22nd International Conference on Production Research

ASSEMBLY LINE BALANCING USING EIGHT HEURISTICS

R.B. Breginski, M.G. Cleto, J.L. Sass Junior Department of Production Engineering, Universidade Federal do Paran, Cel. Francisco Herclito dos Santos, 210, Curitiba, Paran, Brazil Abstract The assembly line balancing is a critical activity for industries. It enhances their competitiveness in a market that increasingly demands agreater diversity of products. This work aimed to evaluate eight assembling lines balancing heuristics by applying them in a large-scaled automotive enterprise, located in the Metropolitan Region of Curitiba, Paran, Brazil. There was only a little difference among the results of the applied balancing methods, however there was a greater variation in the results of the methods when the manner of performing the balancing was different, either when considering each station individually, or whencontemplating the line as a whole. Keywords: assembly line balancing, heuristics, automotive industry.

INTRODUCTION

ASSEMBLY LINES

Industries that utilize the assembly line to obtain their products currently go through great challenges. The first is the need to assemble a large number of product models and their variants in their lines, due to the variety required by the market. Another challenge is the need to maintain an adequate level of manpower occupation and other utilized resources. In this scenario the activity of balancing operations appears. In order to increase the efficiency and reduce the operating costs of the line, balancing activities among workstations are performed. They can be done by different methods, such as: exact, heuristics, meta-heuristics methods, or simulation. In assembly lines that produce more than one model, total and individual assembly times are often different among models, so the operation times of each station vary from model to model. The balancing in lines that produce more than one model can be performed by using the weighted averages of the times of the different models. Another possibility is to use an objective function that considers the unbalance among the models and try to minimize it. Using real data from an assembly line meets the need of a greater amount of practice research in assembly lines balancing, because according to Boysen, Fliedner and Scholl [1], researches using real data represented only 5% of the work on assembly lines balancing. The application of different methods of balancing and the comparison among them will be a further indication of which alternative best serves the large-scaledenterprises in the automotive industry, which rely on assembly lines with the same characteristics as the ones of the enterprise being studied in this present work. A well-balanced assembly line reduces wastes, such as operator idleness, the need of fluctuating operators, stock, and faulty products, it also decreases the production costs of the unit for the company and allows the company to reduce the price of their products. The objective of this study is to evaluate eight methods of mixed model assembly lines balancing, by applying them to an assembly line of a large-scaledenterprise in the automotive industry. The limitation of this study was the inability to access the real balancing method used by the enterprise, which uses the Maximum Task Time method, however it was not possible to make a comparison between it and the theoretical result.

Mass production allows a lower cost production due to the large amount of produced units of the same product, and it is only possible by the division of labor [2]. The great production increase resulting from the division of labor is due to three factors: increased dexterity of each worker; reduced wasted time when going from one type of work to another, and the invention of a large number of machines that facilitate working, allowing one person to do the job of many [3]. The assembly line became popular with the mass production of automobiles, when Henry Ford began assembling the T model in the "Highland Plant"factory in 1913. In an assembly line system, the raw material enters and moves progressively through a series of workstations while being processed into the desired product [4]. The total amount of work in the assembly process is divided into elementary operations, called tasks, which require a time to be performed. The tasks follow a precedence relationship, in such an order that, to accomplish a task, all its predecessors have to have already been executed [2], [5]. Kimms [6] states that, to ensure the full production of each model that passes through the line, each station must be equipped with machines, robots andtrained people. The number of stations and station equipment is called line configuration. All of the work content of the assembly process is divided among the workstations, which repeat the operations at every certain time interval, called cycle time, without violating the assembly precedence relationships [2], [5], [4]. The problem of optimizing the division of tasks among workstations is known as Assembly Line Balancing Problem - ALBP [7]. For Magato et al. [8], Farnes and Pereira [9] and Falkenauer[10], the basic concept of line balancing is to either assign tasks to workstations in a line to get the desired index of production (or cycle time)with fewer workstations (employees), or to minimize the cycle time for a given number of employees. The number of stations or the time cycle is a performance measurement to be optimized. Regarding the number of products, the assembly lines can be classified into three basic types [5], [11]: Single-model assembly line: used in mass production of a single product, as in Figure 1a. Mixed-model assembly line: used to produce several models of a basic product, without the need to setup (or with a very littlesetup time).

22nd International Conference on Production Research

Figure 1b shows an example of this type of line. Multimodel assembly line: used when there are significant differences in the production processes of each model. To minimize the inefficiency of the setup time between models, batches are used, and it originates the batch sizing problem. This line type is illustrated in Figure 1c.

studies have increasingly attempted to expand the problem by incorporating aspects such as: U lines, stations in parallel, alternative processing, and mixed production lines [5]. 2.1 Difficulties for application of SALBP The SALBP does not possess much applicability in real cases, and this can be verified by the difficulties that industries face to apply the theoretical models of assembly lines balancing, identified by Falkenauer [10]: a) No balancing, but rebalancing: many studies consider that the line will still be built, however the most frequent cases areof rebalancing of existing lines. b) Workstations have an identity: as in most cases the lines already exist, stations already have their space constraints, equipment, certain capacity of features, and restrictions of processes that can be performed. c) Fixed operations and zoning restrictions: fixed operations can only be performed in a given station, and zoning restrictions occur when the operation can be performed at determined stations. d) Impossibility of eliminating stations: the elimination of stations can only occur at the beginning or at the end of the existing line. e) The need to balance the workload: after reaching the desired cycle time, the goal is to minimize the square of workload differences among stations. f) Multiple Operators: the stations can have more than one operatorsimultaneously working on the product. g) Operations of multiple operators: some activities require a second operator who helps in the process. h) Ergonomic restrictions: the ergonomic constraints may be station or operators related. i) Multiple products: the assembling of only one product is extremely rare. 2.2 Precedence graph The precedence graph is constructed to help visualize the predecessor tasks. The work elements are indicated by circles, with the time required to perform them under each circle. Arrows lead from the immediate predecessors to the next element of the work [14]. The mixed-model study began in 1970 with Thomopoulos [15]. For Gehardt [16], the most important contribution of Thomopoulos was the possibility of unitingthe precedence diagrams for each model in an equivalent precedence graph, resulting in areduction in the work amount inequality along the line. The union of the precedence graphs may be performed only if there are no conflicts of precedence between the models, for example, a model requires that task A is performed before task B, then no other model must request that task B be performed before A [17]. In Figure 2 two examples of precedence graphs are shown [16]. When constructing the equivalent precedence graph, the equivalent processing times are computed from the production rate of each model within a given time period (the sum of the production rates of all the models have to be equal to one). By multiplying the task execution time of each model by the percentage of the model demand and making the sum for each task, the equivalent time is obtained [18].

Figure 1 - Assembly lines for single and multiple products [5]. Following, the types of existing problems will be presented together with the suggested approaches, techniques, and proposals for their solutions. Simple assembly line balancing problem One of the most studied balancing problems is called the Simple Assembly Line Balancing Problem - SALBP. In this case, some considerations are made: production of only one product, all tasks are processed in a certain manner (there are no alternatives); assembly lines with fixed cycle time, the line is considered serial, no supply lines or parallel; processing sequence of tasks must follow the precedence constraints, the times of the tasks are deterministic, the only restrictions to assign the tasks should be of precedence, a task cannot be split into two or more workstations, all stations are also equipped with machinery and operators [12], [7]. According to Cristo [13] the solution of all other problems of assembly line balancing are derived from SALBP. Although this case has been increasingly studied, real situations that meet the nine conditions are practically nonexistent. The problems that do not meet the nine previous conditions are classified as Generalized Assembly Line Balancing Problem - GALBP [5]. The SALBP can be divided into four types, as seen on Table 1. The first, called SALBP-F, checks the feasibility problem for a given cycle time and number of stations. The SALBP-1 minimizes the number of stations for a given cycle time, while SALBP-2 minimizes the cycle time for a certain number of stations. The SALBP-E is the most general problem, maximizing line efficiency, minimizing cycle time and number of stations [1], [5]. Table1 Versions of SALBP [5]. Cycle time No. of stations Given Minimize SALBP-F SALBP-1 SALBP-2 SALBP-E Given Minimize

Multiple optimization models that seek to support the decision process have been emerging under the term Assembly Lines Balancing. The first mathematical formalization was made by Salveson in 1955, and academic papers are mainly focused on the allocation of tasks to workstations ever since [12]. Recently more

22nd International Conference on Production Research

added to the station, operatorsare added when necessary, and the station utilization is calculated by equation 1. Tasks are added at the used station until its utilization is 100%, or until a reduction occurs, considering the new task and another operator when necessary. Then, a new station is considered, and the procedure is repeated on the next workstation for the remaining tasks [21]. Utilization, also called efficiency, is the percentage of time that the production line, or station, works, and is calculated by equation1, where: = number of stations; = cycle time; = total time required to assemble each unit [14], [22]: (1) Another heuristic also described by Gaither and Frazier [21] is the Maximum Task Time Heuristic. In this rule, tasks are allocated to a workstation, one at a time, following the order of precedence of tasks. If there are two or more allocabletasks at the same place, the one with the longest duration is chosen. This has the effect of designating tasks that are more difficult to fit at a workstationas soon as possible. Tasks with shorter durations are reserved to improve the solution, filling the idle times at stations [21]. This rule follows these steps [21]: 1. Suppose that i = 1, in whichi is the number of the workstation that is being formed. 2. Make a list of all the candidatetasks to be assigned to that workstation. For a task to be in that list, it must satisfy all of these conditions: a. It may not have been previously designated to that one or to any other workstation. b. The immediate predecessors must have been assigned to this workstation or to an earlier one. c. The total duration of this task and all other task durations already assigned to the workstation must be less than or equal to the duration of the cycle. If no candidate can be found, go to Step 4. 3. Assign the task in the list that has the longest duration to the workstation. 4. Stop assigning tasks to workstation i. This can occur in two manners. If there is no task in the list of candidates for the workstation, but there are still tasks to be assigned, set i = i +1 and return to Step 2. If there are no more unassigned tasks, the procedure is complete. Slack, Chambers and Johnston [23] quote a rule that follows the same first two steps and the fourth step of Maximum Task Time Heuristic, however the chosen task, performed in the third step, should be based on the amount of subsequent tasks, which is the task with the greatest number of tasks that can only be allocated after it. This rule is called the Number of Followers Heuristic. Farnes and Pereira [9] also use a heuristic that changes the task choice step, the Positional Weight Heuristic, which considers the sum of the time of subsequent tasks. Tasks are allocated in descending order of positional weight. Grzechca[24] compares eight heuristic techniques to determine their efficiency within the time problems of the tasks, and three others to the problem of labor costs. Among the eight techniques compared in the time problems, the only one that achieved the optimal solution was the Number of Immediate Followers Heuristic. Other heuristics were used: Backward Positional Weight Heuristic, similar to Positional Weight, inwhich the sum of the time of predecessor tasks and Number of Predecessors are considered, and the task choice is made

Figure 1 - Precedence graph for (A) Model A and (B) Model B [16]. Figure 3 contains the equivalent precedence graph for models A and B.

Figure 2 - Equivalent precedence graph [16]. 2.3 Mathematical model The balancing problems are generally formulated with a binary formulation problem, in which the variable xik is equal to 1, if the task (task group) is allocated at station (station group), otherwise it is equal to 0 [13], [19]. Mathematical models generate optimal solutions, howeverwithin bigger problems, as those encountered in the industries, the required time to obtain a solution makes them difficult to use. They are used either for minor problems, or for major problems with some considerations, in order to simplify them. 2.4 Heuristics For Hillier and Lieberman [20], a heuristic method is a procedure that can find a good feasible solution for a given class of problems, but which is not necessarily an optimal solution. According to Gaither and Frazier [21], heuristic methods, or the ones based on the simple rule, have been used to develop good solutions tobalancing problems of assembly lines. In spite of not resulting into optimal solutions, the obtainedsolutions are very advantageous. Below some heuristic ruleswill be presented. The Incremental Utilization Heuristic adds tasks to a workstation in a precedence task order. To each task

22nd International Conference on Production Research

based on the amount of predecessor tasks. According to the author, minimizing both cost and time is important so that the final product becomes more competitive. The COMSOAL heuristic was developed by Chrysler and reported by Arcus in 1966 in the article "COMSOAL - A Computer Method of Sequencing Operations for Assembly l.ine." This method randomly assigns tasks to workstations, and toeach iteration, it compares the current solution to the previous one and keeps the best solution [25]. To Togawa, Paula and Alvares [26], the COMSOAL method is efficient and simplewhen compared to other balancing methods. Heuristics tend to have a more simple use than the exact method or meta-heuristics, and can be implemented by utilizing tools such as spreadsheets, widely used in industries. Therefore, this work will be performed using eight heuristics: Incremental Utilization, Maximum Task Time, Number of Followers, Positional Weight, Number of Immediate Followers, Backward Positional Weight, Number of Predecessors and COMSOAL. 2.5 Meta-heuristics According to Sanches [27], the major problem of heuristic methods is the possibility of the method to get stuck in regions oflocal optimums, notexploring regions with also efficient solutions, or the optimal solution. The metaheuristics have been developed to solve this problem. The logic is to improve procedures for certain heuristic, in order to avoid stagnation in areas of localoptimum. The meta-heuristics can be divided into two categories: the first is the local search technique, which starts from an initial solution and explores neighbor solutions. Taboo Search and Simulated Annealing are examples of this technique. The second technique is the population search, which begins from a set of initial solutions, called the initial population. In this technique, operators are applied, attempting to generate new and better individuals for the population. Scatter Search and Genetic Algorithm are examples of this technique [28]. The different existing meta-heuristics tend to be versatile, because they are general solving methods, and can be applied to different kinds of problems. They possess advantages over heuristics for trying to minimize the stagnancy in areas of localoptimum. Regarding the mathematical formulation, its advantage is the lower time to obtain good solutions. 2.6 Simulation Banks [29] defines the simulation as the imitation of the real operation, process, or system for a period of time. Simulation is used to describe and analyze the behavior of a system, and it helps the system design and answer questions like "what if" about possible changes in the real system. For Santoro and Moraes [30] some applications for the simulationwithin the production are: design and analysis of material handling systems, manufacturing assembly lines andautomated storage systems. For Law and McComas [31] one of the disadvantages of the simulation is that it is not an optimization technique. The analyst simulates some numbers to the system configuration and chooses those with the best result. Some software that can be used for simulation is Arena, Promodel, Witness and SIMUL8 [27]. The simulation has a great utility when the objective is to test different possibilities, without the need to use the real system. But the simulation is performed only for the data chosen by the analyst, and a system optimization should be done separately if desired.

CASE STUDY

The case study was conducted at a large multinational enterpriseof the automotive industry, located in the state of Paran. For reasons of information confidentiality, specific characteristics of the enterprise and its products will not be detailed. The data that will be used is from one assembly line that produces four different types of vehicles, performing 208 different activities to complete the assembly. The assembly line consists of five stations, where 23 operators work. Tasks are distributed among the stations according to Table 2. The balancing done by the company uses the Maximum Task Time Heuristic method, but the result of this application was not provided by the company. Table 2 Number of tasks by station. Number of Tasks Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 63 29 39 44 33

The eight methods of assembly lines balancing were computationally implemented using the language Visual Basic for Applications - VBA, due to the extensive use of electronic spreadsheets by industries. For the COMSOAL method, the number of iterations was chosen by considering Togawa, Paula and Alvares [26], who used 100 iterations in their work, however, in order to ensure better results, the value used for the calculation in this work was of 1.000 iterations. The data from tasks and times used in this study were collected from the information system of the enterprise. Some activities that should be performed in sequence were grouped into only one task. The same task may have different assembly times in different models or may not be performed on all models. Precedence relationships of the tasks were collected at the assembly line. The assembly times were multiplied by a conversion factor, to protect enterprise data. The cycle time of 80 UT (units of time) was used in the calculations. The demand of each model is required to calculate the equivalent assembly times, and their values are in Table 3. Table 3 Demandof each model. Demand Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 10.51% 51.25% 17.79% 20.45%

The criteria used for the comparison of results were the number of operators required for assembling and utilization, which is calculated using equation 1. 4 RESULTS

The balancing was performed using the task times and precedence relationships collected in the case study. The eightbalancing heuristics were executed in two different manners: the first one considered each workstation individually, and also the tasks currently performed in it, and the second one used all 208 assembly tasks conducted on the five stations of the assembly line to perform the balancing.

22nd International Conference on Production Research

The resultsobtained by the application of the eight methods were compared and are presented in Table 4. Each assembly station and total columns show the balancing performed using the first manner for the five stations. The "All Tasks" column shows the balancing performed usingthe second manner. The comparison was performed using the number of operators required for the different used methods. From the number of operators, it is possible to calculate the

utilization of them by dividing the total time of assembly by the time available to assemble (number of operators multiplied by the cycle time). Figures 4 to 6 illustrate the graphics completed by the used balancing heuristic for each workstation, a total of five workstations, and for all 208 tasks. The columns representing each method are divided between the assembly time per cycle time (station time) and idle time.

Table 4:Comparison between the result of balancing among the eight methods and the one used by the enterprise. Station 1 Maximum Task Time Number of Immediate Followers Number of Operators Utilization Number of Operators Utilization Number of Operators Utilization Number of Operators Utilization Number of Operators Utilization Number of Operators Utilization Number of Operators Utilization Number of Operators Utilization 6 75.82% 6 Station 2 5 70.16% 5 Station 3 4 68.27% 4 Station 4 4 78,75% 4 Station 5 4 73,84% 4 23 73,44% 23 Total All Tasks 21 80,44% 21

COMSOAL Incremental Utilization Positional Weight Number of Followers Backward Positional Weight Number of Predecessors

75.82% 6 75.82% 6 75.82% 6 75.82% 6 75.82% 6

70.16% 4 87.70% 5 70.16% 5 70.16% 5 70.16% 5

68.27% 4 68.27% 4 68.27% 4 68.27% 4 68.27% 4

78.75% 4 78.75% 4 78.75% 4 78.75% 4 78.75% 4

73.84% 4 73.84% 4 73.84% 4 73.84% 4 73.84% 4

73.44% 22 76.78% 23 73.44% 23 73.44% 23 73.44% 23

80.44% 21 80.44% 20 84.46% 20 84.46% 20 84.46% 21

75.82% 6 75.82%

70.16% 5 70.16%

68.27% 4 68.27%

78.75% 4 78.75%

73.84% 4 73.84%

73.44% 23 73.44%

80.44% 21 80.44%

The eight methods used for balancing showed the same result, utilization of 75.82% of station 1. This means that for 24.18% of the cycle time, the station is idle. This idle time may occur due to tasks that own a long assembling time and cannot be divided among the operators of the station, leaving some available time for operators. Another reason for the idle time may be a need to perform a long time task before other tasks with shorter times. The equality in the solution of the eight methods at station 1 may be due to the characteristics of theused data. The characteristics that may have affected the solutions are: distribution of the time of tasks and the precedence graph form of these tasks. Both may have restricted the choices of tasks in the balancing calculations, not allowing the methods to present different solutions. Figure 4 shows the graph of the heuristics: Maximum Task Time, Number of Immediate Followers, Backward Positional Weight and Number of Predecessors. These four heuristics presented the same results for the five stations and for all tasks. However, the second manner (all tasks) was greater than the total of the first manner, obtaining respectively 80.44% and 73.44% of utilization of the assembly line.

Figure 3 Solution of Maximum Task Time, Number of Immediate Followers, Backward Positional Weight and Number of Predecessors heuristics.

22nd International Conference on Production Research

Figure 5 shows the COMSOALheuristic graph. This was the only heuristic that presented a different result for the balancing using each assembly station individually, with total utilization of the five stations of 76.78%, while the other heuristics achieved a 73.44%. However, the allocation of the second manner was also higher (80.44% of utilization) than the first manner (76.78% of utilization).

operators are needed for the second manner.This should have happened by the highest number of possibilities of choices among tasks when balancing is performed by the second manner. As Falkenauer [10] comments, one of the greatest difficulties of getting the assembly line to balance is that the rebalancing isactuallyperformed. The difference between the two manners used to produce the balance, either considering each station, or considering all 208 tasks, the eight heuristics occur due to: the identity of the stations each station has its own equipment, tools, space constraints and processes, precluding any change of station tasks, and the tasks of final stations can be allocated in the initial stations, filling the working time ofthe operators. It is important to remark that within the two manners of performing the balancing, the results of the used methods depend on the existingprecedence, on the distribution of tasks by their length (longer or shorter) during the assembly process, not to mentionthe possibilities of breaking such tasks if they are of excessive length in relation to the cycle time. 5 CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Figure 4 - Solution of COMSOAL heuristic. Figure 6 shows the graph of the heuristics: Incremental Utilization, Positional Weight and Number of Followers. These three heuristics showed the same results for the different balancing performed, considering both individual stations and all tasks. The results in balancing using all tasks were the best for these heuristics, obtaining assembly line utilization of 84.46%, since other heuristics had a utilization of 80.44%. However COMSOAL heuristics obtained the best utilization value (76.78%) when the balancing was performed by the first manner.

This work presents a theoretical referential on assembly lines and the Assembly Line Balancing Problem. This was motivated by the importance of the issue, balancing assembly lines, for industries in the region and the data provided by one of these enterprises. In the balancing, eight heuristics methodswerecompared, which were implemented computationally using electronic spreadsheets in order to facilitate future use by industries. The balancing was performed in two different manners, one by separating the tasks of assembly stations where they belong, considering each station individually, and another considering the 208 tasks. The results of the heuristics varied little among themselves, but the two manners to perform the balancing showed greater variation (7%). This is due to some factors that cannot be considered in the implementation of balancing heuristics. Some studies fall into some of these factors in the calculation of the balancing meta-heuristics. As recommendations for future work, it can be mentioned the comparison between balancing heuristics and metaheuristics, considering the results obtained and the computational time needed. The balancing by inserting some of the factors that influence the balance that is found in the practice, such as the place of an activity in the vehicle, and the necessary tools, can be performed. A study on the influence of times and the precedence graph formatof the tasks in the results of balancing methods is another recommendation. 6 REFERENCES

Figure 5 - Solution of Incremental Utilization, Positional Weight and Number of Followers heuristics. The balancing using 208 tasks, the second manner, when compared withthe total of thebalancing by workstations, the first manner, requires fewer operators for assembling tasks. Subject to the result of the best method in each case, the first manner requires 22 operators, whereas 20

[1] Boysen, N., Fliedner, M., Scholl, A., 2008, Assembly line balancing: Which model to use when?, International Journal of Production Economics, 111, 509-528. [2] Amen, M., 2001, Heuristic methods for cost-oriented assembly line balancing: A comparison on solution quality and computing time, International Journal of Production Economics, 69, 255-264. [3] Smith, A., 1983, A riqueza das naes: investigao sobre sua natureza e suas causas. So Paulo: Nova Cultura.

22nd International Conference on Production Research

[4] Souza, M. C. F., Yamada, M. C., Porto, A. J. V., Gonalves, E. V., 2003, Anlise da alocao de mo-deobra em linhas de multimodelos de produtos com demanda varivel atravs do uso da simulao: um estudo de caso, Revista Produo, 13, 63-77. [5] Becker, C., Scholl, A., 2006, A survey on problems and methods in generalized assembly line balancing, European Journal of Operational Research, 168, 694-715. [6] Kimms, A., 2000, Minimal investment budgets for flow line configuration, Institute of Industrial Engineers Transactions, 32, 287-298. [7] Scholl, A., Boysen, N., Fliedner, M., 2009, Optimally solving the alternative subgraphs assembly line balancing problem, Annals of Operations Research, 172, 243-258. [8] Magato, L., Rodrigues, L. C. A., Marcilio, I., Skraba, M., 2011, Otimizao do balanceamento de uma linha de montagem de cabines de caminhes por meio de programao linear inteira mista, Proc. of XLIII SBPO, Ubatuba, 1-12. [9] Farnes, V. C. F., Pereira, N. A., 2007, Balanceamento de linha de montagem com o uso de heurstica e simulao: estudo de caso na linha branca, Gesto da Produo, Operaes e Sistemas, 2,125-136. [10] Falkenauer, E., 2005, Line balancing in the real world, Proc. of International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management, Lyon, 360-370. [11] Smiderle, C. D., Vito, S. L., Fries, C. E., 1997, A busca da eficincia e a importncia do balanceamento de linhas de produo. Proc. of XVII ENEP, Gramado, 1-8. [12] Boysen, N., Fliedner, M., Scholl, A., 2007, A classication of assembly line balancing problems, European Journal of Operational Research, 183, 674-693. [13] Cristo, R. L. D., 2010, Balanceamento de Linhas de Montagem com Uso de Algoritmo Gentico para o Caso de Linhas Simples e Extenses, Master's thesis, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianpolis. [14] Ritzman, L. P., Krajewski, L. J., 2004, Administrao da Produo e Operaes, So Paulo: Pearson Prentice Hall. [15] Bock, S., 2008, Using distributed search methods for balancing mixed-model assembly lines in the automotive industry, OR Spectrum, 30, 551-578. [16] Gerhardt, M. P., 2005, Sistemtica para Aplicao de Procedimentos de Balanceamento em Linhas de Montagem Multi-modelos, Master's thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre. [17] Gkcen, H., Erel, E., 1998, Binary Integer Formulation for Mixed-Model Assembly Line Balancing Problem, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 34, 451-461. [18] Simaria, A. S., Vilarinho, P. M., 2004, A genetic algorithm based approach to the mixed-model assembly line balancing problem of type II, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 47, 391-407. [19] Boysen, N., Fliedner, M., 2008, A versatile algorithm for assembly line balancing, European Journal of Operational Research, 184, 39-56. [20] Hillier, F. S., Lieberman, G. J., 2010, Introduo pesquisa operacional, So Paulo: McGraw-Hill. [21] Gaither, N., Frazier, G., 2002, Administrao da Produo e Operaes, So Paulo: Cengage Learning. [22] Reid, D. R., Sanders, N. R., 2005, Gesto de operaes, Rio de Janeiro: LTC. [23] Slack, N., Chambers, S., Johnston, R., 2009, Administrao da produo, So Paulo: Atlas.

[24] Grzechca, W., 2008, Estimation of Time and Cost Oriented Assembly Line Balancing Problem, Proc. of 19th International Conference on Systems Engineering, Las Vegas, 248-253. [25] Groover, M. P., 2001, Automation, production systems, and computer integrated manufacturing, Prentice-Hall. [26] Togawa, E. T., de Paula, J. V. D., lvares, A. J., 2001, Sistema para balanceamento de linhas de montagem baseado no mtodo COMSOAL, Proc. of XVI Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Mecnica, Uberlndia, 1-8. [27] Sanches, A. L., 2010, Sequenciamento de Linhas de Montagem Mltiplas em Ambiente de Produo Enxuta Utilizando Simulao, Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Guaratinguet. [28] Hrner, D., 2009, Resoluo do problema das pmedianas no capacitado: Uma comparao de tcnicas heursticas, Master's thesis, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianpolis. [29] Banks, J., 1999, Introduction to Simulation, Proc. of Simulation Conference, Phoenix, 7-13. [30] Santoro, M. C., Moraes, L. H., 2000, Simulao de uma linha de montagem de motores, Gesto & Prodruo, 7, 338-351. [31] Law, A. M., Mccomas, M. G., 2000, Simulation-Based Optimization, Proc. of Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, 46-49.