3.8 Proceedings Paper

Buffer allocation vs. sequencing optimization: which of the two is most effective to improve the efficiency of assembly lines?

Journal

IFAC PAPERSONLINE
Volume 55, Issue 10, Pages 452-457

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.435

Keywords

Buffer allocation problem; sequencing optimization; unpaced asynchronous lines; discrete event simulation; genetic algorithm

Funding

  1. University of Perugia [RICBA19LT]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, two popular techniques for improving the efficiency of mixed model asynchronous assembly lines are compared: buffer allocation within work centers and optimization of model sequencing. The comparison is conducted on benchmark instances related to the Mixed-model Assembly Line Balancing Problem (MALBP). The presented approach enables simultaneous solutions for buffer allocation, sequencing optimization, and MALBP for asynchronous unpaced lines.
In the paper two popular techniques able to improve the efficiency of mixed model asynchronous assembly lines are compared: the allocation of buffers within work centers and the optimization of the sequence of models entering the line. The comparison has been performed on a set of benchmark instances related to the MALBP (Mixed-model Assembly Line Balancing Problem). In fact, the buffer allocation problem (BAP) and the sequencing problem (SP) are strictly connected to the MALBP, because balancing decisions, buffer allocation and sequencing optimization have a direct impact on the line throughput. The presented approach allows to simultaneously solve the BAP, the SP and the MALBP for asynchronous unpaced lines. In this way, by an opportune design of experiment, it is possible to compare the different solutions found for the benchmark instances and to quantify the impact of buffer allocation and sequencing optimization on the quality of the solutions. Copyright (C) 2022 The Authors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available