Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 49:1251–1259
DOI 10.1007/s00170-010-2704-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Dynamic sequencing of jobs on conveyor systems
for minimizing changeovers
Yong-Hee Han & Chen Zhou
Received: 8 February 2010 / Accepted: 26 April 2010 / Published online: 14 May 2010
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010
Abstract This research investigates the problem of mini-
mizing setup costs in resequencing jobs in a system that
consists of first-in-first-out conveyor segments. Sequence
changes are limited at conveyor junctions in these systems.
We first define the generalized problem of resequencing
jobs to queues at intersections with precedence relationship
between jobs. Sequential ordering problem is a special case
of the above problem. Then, we limit our scope to the
conveyor segment selection problem at a diverging junction
with precedence relationship among jobs. We model it as a
binary integer program. We show that the problem can be
modeled as an assignment problem when load balancing is
omitted. We also propose a Lagrangian relaxation-based
algorithm, which utilizes a special problem structure for
getting an optimal solution, as well as a heuristic algorithm
for quickly getting a near-optimal solution with load
balancing. Finally, we discuss the case study which
motivated this research, details of the discrete-event
simulation model we developed, and numerical results.
Keywords Resequencing . Sequential ordering problem .
Conveyor systems . Setup minimization . Line balancing .
Simulation
Y.-H. Han (*)
Device Solution Division, Samsung Electronics,
Yongin, South Korea
e-mail: hyhkorea@hotmail.com
C. Zhou
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA, USA
1 Introduction
Information technology and computerized automation have
greatly improved flexibility in modern manufacturing.
Today, many high-volume production systems may appear
to be old-fashioned transfer lines but in fact are highly
flexible, producing a large family of products such as
electronics, automobiles, and other consumer goods. One
objective of striving for flexibility is to reduce the setup or
changeover cost, or time to respond to the increasing
diversity of customer demands. However, even the most
flexible systems may incur some setups, which can be
minimized by changing item sequence.
Conveyors are the most popular material transfer
mechanism in high-volume production. Conveyors can
transfer large amounts of material with simple motion
control and provide buffer space. However, a conveyor
segment is constrained to operate in a first-in-first-out (FIFO)
principle. Changing sequence requires mechanisms such as
bypass, transfer, merge, diverge, spur, automated storage and
retrieval system (AS/RS), or off-line buffers (a conveyor
itself is considered an in-line buffer). Each mechanism has its
own merits and limitations. The use of mechanisms
dedicated to sequence change costs money and takes up
floor space. This is especially true when transporting large
items such as cars.
One way to resequence is to connect upstream conveyors
with downstream conveyors at a junction as illustrated in
Fig. 1. Improving control using existing junctions is
preferred to adding special mechanisms in terms of
investment cost and sometimes floor space usage. This
paper models and solves setup reduction problem based on
given conveyor junctions. More specifically, given that a
single upstream conveyor diverges into multiple down-
stream conveyors, this paper discusses an optimal line
1252
selection problem at the junction point with the objective of
minimizing setup cost.
The remaining portion of this paper is organized as
follows: After the literature review in Section 2, we define
mathematical models in Section 3 and discuss algorithms
for finding solutions in Sections 4 and 5. Then, we discuss
the case study as well as the associated discrete-event
simulation modeling in Section 6. Finally, we summarize
the results and contributions in Section 7.
2 Literature review
In automotive painting, if a line storage system (called a
selectivity bank, color rescheduling storage, or color
selection lane in automobile manufacturing industry)
merges to a downstream conveyor containing a paint
workstation(s), the job selection problem for any given
state of the selectivity bank is modeled as a sequential
ordering problem (SOP). SOP, first defined by [1], is a
well-known problem defined as an asymmetric Hamiltonian
path problem with precedence constraints. SOP is NP-hard
[2] and closely related to the asymmetric traveling salesman
problem with precedence constraints. Reference [3] applied
a branch-and-bound algorithm to SOP.
Reference [4] addressed the resequencing problem using
off-line buffer where there is limited flexibility on the
number of positions a job can move forward or backward
relative to its original position. The authors proposed a
heuristic algorithm which decomposes the problem of
N-buffers into N problems with one buffer each. They also
addressed the resequencing and feature assignment problem
(RFAP), which considers resequencing jobs and assigning
job attributes simultaneously. Reference [5] discussed how
to obtain an optimal solution for RFAP by repeated search
algorithm using beam search heuristic. Reference [6]
reported a survey on overall sequencing problems including
resequencing problems.
outgoing conveyors
incoming conveyor
conveyor 1 blue red white blue
conveyor 2
outgoing conveyors
blue blue
incoming conveyor
conveyor 1
red white red
conveyor 2
Fig. 1 Setup reduction example
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 49:1251–1259
References [7], [8], and [9] discussed algorithms for
assigning trucks to paint booths in a truck facility to
minimize total makespan and the number of paint flushes.
They applied market-based bidding algorithms to an
automobile assembly plant of General Motors and reported
100% increase in average attribute block size. Reference
[10] applied an ant colony optimization (ACO) algorithm to
the SOP. ACO, of which, potentials and limitations are
explained in [11] and [12], is asserted to be a good choice
for SOP when time and computational resources are
limited. Reference [13] compared the market-based ap-
proach proposed in [2] with ant-inspired response threshold
algorithm and used genetic algorithm for getting parameter
values for the above two algorithms. Reference [14]
simulated market-based algorithm as well as ant-inspired
algorithm. They found that some parameters in each
algorithm could be removed since they are very insensitive
to the objective function value. All the above approaches
use artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to tackle the
constrained sequencing problem. These AI approaches are
easy to implement and robust to system disruptions such as
paint booth breakdowns.
Reference [15] proposed the use of temporary rese-
quencing, facilitated by an AS/RS. The AS/RS acts as a
random access off-line buffer that can store jobs before and
after painting. The order for painting jobs can be perturbed
using this buffer to create larger paint blocks and then to
restore the original sequence after painting. Reference [16]
examined the effect of forming large attribute blocks at an
automotive assembly plant. Using discrete-event simula-
tion, it was shown that a simple block protection rule can
significantly reduce setup cost when it is coupled with
pre- and post-sequencing using a fully flexible AS/RS.
However, optimality is not guaranteed in any AI or
simulation approach discussed above. In optimization
approaches, reference [17] was the first to model the
constrained sequencing problem as an optimization prob-
lem and to get an upper bound. They used an AS/RS to
increase the size of attribute blocks while maintaining a
workload-balanced vehicle sequence. More specifically, the
problem is how to perturb the original job flow around the
red vehicle painting station to reduce attribute setup with a
constraint of not violating maximum allowable deviation
from the original sequence. They modeled the problem as a
traveling salesman problem with time windows and
succeeded in reducing the model to a manageable size
and getting very tight bounds—empirically within 2.5% of
optimality—by exploiting the special problem structure.
However, in many such systems, there is no AS/RS.
The use of junctions in conveyor systems is also
applicable in other conveyorized production systems such
as surface mount technology (SMT) lines [18] or multistage
production processes [19]. More specifically, [18] studied
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 49:1251–1259
the use of a conveyor junction to improve productivity of
SMT lines. The setup reduction problem with constrained
sequencing also occurs in rail classification yards [20].
However, the number of setups is equal to the number of
re-humping to achieve the predefined sequence. The
sequence-dependent setup problem has been addressed in
the scheduling and mixed assembly line literature. However,
they assume that jobs are not constrained by the sequence
change mechanism.
In this paper, we discuss the problem of finding a job
sequence for each downstream conveyor with the objective
of minimizing total setup cost subject to the FIFO
precedence constraint among jobs transported from a single
upstream conveyor. This problem is different in many
aspects from other approaches as follows: (1) Resequencing
using a diverging junction is restricted by precedence
constraints, while resequencing using an AS/RS is not. (2)
SOP is the decision-making problem on a merging junction,
while we model the decision-making problem on a
diverging junction. (3) Our model incorporates line balanc-
ing constraints (which is very important in assigning jobs
among multiple lines in a real manufacturing environment),
while most literature does not consider it. To distinguish
SOP from the model discussed in this paper, we denote the
decision-making problem on a diverging junction as
sequential ordering problem on a diverging junction
(SOPDJ) thereafter.
3 SOPGE and SOPDJ model
We consider a directed graph G=(Y∪Z, U∪V∪W∪X) where
Y and Z correspond to jobs 1,…, N and queues
1; . . . ; QðY þ Z ¼ jY [ Z jÞ, while U, V, W, and X corre-
spond to arcs (i, q), (q, j), (q′, q), and (i, j), respectively,
where i, j∈Y and q, q′∈Z. Arc (i, j) in X is associated with
representing the setup cost associated with the finishing job
(e.g., car painting) i and starting job j. Setup cost is
assumed to occur only when the attributes (such as colors in
the case of car painting) of two consecutive jobs processed
on a queue are different. Arc (q, j) in V is associated with
C q 2 < representing the setup cost related with queue q
itself, while no cost is associated with any arc in U and W.
Note that this association can be reversed, i.e., if arc (i, q) in
U is associated with cost C q , then arc (q, j) in V is
associated with zero cost. Precedence constraints are given
by an additional acyclic digraph G0 ¼ ðY; PÞ; P 
fði; jÞ=i; j 2 Y g. An arc (i, j)∈P if i has to precede j in
any feasible solution. P has the transitive property (i.e., if
(i, j)∈P and (j, k)∈P, then (i, k)∈P).
With the above definitions, we can define the sequential
ordering problem in generalized environments (SOPGE) as
the problem of finding a job sequence for each queue in G
1253


that minimizes total setup cost Cij þ C q subject to
precedence constraints P, assuming that no job is excluded
in the sequence. As a network problem, SOPGE is the
problem of finding mutually exclusive directed cycles
S1,…, Sm, covering all nodes in graph Gði:e:; S1 [ . . .
[Sm ¼ Y [ Z; Sq \ Sq ; ¼ f;g; 1  q; q0  m  QÞ w i t h
minimal cost in G under precedence constraints P.
Therefore, SOP is a special case of SOPGE where jZ j ¼ 1
and W ¼ f;g. Note that SOP can also be defined as the
problem of finding a feasible Hamiltonian cycle with
minimal cost in G under precedence constraints P. SOP
can also be categorized as a general case of the asymmetric
traveling salesman problem [10]. A job selection problem
from multiple lanes at a selectivity bank to a downstream
conveyor is one special case of SOP.
SOPDJ, which is the subject of this paper, is defined as
another special case of SOPGE, where P0 ¼ fði; jÞ=i < j;
ði; jÞ 2 X g. Note that P′ represents the situation where the
FIFO precedence relationship holds for every job in Y. In the
real world, SOPDJ can be associated with the conveyor
selection problem when a single upstream conveyor transports
jobs into multiple downstream conveyors at a junction point.
Figure 2 illustrates a feasible solution of an SOPDJ instance
derived from the situation described in Fig. 1, where Y ¼
f1; . . . ; 5g; Z ¼ fa; bg; P0 ¼ fð1; 2Þ; ð1; 3Þ; ð1; 4Þ; ð1; 5Þ;
ð2; 3Þ; ð2; 4Þ; ð2; 5Þ; ð3; 4Þ; ð3; 5Þ; ð4; 5Þg.
Since SOP, a special case of SOPGE, is NP-hard,
SOPGE is also NP-hard [1]. This means that getting an
optimal solution is not practical for large-size problems.
While much research efforts have been made in modeling
and solving SOP, there has been no mathematical model or
results for SOPDJ. Therefore, we concentrate on solution
methodology on SOPDJ in this paper. First, we define
notations as follows:

1 if job i is the direct predecessor of job j
xij
0 otherwise

1 if i is the last job in conveyor q
uiq
0 otherwise

1 if j is the first job in conveyor q
vqj
0 otherwise
8
< 1 if conveyor q0 is assigned no job and
wq0 q conveyor q is assigned at least a job
:
0 otherwise
Q Number of downstream conveyors
N Number of jobs
H(j) Attribute of job j
L Maximum number of jobs which can be
consecutively assigned to any conveyor without
blocking (0≤L≤N)
1254 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 49:1251–1259

x14 consecutive jobs are assigned to any conveyor. For

x23 x35 example, if L=3 in the example discussed in Fig. 1, then
assigning more than three consecutive jobs should be
job blue red white blue red
prohibited. Therefore, the corresponding line balancing
1 2 3 4 5
constraints should be x12 +x23 +x34 ≤2 and x23 +x34 +x45 ≤2.
va1 vb2 u4a u5b In general, SOPDJ is NP-hard. Computational effort is
conveyor particularly a concern because decisions must be made
a b under tight constraints (i.e., until the arrival of the next job
at the end of an upstream conveyor). Therefore, two
Fig. 2 Network representation of a reasible solution of the SOPDJ solution approaches are presented as follows: First, we
example in Fig. 1 show that SOPDJ without Eq. 6 can be modeled as an
assignment problem in Section 4. Second, we propose a
Lagrangian relaxation-based algorithm exploiting the special
Then, Cij is determined by H(i) and H(j). We note that
problem structure, as well as a heuristic algorithm.
Cij =0 if H(i)=H(j) by definition. We also note that L is
related with load balancing limitation. If more than L jobs
are consecutively assigned to a specific conveyor, then the
4 Solution methodology when line balancing
whole throughput of the system would be hurt because of
can be ignored
blocking. Then, SOPDJ can be formulated as a binary
integer program (BIP) as follows:
Constraint Eq. 6 in Section 3 represents line balancing
XN1 XN XQ XN
Minimize C x þ C v ð1Þ restriction, which occurs when the conveyor processing
i¼1 j¼iþ1 ij ij q¼1 j¼1 q qi
capacity (i.e., the minimum of the processing rate of each
subject to workstation in the conveyor) is limited. However, if the
XN XQ conveyor processing capacity is so high that all jobs in any
j¼iþ1
x ij þ u ¼1
q¼1 iq
8i ð2Þ arbitrarily long job sequence may be assigned to any
specific downstream conveyor without causing any
Xj1 XQ throughput loss, Eq. 6 may be removed. If Eq. 6 is
x
i¼1 ij
þ v
q¼1 qj
¼1 8j ð3Þ removed, Eq. 7 can also be removed without loss of
generality because of the following reasoning. If the MIP
XN XQ formulation in Section 3 is represented as “minimize c
uiq þ wq0 q ¼ 1 8q ð4Þ subject to Ax=b where b is a binary variables vector,” then
i¼1 q0 ¼1
A is totally unimodular because it is composed of (0, 1, −1),
has two non-zero entries in each column, and the
XN XQ
v þ
j¼1 qj q0 ¼1
wqq0 ¼ 1 8q ð5Þ summation of each column equals zero [21]. Furthermore,
if A is totally unimodular and each element of b is integer-
valued, then the optimal solution assigns all variables
XL1
j¼0
xrþj;rþjþ1  L  1 8r 2 f1; . . . ; N  Lg ð6Þ integer values (see [22] for a proof). Therefore, Eq. 7 can
be removed. The resulting linear program (LP) formulation
becomes an assignment problem formulation. Modeling
xij ; uiq ; vqj ; wq 0 q 2 f0; 1g 8i; j; q; q 0 ð7Þ SOPDJ as an assignment problem has two advantages:
applicability to on-line decision-making situations and no
Objective Eq. 1 sums up all setup costs and conveyor need for extra hardware. Usually, SOPDJ needs to be
P PN
installation costs. We note that Q j¼1 C q vqj in Eq. 1 solved within a minute because in a most manufacturing
PQ PN q¼1
can be replaced by q¼1 i¼1 C q u iq. Each job is either environment, a job exits the upstream conveyor within
assigned a successor or becomes the last job of a conveyor every minute. Additionally, in most cases, conveyor
by Eq. 2, while each job is either assigned a predecessor or systems in industrial environments are controlled by
becomes the first job of a conveyor by Eq. 3. P′ in SOPDJ, programmable logic controllers (PLCs) which have limited
as illustrated in Fig. 2, limits the index i to be smaller than j memory, usually a few megabytes, and CPU power. Since
in Eqs. 2 and 3. Each conveyor is assigned either one first Hungarian method is “light” enough to be implemented on
job or none by Eq. 4. Similarly, Eq. 5 forces that each a PLC, it is a cheaper solution compared to other MIP-
conveyor is assigned either one last job or none. Note that if based or LP-based algorithms requiring an external system
ujq′ =wq′q =1, job j is the last job of conveyor q, not q′. Line —where the MIP/LP solver is loaded—and a network
balancing constraint Eq. 6 forces that no more than L module connecting the external system and the PLC.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 49:1251–1259 1255

5 Solution methodology when line balancing needs Mq Number of consecutive jobs which have been
to be explicitly considered assigned to conveyor q until now
Eq Total number of jobs currently loaded on conveyor q
Contrary to the situation in Section 4, if the conveyor
processing capacity is not high enough, then Eq. 6 cannot
be removed, resulting in an NP-hard formulation. In this // initialize (conveyor 0 is an artificial conveyor)
section, we discuss two efficient algorithms—one takes a
step 1: Gq for q Q, k 1, q* ,q
longer time to obtain the optimal solution, while the other
Eq* arbitrarily large number
takes less time to obtain near-optimal solution.
The Lagrangian relaxation problem of SOPDJ can be
// case for D1
defined by associating nonnegative Lagrangian multipliers
step 2: q* = argminq {Eq | = 0, Mq L, q Q}
1r with Eq. 6 and bringing them into the objective function
if (q* 0), then
as follows:
goto step 5
P 1 PN PN
Minimize Ni¼1 j¼iþ1 Cij xij þ j¼iþ1 C q vqj þ
PNL
PL1  // case for Dk (k )
r¼1 lr j¼0 xrþj;rþjþ1  L þ 1 step 3: k k+1
q
if (q Q|) and (k prespecified limit), then
subject to Eqs. 2–5
{
Note that Eq. 7 is removed because of the same
if ( = 0) and (Mq L), then
reasoning discussed in Section 4. Then, the optimal
{
solution to SOPDJ can be obtained by solving a sequence
Gq Gq 10-k
of these Lagrangian subproblems with different values of }
the l1 ; . . . ; lN L , which are updated using the subgradient q q+1
optimization technique. We note that for each choice of k k+1
l1 ; . . . ; lN L value, the Lagrangian subproblem is an }
assignment problem which can be solved in O(N3) by the
Hungarian method. // choose q* with the biggest Gq value
This approach is much more efficient than solving BIP step 4: q* = argmaxq {Gq | Mq L, q Q}
directly. However, the total number of iterations can be
nontrivial, resulting in relatively longer computation time in // take action, update variable values, and repeat the
algorithm
getting the optimal solution. Therefore, the implementation
step 5: send D1 to conveyor q*
of the algorithm in a real manufacturing environment may Fq* H(D1)
be restricted because of the following reasons. First, in a
Dk Dk+1 for k
real manufacturing environment, the decision lag at each
conveyor control point must be shorter than the time Mq* Mq* + 1
Eq* Eq* + 1
between the minimum values of inter-arrival time of
adjacent jobs. However, many conveyor systems are Mq 0 for k Q, k q*
controlled by legacy PLCs having low computational goto step 1
power and small memory capacity. Therefore, solving
optimally within allowed time limit (half minute in our
case study) may be difficult on these systems. Second, on

At step 2, the algorithm searches for the downstream
most legacy PLCs, the logic should be coded as a ladder conveyor q where setup cost CD1 ; Fq associated with the
diagram or function blocks which is not suitable for job to be transferred now (D1) and the last job of
programming complex logic such as the above algorithm. downstream conveyor q (Fq) becomes zero. The search is
Therefore, for practical purpose, we propose a heuristic repeated for all conveyors to find one (q*) with the zero-
algorithm as follows: associated setup cost. If such a conveyor is found, then D1
is sent to conveyor q*, and the algorithm is restarted with
Fq The last job which entered downstream conveyor q the variables updated at step 5. Otherwise, at step 3, for
Dk The kth job in the upstream conveyor to be transferred Dk+1 (k≥2), the similar search is conducted as in step 2, and
to one of downstream conveyors (e.g., D1 =the job to Gq is updated if the conveyor having zero-associated setup
be transferred now) cost is found. Sending job D1 to conveyors having low Gq
q* The selected downstream conveyor for transfer of D1 value should be avoided as much as possible to maximize
Gq Fitness value of conveyor q the probability of matching job Dk with job Fq. For
1256
example, if H(D2)=H(Fa), H(D2)≠H(Fb), and H(D3)=H
(Fc), then Ga =−10−1, Gb =0, and Gc =−10−2. Since Gb >Ga
>Gc, job D1 is sent to conveyor b. We note the following:
(1) The load balancing constraint is observed throughout
this algorithm by keeping Mq ≤L. (2) This algorithm can be
customized to reflect special customer needs (e.g., the total
number of jobs currently loaded on conveyor (Eq) is used as
the second priority for selecting conveyor, the second
priority in this algorithm). (3) This algorithm can be
extended for cases having multiple upstream and multiple
downstream conveyors.
6 Case study and performance evaluation
6.1 Case study
SOPDJ was motivated by a project with an automotive
assembly plant. The initial objective of the project was to
reduce the total setup costs via changing the control logic in
PLC at diverging and merging points of the conveyor
system. Such changes would require little interruption in
production and are relatively inexpensive compared to other
alternatives using dedicated equipment for sequence
change. We analyzed the system and built a detailed
discrete-event simulation model. Then, we developed new
control logic and compared it with the existing one using
the simulation model.
Automotive assembly is complex, involving many steps
of processes and assembly. Painting is one of the major
processes. The dealer's orders normally consist of cars with
different colors. Frequent color changes are unavoidable if
the cars in a dealer's order are not separated far apart.
Fig. 3 Simulation model
screenshot
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 49:1251–1259
However, color changes result in wasted paint, solvent (for
removing residual paint from paint gun nozzles and
connecting hoses), and time. Moreover, the solvent as well
as the paint usually contains pollutants such as volatile
organic compounds. There have been several approaches to
deal with this problem. One approach is to batch cars with
the same color. This approach requires excessive storage
space and equipment and as well as causes higher WIP and
longer cycle time. Another approach is to design the system
with reduced cost/time in color change. The plant in the
case study adopted the second approach. The system nearly
eliminated extra setup time. However, color change still
results in some wasted paint and solvent.
The paint shop process consists of a few phases.
Vehicles enter the first phase as solid sheet metal bodies
(body-in-white) that are fed from the body shop and exit the
last phase painted (at several paint booths) and burnt (at a
few ovens). The main processes include prime spray, prime
oven, dry sand, enamel spray, and enamel oven. The bodies
move through these processes on conveyors. The system
has ten diverging conveyor junctions and merging junctions
in front of the prime ovens, the prime storage area, and the
enamel spray booths. It also has one FIFO off-line buffer in
front of the paint booth.
The conveyor system in the paint shop is controlled by
20 PLCs, each managing one control point in the system.
The PLCs are linked with sensors and actuators located
nearby via I/Os. There is no data communication among the
PLCs. Furthermore, the logic in the PLC is implemented as
ladder diagrams. Ladder diagrams are convenient for
logical operation but limited in computation, data handling,
and communications. Therefore, implementing an optimi-
zation algorithm requires additional hardware and interface,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 49:1251–1259 1257

resulting in not being considered in the initial phase We used AutoMod platform mainly because of its 3D
because of the associated investment cost. Reference [23] animation capability, convenience for conveyorized manu-
describes the details of the case study. facturing process modeling, and support for customizable
control logic. Figure 3 shows a screenshot of the simulation
6.2 Discrete-event simulation modeling and data collection model and [24] describes the details of the developed
simulation model.
Discrete-event simulation can accommodate much more
realistic situations than is possible with analytical models, 6.3 Prior algorithm
such as time delays, machine failure, impact on down-
stream workstations, shared resources, and a variety of The prior algorithm implemented on PLCs controlling
probability distributions to simulate randomness in the diverging junction points of the paint shop discussed in
entire system. In the project we conducted, building a the case study is as follows:
simulation model was required to verify that our algorithms // initialize
can perform well in such realistic situations, as well as to step 1: k q
persuade plant managers to apply our algorithms to real
manufacturing environments with the aid of three- // case for D1
dimensional (3D) animation capability of the simulation step 2: q* = argminq {Eq | = 0, Mq L, q Q}
model. if (q*
To build the simulation model, we needed information goto step 4
on conveyor configuration, incoming car sequence, the
processing rate of each workstation on the conveyor, // choose q* with the smallest Eq value
existing control logic, and transfer times. The AutoCAD step 3: q* = argminq {Eq | Mq L, q Q}
file for conveyor configuration was linked to the simulation
model for dimensional accuracy. For car sequence infor- // take action, update variable values, and repeat the
algorithm
mation, we manually collected the attribute sequence data
step 4: send D1 to conveyor q*
for 4,897 cars—equivalent to 82 h of production volume. Fq* H(D1)
The color frequency distribution of the manually collected
Dk Dk+1 for k
data matched historical data stored in the database
statistically. We then created pseudo-random sequences Mq* Mq* + 1
Eq* Eq* + 1
based on the color distribution and used them in the
simulation model. All other information, including data on Mq 0 for k Q, k q*
conveyor speed and processing rate of each workstation, goto step 1
was derived from the plant database. We note that the
simulation model showed that the number of reduced setups At step 2, the algorithm searches

forthe downstream
is slightly higher on manually collected sequence data. It is conveyor q where the setup cost CD1 ; Fq associated with
suspected that such a difference is due to the fact that the the job to be transferred now (D1) and the last job of
pseudo-random sequence is independent and identically downstream conveyor q; Fq becomes zero. The search is
distributed, while the manually connected sequence is not. repeated for all conveyors to find one (q*) with the zero-

Fig. 4 Performance evaluation

results of the proposed
algorithms
1258
Fig. 5 Relative performance
compared to the prior algorithm
associated setup cost. If such a conveyor is found, then D1
is sent to conveyor q*, and the algorithm is restarted with
the variables updated at step 5. Otherwise, the conveyor
having the smallest number of cars is selected, and step 5 is
executed.
We note that the above algorithm has been implemented
by a third-party conveyor maintenance company reflecting
the following requests from the paint shop managers: (1)
Match the same color as much as possible. (2) If (1) is
impossible, then choose the conveyor with the least number
of cars.
6.4 Performance evaluation
As a performance indicator, we use the grouping ratio, the
number of total jobs divided by the number of total setups.
Grouping ratio is generally used for evaluating resequenc-
ing efficiency in automotive industry. Figure 4 shows the
performance comparisons using original sequence, prior
algorithm, proposed heuristic algorithm, and proposed
Lagrangian relaxation-based algorithm. The field data used
for comparison are composed of 4,897 jobs having nine
different colors and three downstream conveyors. We also
tested the algorithms for the randomly generated job
sequence with varying number of different colors and
Fig. 6 Relationship between the
number of downstream convey-
ors and the number of setups
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 49:1251–1259
downstream conveyors of which the results has been
summarized in Fig. 4.
Figure 5 shows that the proposed heuristic algorithm
increases the grouping ratio by around 33%, and the
proposed Lagrangian relaxation-based algorithm by around
49%, compared to the prior algorithm. No noticeable
difference in reduced percentage value between the field
data and the randomly generated data has been observed.
Therefore, considering $5 setup (i.e., paint purge) cost
per car and 200∼400K cars produced per year, the
manufacturer in the case study estimated that 126∼251K
dollars (in case of proposed heuristic algorithm) and
170∼340K dollars (in case of proposed Lagrangian
relaxation-based algorithm) can be saved on that paint shop
annually. For selecting the algorithm to be applied, one
needs to consider various factors such as current infrastruc-
ture of the plant, total investment cost (expected to be less
than 100K dollars for the proposed heuristic algorithm and
300K dollars for the proposed Lagrangian relaxation-based
algorithm), and additional requirements that need to be
incorporated into the algorithm (e.g., time constraints in
workstation or required return-on-investment value). We
note that the proposed algorithm can be used in conjunction
with a dedicated line storage system, or applied to multiple
diverging junction points simultaneously, further increasing
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 49:1251–1259
the grouping ratio. We also note that reducing setups can
reduce environmental impact, as the cleaning solvents often
contain environmental pollutants such as volatile organic
compounds, repair rate, and worker workload on painting
workstations.
Finally, we also investigated the relationship between the
number of downstream conveyors and the number of
incurred setups for a car sequence having ten different
colors and initial 438 setups in Fig. 6. We observed that the
number of setups becomes zero when the number of
conveyors is equal or greater than the number of different
colors, while the number of setups does not reduce at all if
the number of conveyors equals one because resequencing
cannot occur. We also note that the relationship between the
number of different colors of the cars and the number of
setups is positively correlated.
7 Summary contribution
In this paper, we first defined SOPGE as the problem of
finding a job sequence for each queue that minimizes total
setup cost subject to the precedence constraints among jobs.
Then, as a special case of SOPGE, SOPDJ was defined for
jobs transported from an upstream conveyor to multiple
downstream conveyors having FIFO discipline. Then, we
modeled SOPDJ as BIP and proved that SOPDJ can be
converted to an assignment problem if the load balancing
constraints can be ignored. For cases where those con-
straints cannot be removed, we developed one Lagrangian
relaxation-based algorithm for getting an optimal solution,
as well as one fast heuristic algorithm. The case study
which motivated this research was discussed, and the
developed discrete-event simulation model is explained in
detail. Finally, performance comparison among these
algorithms has been conducted, showing that implementing
any of the proposed algorithms is an economically
attractive solution and can also reduce environmental
impact, repair rate, and worker overload.
References
1. Escudero L (1988) An inexact algorithm for the sequential
ordering problem. Eur J Oper Res 37:236–253
2. Ascheuer N (1995) Hamiltonian path problems in the on-line
optimization of flexible manufacturing systems. Ph.D. Thesis.
Technology University of Berlin, Berlin
3. Spieckermann S, Gutenschwager K, Voss S (2004) A sequential
ordering problem in automotive paint shops. Int J Prod Res 42
(9):1865–1878
4. Lahmar M, Benjaafar S (2007) Sequencing with limited flexibility.
IIE Trans 39:937–955
1259
5. Lim A, Xu Z (2009) Searching optimal resequencing and feature
assignment on an automated assembly line. J Oper Res Soc 60
(3):361–371
6. Färber G, Coves A (2005) Overview on sequencing in mixed
model flowshop production line with static and dynamic context.
In Internal report IOC-DT-P-2005-7: Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya, Catalunya
7. Morley R, Schelberg C (1993) An analysis of a plant-specific
dynamic scheduler. In Final Report, NSF Workshop on
Intelligent, Dynamic Scheduling for Manufacturing Systems,
pp 115–122
8. Morley R (1996) Painting trucks at general motors: the effective-
ness of a complexity-based approach. The Ernst & Young Center
for Business Innovation, Cambridge
9. Morley R, Ekberg G (1998) Cases in chaos: complexity-based
approaches to manufacturing. The Ernst & Young Center for
Business Innovation, Cambridge
10. Gambardella L, Dorigo M (2000) An ant colony system
hybridized with a new local search for the sequential ordering
problem. INFORMS J Comput 12:237–255
11. Fox B, Xiang W, Lee H (2007) Industrial applications of the ant
colony optimization algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 31
(7):805–814
12. Ying K, Lin S (2007) Multi-heuristic desirability ant colony
system heuristic for non-permutation flowshop scheduling prob-
lems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33(7):793–802
13. Campos M, Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg J (2001)
Dynamic scheduling and division of labor in social insects. Adapt
Behav 8(2):83–92
14. Kittithreerapronchai O, Anderson C (2003) Do ants paint
trucks better than chickens? Market versus response thresholds
for distributed dynamic scheduling. In Proceedings of the 2003
IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Canberra,
Australia
15. Atassi FR (1996) Implementation of block painting in Ford's in-
line vehicle sequencing environment. MS Thesis. In System
Design and Management Program, MIT, Cambridge
16. Myron DL (1996) Paint blocking in Ford's in-line vehicle
sequencing environment. MS Thesis. In Leaders for Manufactur-
ing Program, MIT, Cambridge
17. Choe KI, Sharp GP, Serfozo RS (1993) Aisle-based order pick
systems with batching, zoning, and sorting. In Progress in
Material Handling Research
18. Jeong MK, Perry M, Zhou C (2005) Throughput gain with
parallel flow in automated flow lines. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng
2(1):84–86
19. Fenner JS, Jeong MK, Lu JC (2005) Optimal automatic control of
multistage production processes. IEEE Trans Semicond Manuf 18
(1):94–103
20. Siddiqee MW (1972) Investigation of sorting and train formation
schemes for a railroad hump yard. In: Newell GF (ed) Traffic flow
and transportation. Elsevier, New York, pp 377–387
21. Nemhauser GL, Wolsey LA (1988) Integer and combinatorial
optimization. Wiley, New York
22. Shapiro J (1979) Mathematical programming: structures and
algorithms. Wiley, New York
23. Han Y (2004) Dynamic sequencing of jobs on conveyor systems
for minimizing changeovers. Ph.D. Thesis. In School of Industrial
and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta
24. Han Y, Zhou C, Bras B, McGinnis L, Carmichael C, Newcomb P
(2002) Paint line color change reduction in automobile assembly
through simulation. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation
Conference