A PROMETHEE Method Based Heuristic for Disassembly Line Balancing Problem

Abstract

Disassembly of discarded products takes place in the process of remanufacturing, recycling, and disposal. The disassembly lines have been taken as available choice for automated disassembly; therefore, it has become essential that it be designed and balanced to work efficiently. The multi-objective disassembly line balancing problem seeks to find a disassembly sequence which provides a feasible disassembly sequence, minimizes the number of workstations and idle time, and balances the line for the disassembly of post consumed product by considering the environment effects. This paper proposes a multi-criteria decision making technique based heuristic for assigning the disassembly tasks to the workstations. In the proposed heuristic, the PROMETHEE method is used for prioritizing the tasks to be assigned. The tasks are assigned to the disassembly workstations according to their priority rank and precedence relations. The proposed heuristic is illustrated with an example, and the results show that substantial improvement in the performance is achieved compared with other heuristics.

A Robust Robotic Disassembly Sequence Design Using Orthogonal Arrays and Task Allocation

“…Using a preference ranking organization method for the enrichment of evaluations (PROMETHEE), Avikal et al [28] proposed an efficient, near-optimal, and a multi-criteria decision making technique-based heuristic for assigning disassembly tasks to available workstations.…”

Disassembly line balancing problem: a review of the state of the art and future directions

“…Hazardous work-pieces 55 Güngör and Gupta (1999a; Güngör et al (2000); Gupta and Güngör (2001); McGovern and Gupta (2003a; McGovern, ; Gupta (2004, 2005); Lambert and Gupta (2005b); Wang et al (2011); Avikal and Mishra (2012); Karadağ and Türkbey (2013); Avikal et al (2013cAvikal et al ( , 2014cAvikal et al ( , 2016; Kalayci and Gupta (2011a; Bentaha et al (2013bBentaha et al ( , 2013aBentaha et al ( , 2014e, 2014bBentaha et al ( , 2014dBentaha et al ( , 2015aBentaha et al ( , 2015b; ; ; Kalayci et al (2011Kalayci et al ( , 2015aKalayci et al ( , 2015b McGovern and ; Lambert and Gupta (2005b); Ding et al (2009Ding et al ( , 2010b; Wang et al (2011); Avikal and Mishra (2012); Avikal et al (2013cAvikal et al ( , 2014cAvikal et al ( , 2016; Kalayci and Gupta (2011a; ; ; Kalayci et al (2011Kalayci et al ( , 2015bKalayci et al ( , 2015a (No complication) 28 ; Ranky et al (2003); McGovern and Gupta (2004); Lambert and Gupta (2005a); Tang and Zhou (2006); ; ; ; ;…”

“…The DLB problem is considered as a multi-criteria decision-making problem (McGovern and Gupta 2011b) by some researches. PROMETHEE (Avikal et al 2013c), AHP and TOPSIS are used for prioritising the tasks to be assigned. Exact solution approaches are used as complementary techniques to solve mathematical programming models, mainly dynamic programming , integer programming Bentaha et al 2014bBentaha et al , 2014d and column generation (Duta, Caciula, and Patic 2016).…”

“…McGovern and ; Kizilkaya and Gupta (2005); Lambert (2007) Ant colony optimisation McGovern and Gupta (2004; Agrawal and Tiwari (2008); Ding et al (2009); Kalayci and Gupta (2013b); Zhu, Zhang, and Hu (2014) Hill climbingMcGovern and ; Kizilkaya and Gupta (2005) McGovern and ; Gupta (2004, 2005); Ren et al (2018) Equal piles approach Computer Method of Sequencing Operations for Assembly Lines Ranky et al (2003) Multi-criteria decision-making ; Avikal et al ( , 2013cAvikal et al ( , 2016; Avikal (2016) Stochastic programming Bentaha et al (2013aBentaha et al ( , 2013cBentaha et al ( , 2013bBentaha et al ( , 2013dBentaha et al ( , 2013e, 2014bBentaha et al ( , 2014e, 2014dBentaha et al ( , 2014aBentaha et al ( , 2014cBentaha et al ( , 2015aBentaha et al ( , 2015b; ; Altekin (2016, 2017) Linear physical programming Ilgin, Akçay, and Araz (2017) Fuzzy programming ; Paksoy et al (2013); Özceylan andPaksoy (2014b, 2014c); Kalayci et al (2015b); Seidi and Saghari (2016); Zhang et al (2017) Exact Solution approaches ; Bentaha et al (2014bBentaha et al ( , 2014d; Duta, Caciula, and Patic (2016) Simulation Approaches Kekre et al (2003); Ranky et al (2003); Gupta (2004, 2005); Bentaha et al (2013e, 2013dBentaha et al (2013e, , 2014dBentaha et al (2013e, , 2014bBentaha et al (2013e, , 2014e, 2014cBentaha et al (2013e, , 2014a;…”

2-Stage Optimal Design and Analysis for Disassembly System with Environmental and Economic Parts Selection Using the Recyclability Evaluation Method

“…Therefore, the parts selection of non-destructive or destructive disassembly should be optimized in terms of the recycling rate and profit. On the other hand, since the precedence relationships among disassembly tasks of the product also change with the parts selection, it is required to optimize allocation of the tasks in designing a disassembly line (Avikal et al, 2013;Aydemir-Karadag and Turkbey, 2013;Kalayci and Gupta, 2013;McGovern and Gupta, 2003). In addition, because information is required for such a design, the recycling rate, profit of each part, and disassembly task times take precedence among the disassembly tasks.…”