IOE 591 - Crossdocks (XD) : Shape IOE 591 - Crossdocks (XD) : Shape

29
Copyright Yavuz A. Bozer 2011-2014. Copyright of all equipment

photographs and drawings belong to respective owners and vendors.
IOE 591 Crossdocks (XD): Shape IOE 591 Crossdocks (XD): Shape
Unloading = Strip doors
Loading = Stack doors
40 doors
22 strip
18 stack
40 doors
22 strip
18 stack
Suppose we optimize the IT-to-door and OT-to-door assignments as best we can.
Given the near-optimum trailer-to-door assignments, which XD shape is optimum?
Optimum =Shape that minimizes the expected material handling workload ( f d ).
30
Given the near-optimum trailer-to-door assignments, which XD shape is optimum?
And how about non-rectangular XD shapes?
RECTANGULAR
X OR + SHAPED
T SHAPED
31
And how about non-rectangular XD shapes?
Note theloss that occurs at corners.
Theres also congestion and safety concerns at junctions.
RECTANGULAR
X OR + SHAPED
T SHAPED
32
U-SHAPED!
33
Remember: Optimum shape (measured by flatness) is the one that
minimizes expected f d. Since the flows are fixed, we focus on
expected distances.
(*) Bartholdi and Gue, The Best Shape for a Crossdock, Transportation Science, 38: 2, 2004, pp. 235244.
What is the impact of XD shape; i.e., the flatness?
34
Assume number of doors is fixed. (This implies the XD perimeter
is fixed because distance between adjacent doors is constant.)
First, normalize the XD, i.e., XD measures m 1, where the shorter
side is m units long (u < m 1), and the longer side is one unit long.
Any rectangular XD with arbitrary dimensions can be normalized
simply by dividing its shorter side by its longer side.
Since the shape of the XD depends on the value of m, we refer to m
as the shape factor.
Note that m > u since each side of the XD is assumed to be of non-
zero length.
To simplify the analysis, we assume that the doors are located on a
continuous line along the perimeter of the XD instead of discrete
points.
35
Consider the location of two trailers: one IT, and one OT.
We assume that the above two trailers, independent of each other, are equally likely to be
located anywhere along the perimeter of the XD.
Given 4 sides of XD, there are 16 possible cases for the location of the above two trailers.
Table 1. Possible cases for the location of two doors in a rectangular XD.
Due to symmetry, only 6 of the 16 cases are unique, as illustrated in Table 1.
For example, case 1 occurs when both doors are on the left side, or both doors are on
the right side of the XD.
36
Assuming, without loss of generality, the shorter side of the XD is parallel to they-axis, for
Y
1
and Y
2
~Uniform (0,m) and independent, it is straightforward to show that
E
1
-
2
= m S
Let X
1
and X
2
be the x-coordinate of trailers1 and 2, respectively.
Let Y
1
and Y
2
be the y-coordinate of trailers1 and 2, respectively.
Let be the expected rectilinear travel distance between any two doors in a
normalized XD.
Since , we have:
) (
d E
} case Pr{ ) case / distance travel ( ) (
6
1
i i E d E
i
=
=
}] 2 Case Pr{ ) ( * 4 [ }] 1 Case Pr{ ) ( * 2 [ ) (
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Y Y X X E Y Y X X E d E + + + =
}] 4 Case Pr{ ) ( * 4 [ }] 3 Case Pr{ ) ( * 2 [
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Y Y X X E Y Y X X E + + + +
}] 6 Case Pr{ ) ( * 2 [ }] 5 Case Pr{ ) ( * 2 [
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Y Y X X E Y Y X X E + + + +
37
Substituting the appropriate expressions for the probabilities and distances we obtain:
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
2
2 2
2
) 2 2 ( 3
1 2
) 2 2 ( 2 2
1
4
) 2 2 ( 3
2 ) (
m
m m
m
m m
m
m m
d E
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
2 2 2
) 2 2 (
1
3
1
2
) 2 2 (
1
3
1
2
) 2 2 ( 2 2
1
4
m
m
m m
m m
which reduces to: (1)
) 1 ( 2 3
1
) (
+
+
+
=
m
m m
d E
If the longer side of the original (i.e., non-normalized) XD is L distance units long,
and its shorter side is mL distance units long, then the expected travel distance for the
original XD, i.e., , is simply given by (2)
Recall that the perimeter, P, is fixed. That is, P = 2L+ 2mL= 2L (1+m).
Substituting Equation (1) into Equation (2), and replacing L, we obtain:
. ) (
) ( L d E d E = ) (d E
38
Substituting Equation (1) into Equation (2), and replacing L, we obtain:
(3)
( )
.
1 2 ) 1 ( 2 3
1
) (
(
+
(
+
+
+
=
m
P
m
m m
d E
1/6
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
m
E
(
d
)
Setting P =1 for simplicity, we obtain
the plot shown in the Figure
E(d) as given by Equation (3) is
concave for 0 < m 1, and the shape
factor that minimizes the expected
travel distance is m =0
+
, i.e., an
infinitesimally small positive number
FLAT rectangle is best!
SQUARE is the worst.
39
Since distance between adjacent doors is fixed, and the size of a XD is often
expressed in number of doors, fixing the perimeter may appear logical.
However, if its perimeter is fixed, a square maximizes the area of a rectangle.
Therefore, as the XD gets flatter, there is loss of floor space.
Very little or no storage takes place in a XD BUT floor space is often required
to stage some loads in front of OTs since outbound loads do not necessarily
arrive at the OT in the sequence in which they must be loaded.
The loading sequence is often constrained due to restrictions such as
maximizing the cube density in the OT, placing fragile loads on top, and
loading the loads in reverse order for multi-stop OTs.
Theres also some storage space needed for XD equipment (including the
forklifts) and maintenance supplies, plus admin offices.
Hence, it seems worthwhile to examine the optimum XD shape when its
area is fixed.
40
For a XD of fixed area A, where A = L mL, substituting Equation (1) into
Equation (2), and replacing L, we obtain:
) 1 ( 2 3
1
) (
+
+
+
=
m
m m
d E
(2)
(4)
. ) (
) ( L d E d E =
.
) 1 ( 2 3
1
) (
m
A
m
m m
d E
(
+
+
+
=
Equation (4) is a convex function with a minimum attained at m =1.
Hence, square XD minimizes the expected travel distance if the XD area is
fixed.
41
We have a conflict
If the XD perimeter is fixed, optimum shape is as flat as
possible. But flat XD minimizes the area.
If the XD area is fixed, optimum shape is square. But square XD
minimizes number of doors (assuming fixed distance between
adjacent doors).
Of course site plan will also play a role but it seems good strategy
is to make the XD flat while ensuring that required minimum area
is provided.
Also, number of doors needed would be specified as a range (min-
max) instead of a fixed number. That is, theres some flexibility
with the perimeter.
42
Consider a 60 600 XD, where P =1,320 ft. (fixed) and m =0.10.
As we increase the value of m, the increase in expected distance and area are shown
in Table below.
For example, if m =0.2, the XD is 68.06% larger in area but the expected travel
distance increases by 7.51%.
43
Heres a rectangular XD thats flat
44
Heres another rectangular XD thats flat
45
Yet another rectangular XD thats flat

IOE 591 - Crossdocks (XD) : Shape IOE 591 - Crossdocks (XD) : Shape

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IOE 591 - Crossdocks (XD) : Shape IOE 591 - Crossdocks (XD) : Shape

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

29

Copyright Yavuz A. Bozer 2011-2014. Copyright of all equipment

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen