
sh
= hrs/shift.
This equation assume 50 weeks per year.
Balance 23
Analysis of single model assembly lines
p
c
R
E
T
60

The cycle time can be determined as

where T
c
= cycle time of the line, min./cycle;
R
p
= production rate, units/hr;
E = line efficiency;
Balance 24
Analysis of single model assembly lines
The cycle rate can be determined as
where R
c
= cycle rate, cycles/hr;
T
c
is in min./cycle;
Line efficiency E therefore defined as:
c
c
T
R
60

p
c
c
p
T
T
R
R
E
Balance 25
Analysis of single model assembly lines
The number of workers on the line can be
determined as
where w = number of workers on the line;
WL = workload to be accomplished in a given time period.
AT = available time in the period.

AT
WL
w
wc p
T R WL TWc = work content time, min/piece.
Balance 26
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Using the previous equation, we also have
The available time in the period, AT.

c
wc
T
ET
WL
60

AT = 60E
Substitute these terms for WL and AT into w
equation, we can state:
c
wc
T
T
w integer minimun
*
If we assume one worker per station, then this ratio also
gives the theoretical minimum number of workstations on
the line.
Balance 27
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Example
A small electrical appliance is to be produced on a single
model assembly line. The work content of assembling the
product has been reduced to the work elements listed in
table below along with other information. The line is to be
balanced for an annual demand of 100,000 units per year.
The line will be operated 50 weeks/yr, 5 shifts/wk, and 7.5
hrs/shift. Manning level will be one worker per station.
Previous experience suggests that the uptime efficiency for
the line will be 96%, and repositioning time lost per cycle
will be 0.08 min. Determine (a) total work content time
T
wc
, (b) required hourly production rate R
p
to achieve the
annual demand, (c) Cycle time, and (e) service time Ts to
which the line must be balanced.
Balance 28
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Example
Balance 29
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Example
Balance 30
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Solution:
units/hr 33 . 53
) 5 . 7 )( 5 ( 50
000 , 100

p
R
(b) The production rate is:
(c) The cycle time Tc with an uptime efficiency of 96% is:
(a) The total work content time is:
T
wc
= 4.0 min.
. min 08 . 1
33 . 53
) 96 . 0 ( 60

C
T
Balance 31
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Solution:
4 3.7 int min *
c
wc
T
T
w
(e) The average service time against which the line must
be balanced is:
(d) The theoretical minimum number of workers is given by:

. min 00 . 1 08 . 0 08 . 1
R c s
T T T
Balance 32
Analysis of single model assembly lines
The objective in line balancing is to distribute
the total workload on the assembly line as
evenly as possible among the workers

w
1 i
s
) minimize or ) ( minimize
si wc s
T (T T wT
subject to:

i k
ek
(1)
s
T T
and
(2) all precedence requirements are
obeyed.
Balance 33
Analysis of single model assembly lines
The algorithms are:
1) Largest Candidate Rule
2) Kilbridge and Wester method
3) Ranked positional weights
Balance 34
Largest Candidate Rule
Step 1: Rank the Teks in the descending order.
Step 2: Assign the elements to the worker at first station
by starting at the top of the list and selecting the first
element that satisfies precedence requirements and does
not cause the total sum of Tek at that station to exceed the
allowable Ts; when an element is selected for assignment
to the station, start back at the top of the list for
subsequent assignments.
Step 3: when no more element can be assigned without
exceeding Ts, then proceed to the next station.
Step 4: repeat steps 2 and 3 for as many additional
stations as necessary until all elements have been
assigned.
Balance 35
Largest Candidate Rule
Work elements sorted in descending order
Balance 36
Largest Candidate Rule
Solution:
The largest candidate algorithm is carried out as presented
in table below. 5 workers and stations are required in the
solution. Balance efficiency is computed as:
8 . 0
) 0 . 1 ( 5
0 . 4

s
wc
wT
T
E
Balance 37
Largest Candidate Rule
Work elements assigned to stations by LCR
Balance 38
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Example
Balance 39
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Kilbridge and Wester method
Balance 40
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Ranked positional weights
Balance 41
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Ranked positional
weights
Kilbridge and
Wester method
Largest Candidate
Rule
Balance 42
Analysis of single model assembly lines
Automation, Production Systems, and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, By
Mikell P. Groover, 3
rd
edition, c2008.
Manufacturing Facilities Design and Material
Handling, By F. E. Meyers and M. P. Stephens,
4th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2010