Chapter 3

Warehouse Layouts
Goran Dukic and Tihomir Opetuk

Abstract Warehouse layouts, due to their influence on total warehousing costs,

are of interest to the theory and practice of warehouse design. While the layout
problem of unit-load storage area of conventional warehouses has quite a long
history, the layout of conventional systems with manual order-picking from
multiple aisles has been the topic of a number of research papers only in the
previous decade. The research has resulted, among other things, in various models
for optimal layout design. Moreover, some new innovative layouts for storage area
have been proposed recently. These layouts result in a reduced travel distance
needed to store or retrieve a single pallet, thus improving the efficiency in the
storage area. However, the question of whether these layouts could perform better
than traditional layouts in manual order-picking operations has remained unanswered. This chapter provides a short overview of optimal traditional layouts of
the storage and order-picking area as well as new innovative storage area layouts,
followed by results of the analysis of order-picking in these new innovative layouts
and relevant conclusions.

3.1 Introduction
It is well known that logistics costs have an important influence on the business
success of any company. According to the logistics cost and service studies, these
costs represent on average around 10% of sales in western companies. Constituting

G. Dukic (&)  T. Opetuk

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb,
Ivana Lucica 1, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
e-mail: goran.dukic@fsb.hr

R. Manzini (ed.), Warehousing in the Global Supply Chain,

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-2274-6_3, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

55

56

G. Dukic and T. Opetuk

an important part of overall production cost, costs of logistics operations in

industrial systems can play a vital role in determining the competitiveness of a
company. The efficiency and effectiveness of the supply chain of a company are
largely determined by operations performed in the nodes of such chains. Warehousing, along with transportation and inventory carrying, is one of the three
major drivers of logistics costs. Since warehouses are in most cases non-avoidable
places within the production site of industrial companies, and are also nodes
in the distribution network towards final customers, proper warehouse planning
and control have drawn full attention in the literature (Van den Berg 1999;
Rouwenhorst et al. 2000; Gu et al. 2010).
Warehousing costs are to a large extent already determined during the design
phase. Unfortunately, warehouse design is a highly complex task with many
tradeoffs between conflicting objectives and a large number of feasible designs.
In (Rouwenhorst et al. 2000), the warehouse design is defined as a structured
approach to decision making at the strategic, tactical and operational levels.
Decisions that have a long-term impact, mostly related to high investments, such
as the process flow design and the selection of the type of warehouse systems, are
put on the strategic level. Based on the outcome of strategic decisions, mediumterm decisions, such as the dimensioning of storage systems, the layout design and
the selection of equipment, are to be made on the tactical level. At the operational
level, short- term decisions, which are mainly related to control policies, are made
within the constraints of higher decision levels. In (Gu et al. 2010) a framework of
warehouse design and operation is proposed, classifying the warehouse design
problems as overall structure, sizing and dimensioning, department layout,
equipment selection and operation strategy. Both contributions have a common
conclusion that multiple decisions are interrelated and have to be solved simultaneously, while, unfortunately, the majority of papers listed in their literature
reviews are focused on the analysis of an isolated problem rather than on the
synthesis. According to Gu et al. (2010) a researcher addressing one decision
would require a research infrastructure which would integrate all other decisions.
The authors think that the scope and scale of that infrastructure appear to be too
great a challenge for individual researchers. To properly evaluate the impact of
changing one of the design decisions requires estimating changes in the operation
of the warehouse. The authors conclude that the most important future direction
for the warehouse design research community is to find ways to overcome these
hurdles. What is good about that approach is that even partial problem solving and
analysis can lead us to the previously mentioned overall goal since new research
papers should and mostly do tend to enlarge the scope and to combine interrelated
decisions.
Clearly, decisions regarding warehouse layouts are an integral part of the
warehouse design process. There are two types of layout decision problems that
can be distinguished (De Koster et al. 2007). The first problem concerns the
decision of where to place various departments (receiving, picking, storage,
sorting, shipping, etc.). This problem is usually called the facility layout problem.
Using the activity relationship between the departments, a warehouse block layout

3 Warehouse Layouts

57

is derived. The common objective is either to minimize the handling cost (travel
distances) or it is based on closeness ratings. The second layout decision
problem is concerned with the placement of equipment, storage space, paths, etc.
within departments. It is usually called internal layout design or aisle configuration
problem. In most papers, the warehouse layout problem is defined as finding an
optimal (or at least good) layout of storage or order-picking area. In most cases,
the criterion is travel distance (or travel time). This type of layout problem is also
the focus of attention in this paper.
The layout problem of unit-load storage area of conventional warehouses has
quite a long history ever since the 1960s. On the other hand, in the 1980s and
1990s, the layout of unit-load AS/RS received a lot of attention. The literature on
the order-picking area layout design is not extensive. While the systems with
order-picking restricted to a single aisle in person-on-board AS/RS were analyzed
in several papers in the late 1980s and 1990s, the layout of conventional systems
with manual order-picking from multiple aisles has been the topic of several
papers only in the previous decade. Conventional warehouse layouts, both for the
storage area and order-picking area, imply a traditional warehouse layout. This is
the layout found today in the majority of warehouses. The basic form is rectangular, with parallel straight aisles. There are two possibilities for changing aisles at
the front and at the rear of the warehouse. These aisles are also straight and meet
the main aisles at right angles. Modifications of this basic form are usually done by
adding one or more additional cross-aisles, creating the so-called multiple-block
layout. Therefore, the term a conventional storage area layout refers to the
layout with unit-load operations within a selective pallet racks system, while the
term conventional order-picking area layout refers to the one with manual
order-picking operations within a selective pallet rack system or shelving system.
Layouts of conventional warehouses with other types of storage systems, such as
carousels, flow rack system, drive-in/through pallet racks, mobile racks, etc. are
not considered here.
Recently, some radically new, innovative warehouse layouts, which do not
include traditional assumptions, have been proposed in (Gue and Meller 2009a).
These layouts result in reduced travelling needed to store or retrieve a single pallet,
and consequently in improved efficiency in the storage area. The question is
whether these new layouts can be used in order-picking areas, which would result
in shortened picking paths compared to those in traditional layouts. Seeking an
answer to that question, a simulation of routing pickers in two new layouts was
done and compared to the performances of routing in traditional layouts. In the
following two sections of this paper, the main ideas and findings in the optimal
traditional layout design of the storage and the order-picking area are presented
respectively. Then, the previously mentioned new layouts are presented. Finally,
results of the analysis of order-picking in new layouts are given, followed by
relevant conclusions.

58

G. Dukic and T. Opetuk

3.2 Optimal Layouts of Storage Area

The layout of storage area considered in this paper is one with parallel pallet racks,
as illustrated in Fig. 3.1 (left). Aisle-based pallet floor storage has the same characteristics as the pallet rack storage and can be considered in the same way.
Operations within such a layout are single cycles, either to store a single unit-load
or to retrieve (pick) a single unit-load. Since for a given capacity of storage area
(number of storage locations) one could design various layouts (altering the number
of aisles and the length of aisles), the problem is which layout is optimal regarding
the design objective. For example, a design objective could be costs (investment
costs and operational costs). For a given capacity, different layouts have slightly
different costs of required area due to the length (and therefore space) of front aisle.
Please note that differences are in most cases negligible and it could be assumed
that a given capacity defines the required total storage space. They also have
different perimeter costs if walls should be built around the area. Operational costs
are the costs of cycles in a considered layout. Most models in the literature optimize
the layout minimizing the expected travel distance to store/retrieve an item.
The theoretical background to warehouse layout can be found in (Francis and
White 1974), with derived expressions for optimal warehouse designs represented
as continuous storage areas both for non-rectangular and rectangular designs.
A simple model for optimal storage layout, modified from the model presented
in (Bauer 1985), is presented below. It minimizes the expected travel in the
rectangular storage area with parallel aisles.
Figure. 3.2 illustrates a general storage area with a capacity of Q storage
locations per layer, for given dimensions of storage location l1 9 b1, with the
width of main aisles b2 and the width of front aisle b3. Thus, dimensions of the
layout can be represented by the length of aisles Lr and the width of area Br as a
function of the number of aisles n1 as follows:
Lr

Q  b1
2  n1

Br n1  2  l1 n1  b2

3:1
3:2

If random storage is used (in other words, any item can be stored/retrieved from
any location with the same probability) and a single dock (depot, pickup and
delivery pointP&D) is located in the middle of the front aisle, the expected
travel to storage locations can be simply represented, according to findings in
(Francis and White 1974), as:
s

Lr Br
b3
2
4

3:3

A single dock can be located in any place along the front aisle or in the corner.
However, from (Francis and White 1974) and several other papers published after
1974, it is known that the location of single dock in the middle is optimal. Inserting

3 Warehouse Layouts

59

Fig. 3.1 Traditional warehouse layouts (Pohl et al. 2009a)

Fig. 3.2 Average travel to storage locations

(3.1) and (3.2) into (3.3) leads to an expression where the expected travel is a
function of only one variablethe number of aisles; therefore s = f(n1). Finding
the minimum yields the optimal number of aisles as
r
Q  b1
n1
3:4
2  l1 b2
Corresponding Lr and Br can be then calculated using (3.1) and (3.2).
Theoretically, the shape of the resulting optimal layout is rectangular with the
proportion of Lr : Br = 1 : 2, while in practice it should usually be slightly
modified by rounding the number of aisles to integer.
From the model of optimal storage layout it is obvious that the rear aisle in the
basic layout is not even needed. Furthermore, adding one or more cross-aisles is
not beneficial as this leads only to an increased total space required and to

60

G. Dukic and T. Opetuk

increased expected travel of single-command. On the other hand, using a different

operational policy, i.e. combining one storage command with one retrieval command in a dual-command (interleaving) will not only improve the efficiency in the
existing layout but will create an opportunity for a further improvement by altering
the layout. Dual-command operations in common warehouses are analyzed in
(Pohl et al. 2009a). The paper demonstrates the efficiency of dual-command with
respect to single-command, with savings in the range of 1633% over a variety of
shapes and sizes of the basic traditional layout. The efficiency of dual-command
with respect to single-command was consistently higher in the layout with an
additional cross-aisle in the middle, except for very small warehouses, as illustrated in Fig. 3.1 (middle). Travelling from the storage location to the retrieval
location in dual-command (travel-between) is much more efficient in the layout
with a middle cross-aisle. The authors developed a model for an optimal layout
with dual-command and showed that the warehouse optimized for a dualcommand travel distance has a smaller number of aisles (it is narrower and taller)
than the warehouse optimized for a single-command travel. They also analyzed the
layout with a cross-aisle in the middle of aisles parallel to the front wall, as
illustrated in Fig. 3.1 (right). This layout, as well as the previous one, has higher
efficiency than the basic layout (in some cases even for a single-command cycle).
Both layouts minimize the dual-command travel with a shape factor (height/width)
of approximately 0.6. The layout in Fig. 3.1 (right) is superior to the layout in
Fig. 3.1 (middle) in a wide range of parameters although the latter one is more
common in practice. According to the authors, the cause of that could be less
dependence on one central P&D. In addition, it was shown that optimal placement
of middle cross-aisle is moved from the center to the rear cross-aisle, but
improvements are in most cases \1%. In conclusion, the authors pointed out some
unanswered questions. How would the inserting of more cross-aisles and more
P&D locations influence the travel distance and optimal layout? From analysis and
comparison of single-command and dual-command operations it can be concluded
that the optimal layout is affected by them. What is the influence of other operational policies, such as using the turnover-based storage instead of the assumed
random storage, or using sequencing storage/retrieval requests instead of the firstcome first-served policy?

3.3 Optimal Layouts of Order-Picking Area

Designing the layout of order-picking area can have even greater influence on
the efficiency of warehouse operations. The order-picking process, defined as the
process of retrieving items from storage locations in response to a specific customer request, is the most laborious and the most costly activity in a typical
warehouse, making up to 55% of the total operating costs of a warehouse
(Tompkins et al. 1996). Besides the pressure to reduce costs, additional pressure
put on companies is to deliver their products faster than before. A crucial link

3 Warehouse Layouts

61

between order-picking and delivery speed is the fact that the faster an order can be
retrieved, the sooner it is available for shipping to the customer. Therefore, it is
very important to put in some effort to reduce order-picking costs, i.e. to improve
the order-picking efficiency. One way to improve the order-picking process is to
redesign it, using new equipment, new layout or/and automation and computerization of the process. The other way is to improve the operational efficiency of
order-picking using appropriate operating policies.
The time to pick an order can be divided into three components: time for
travelling between items, time for picking the items and time for remaining
activities. The fact that about 50% of the total order-picking time is spent on
travelling (Tompkins et al. 1996) has the potential for improving the order-picking
efficiency by reducing travel distances. Most methods of improving the operational
efficiency of order-picking focus on reducing travel times, and can be categorized
as one of three groups of operating policies: routing, storage and batching.
Routing methods (policies) determine the picking sequences and routes of
travelling, trying to minimize the total travel distances. Storage methods or
assigning items to storage locations based on some rules could also reduce travel
distances with respect to random assignment. Order batching methods, or grouping
two or more customer orders in one picking order, are also very efficient in
reducing total travel distances. All the methods mentioned above are well known
and proven in improving the order-picking efficiency. However, the performances
depend greatly on the layout and size of the warehouse, the size and characteristics
of orders and the order-picker capacity. The performance of a particular method
also depends on the other methods used; therefore, it is important to understand
their interactions. Extensive research in this area has been undertaken recently, and
a growing body of literature exists on various methods of picking an order as
efficiently as possible. For a most comprehensive overview of the literature
regarding the methods in order-picking systems we refer to (De Koster et al. 2007).
For a given layout of the picking area, characteristics of orders, and other influencing factors, the right combination of order-picking methods can be implemented. However, the analysis of methods has shown a non-negligible influence of
the layout on performances. Therefore, finding the optimal layout of order-picking
area will lead to a minimized expected travel in routes, and consequently to
reduced costs and an increased speed of response.
Order-picking area layouts that can be found today in the majority of warehouses are the same as for the storage area. The basic form has parallel aisles, a
central depot (pick up/delivery point) and two possibilities for changing aisles
(i.e. two cross-aisles), at the front and at the rear of the warehouse, as already
shown in Fig. 3.1. A nonlinear programming model for optimal order-picking
layout is presented in (Roodbergen 2001). The model aims at finding the minimum
average travel distance expressed as a function of a number of layout variables and
parameters (number of aisles, length of aisles, depot location, width of aisles
including storage racks, width of a cross-aisle), under defined conditions. The
expression for the average travel distance in a picking area is derived for one
simple routing policy, S-shape, while in (Roodbergen and Vis 2006) the research

62

G. Dukic and T. Opetuk

also included the largest gap routing policy. Both routing policies are rather simple
heuristics. With the S-shape routing policy, any aisle containing at least one item is
traversed through the entire length. Aisles where nothing has to be picked are
skipped. Using the largest gap routing policy, the picker enters the first aisle and
traverses this aisle to the back part of the warehouse. Each subsequent aisle is
entered and traversed up to the largest gap and left from the same side as it was
entered. A gap represents the distance between any two adjacent items, or between
a cross-aisle and the nearest item. The last aisle is traversed entirely and the picker
returns to the depot along the front aisle, traversing again each aisle up to the
largest gap. Thus, the largest gap is the part of the aisle that is not traversed.
Conclusions drawn from (Roodbergen 2001) and (Roodbergen and Vis 2006) are
that for high picking densities, the S-shape routing is best employed in a layout
with an even number of aisles instead of an odd number of aisles. From the
viewpoint of strict travel distance minimization, a very high pick density is best
dealt with in a picking area where each picking zone consists of exactly two aisles.
For practical implementations, in addition to travel distance, other considerations
can also be taken into account easily since there are generally several layouts that
have an average travel distance that is close to the optimum. Furthermore, the
authors found that the optimal layout is sensitive to the routing policy used in
the optimization. Optimizing the layout for a routing policy other than that used for
the actual operation showed efficiency losses of up to 18%. Therefore, it is
advisable to perform the optimization for more than one routing method before
deciding on the layout. For an overview on routing policies we refer to, among
others (Petersen 1997; Roodbergen 2001; De Koster et al. 2007). The modification
of the basic form of layout is usually carried out by adding one or more additional
cross-isles. In that case, we refer to a multiple block layout with multiple crossaisles shown in Fig. 3.3.
In papers (Roodbergen and De Koster 2001a, b; Vaughan and Petersen 1999) it
is shown that adding one or more additional cross-aisles can improve the total travel
distances, and that it is also possible to find an optimal number of cross-aisles.
In (Roodbergen 2001) the author also presented a nonlinear programming model for
optimal order-picking layout with multiple blocks. In this case, the expression for
average travel distance, derived for the S-shape routing policy, includes an additional variablethe number of blocks. In (Roodbergen et al. 2008) it is concluded
that apart from special cases with very high pick density, it is always better to have a
multiple-block layout than a one-block layout. Additional testing showed that the
layouts generated by the model are also fairly adequate for the case in which the
actual operation of the warehouse uses a routing method other than the S-shape
policy. This is contrary to the findings in (Roodbergen and Vis 2006), where large
differences were found between optimizations with the S-shape and largest gap
routing policies for one-block layouts. Therefore, optimal layouts with multiple
blocks are much less sensitive to the routing operational policy.
The papers mentioned so far, as well as the optimization software and an interactive warehouse tool can be found on the valuable web site www.roodbergen.com.

3 Warehouse Layouts

63

Fig. 3.3 Multiple block

warehouse layout
(Roodbergen et al. 2008)

The order-picker routing in the layout with a cross-aisle in the middle of aisles
parallel to the front wall, Fig. 3.1 (right), was analyzed in (Caron et al. 1998),
while the optimal layout was considered in (Caron et al. 2000).

3.4 Non-traditional Warehouse Layouts

The traditional design of warehouse layout is based on a number of unspoken, and
unnecessary, assumptions. The two most restrictive are that cross-aisles are
straight and must meet picking aisles only at right angles, and that picking aisles
are straight and are oriented in the same direction. In (Gue and Meller 2009a) the

64

G. Dukic and T. Opetuk

Fig. 3.4 Innovative warehouse layouts (Gue and Meller 2009b)

authors show that these design assumptions, which are unnecessary from a construction point of view, limit efficiency and productivity because they require
workers to travel longer distances and to take less-direct routes to retrieve products
from racks and deliver them to designated pickup-and-deposit points. In the layout
that maintains parallel picking aisles, but allows the cross-aisle to take a different
shape, the expected distance to be travelled to retrieve a single pallet is 10%
shorter than that in an equivalent traditional design. Such a layout, named the
Flying-V layout, is shown in Fig. 3.4 (left). Disapproving the second assumption
that picking aisles must be parallel, they derived the so-called fishbone layout
shown in Fig. 3.4 (middle). The fishbone layout also incorporates the V-shaped
cross-aisles, with the V extending across the entire warehouse. The picking aisles
below the V are horizontal, while the aisles above the V are vertical. The expected
distance to a pick in the fishbone design is approximately 20% shorter than that in
a traditional warehouse. Similar to traditional layouts with cross-aisles, these
alternative layouts also require a facility 35% larger than that of the traditional
layout, which was designed to minimize the footprint of a warehouse. In
(Pohl et al. 2009b), an analytical expression for travel-between locations in the
fishbone layout was developed. A comparison of fishbone warehouses that have
been optimized for dual-command with traditional warehouses that have been
optimized in the same manner has shown that an optimal fishbone design reduces
the dual-command travel by 1015%.
A drawback of the fishbone design is limited access to the storage space due to
the single, central P&D point. Therefore, the authors also proposed a third design
and named it the chevron aisles layout, illustrated in Fig. 3.4 (right). Expected
distances to store or to retrieve a single pallet in this layout are very close to those
in the fishbone layout (Gue and Meller 2009b).

3.5 Order-Picking in Non-Traditional Layouts

Despite the great potential of new, innovative unit-load warehouse designs for
reducing the travel distance in pallet operations (single command and dual
command), the question is how these layouts perform as layouts in picking

3 Warehouse Layouts

65

Fig. 3.5 Picking route example (S-shape policy) in the basic traditional layout

operations (multiple command), compared to the traditional layouts. To address

this question, we tried to analyze the routing of order-pickers in the fishbone and
the chevron layout by means of simulation. The analysis was restricted to the
already mentioned S-shape routing policy and the composite routing policy. The
composite routing policy is advanced heuristics that minimizes the travel in
individual aisles by deciding whether picking in the aisle is done by traversing it
entirely or by making a return route. The simulation was conducted on four
warehouse layouts with 576 locations per layer: basic traditional, traditional with
one (middle) cross-aisle, fishbone layout, and chevron layout. Due to the
simplicity of distance calculation, dimensions of a location are 191 m, and the
width of all aisles is 2 m. The basic traditional layout had 12 main aisles (total
width across aisles is 48 m) and the length of main aisles was 24 m (24 locations
per row). Figure. 3.5 shows this basic traditional layout with an example of a
picking route. With the location of a depot in the middle, it is the optimal layout
for single command.
The layout with an added cross-aisle had the cross-aisle positioned exactly in
the middle, as shown in Fig. 3.6. A comparable fishbone design is shown in
Fig. 3.7 and a comparable chevron layout in Fig. 3.8. Two situations were considered regarding the order size (10 and 30 locations per route). Pick locations
were generated randomly according to assumed random storage policy.
The first problem encountered was how to define the routing algorithms in the
fishbone and the chevron layout. A simplified explanation of S-shape routing
policy in the layouts with multiple blocks defined in (Roodbergen 2001) could be
that picking is done first in the farthest block, then repeated in other blocks and
finished in the closest block. It is impossible to say which block in the fishbone or
the chevron layout is the farthest from the depot, and which is the closest to the
depot. The algorithm for a 2-block traditional warehouse was modified in a way

66

G. Dukic and T. Opetuk

Fig. 3.6 Picking route example (S-shape policy) in a traditional layout with a middle cross-aisle

Fig. 3.7 Picking route example (S-shape policy) in a fishbone layout

that the layout is considered as a 3-block warehouse. The order-picker starts at the
depot and visits the blocks in a clockwise manner. In each block the route is done
according to the routing policy for a single block, as illustrated with the example
of route in Fig. 3.6.
Such an algorithm is easily applicable to the fishbone design, as illustrated in
Fig. 3.7, and to the chevron layout considered as a 2-block layout illustrated in

3 Warehouse Layouts

67

Fig. 3.8 Picking route example (S-shape policy) in a chevron layout

Table 3.1 Simulation results of average picking travel distance (in meters)
S-shape routing policy
Order size
Composite routing policy
10
Warehouse
layout

Traditional (basic)
Traditional (middle
cross-aisle)
Fishbone
Chevron

30

258.7 375.8 Warehouse

layout
193.9 329.0
227.5 351.9
268.5 397.2

Order size
10

Traditional (basic)
Traditional (middle
cross-aisle)
Fishbone
Chevron

30

228.2 363.9
182.8 309
213.1 317.3
233.2 370.2

Fig. 3.8. The same idea was also used for the composite routing policy. The
simulation results showing the average picking travel distance are given in
Table 3.1. As it was expected for the examined cases, adding a middle cross-aisle
in the traditional layout decreases average routes compared to those in the basic
traditional layout. For both order sizes the density of pick locations in 12 main
aisles is not high, and adding a middle cross-aisle will eliminate some unnecessary
travel in the main aisles without pick locations. But it should be also noted that the
percentage of reduction for the order size 30 (12.5%) is smaller than the reduction
for the order size 10 (25%). As the order size increases (i.e. the pick density
increasesaverage distance between picks decreases) there will be a point where
adding a middle cross-aisle is not beneficial.
Although the fishbone layout will give a shorter travel distance compared to the
basic traditional layout (between 6 and 12% in conducted simulations, depending
on the routing method and order size), it is still outperformed by the layout with a
middle cross-aisle. It seems that adding a V-shaped cross-aisle has smaller
potential than adding a straight middle aisle. In the chevron layout average travel
distances are even longer than in a comparative basic traditional layout. Longer

68

G. Dukic and T. Opetuk

average travel distances in the fishbone and the chevron layout compared to the
traditional layout with a middle cross-aisle could be explained as follows. The
fishbone and chevron layouts create blocks of aisles with different lengths, with a
higher probability that a pick location is in longer aisles than in shorter aisles. This
is especially a disadvantage of the S-shape routing policy where the picker should
traverse the entire aisle, and not as much of the composite routing policy where the
picker can make return trips. The superiority of composite routing policy over the
S-shape policy is confirmed in all the considered situations.

3.6 Conclusion
The fishbone layout is without doubt an excellent layout for pallet storing and
picking (single or double command), already being implemented in real
warehouses. However, the presented analysis indicates the conclusion that in the
order-picking area with picking from multiple locations (item and case picking),
the fishbone layout results in longer routes than the traditional layout with a
straight, right angled cross-aisle in the middle. The same holds for the chevron
layout, with picking routes even longer than the ones in a comparable basic traditional layout. However, a further analysis and a wide-range of experiments are
needed in order to draw fully reliable conclusions. Despite all the presented
contributions regarding optimal layouts and the intensive pioneering work on
innovative layouts, the research on warehouse layouts is not over. The presented
analysis was limited to only one warehouse size with a fixed shape, while the
future work should include more cases. Furthermore, according to the previous
research presented in Sects. 3.2 and 3.3, optimal order-picking layouts are different with respect to having cross-aisle(s) or not. The investigated shape is
optimal only for a single command. Therefore, order-picking routes from different,
optimally shaped, warehouses should also be analyzed. The research on the
optimal fishbone and the chevron order-picking layout is yet to be done. In
addition, the presented analysis assumed random storage. The reduction in the
order-picking travel distance with the turnover-based storage could differ with
respect to different layouts and patterns used. Another assumption was the location
of dock in the middle (optimal for traditional layouts and for new layouts under a
single or a dual command regime). Using the idea of fishbone layout while having
dock in the corner creates a new layout in which one diagonal, straight cross-aisle
creates only two blocks. Some preliminary research results indicated a possible
reduction in average order-picking travel in such a layout compared to the fishbone
layout illustrated in Fig. 3.7. On the other hand, the travel distance might not be
the only decisive factor. If picking equipment requires additional time to change
aisle, performance measure should be the time required to make a route instead of
the distance travelled in the route. The required area of traditional layout with a
middle cross-aisle is obviously larger than the area of basic traditional layout. The
required area of the fishbone or the chevron layout is also increased in comparison

3 Warehouse Layouts

69

with traditional layouts. Warehouse designers should be aware of all advantages

and disadvantages of different layouts and, depending on a given situation and
objectives, should choose the most appropriate one.

References
Bauer P (1985) Planung und Auslegung von Palettenlagern. Springer, Berlin
Caron F, Marchet G, Perego A (1998) Routing policies and COI-based storage policies in pickerto-part systems. Int J Prod Res 36(3):713732
Caron F, Marchet G, Perego A (2000) Optimal layout in low-level picker-to-part systems. Int J
Prod Res 38(1):101107
De Koster R, Le-Duc T, Roodbergen KJ (2007) Design and control of warehouse order-picking:
a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 182:481501
Francis RL, White JA (1974) Facility layout and location: an analytical approach. Prentice-Hall,
NJ
Gu J, Goetschalckx M, McGinnis L (2010) Research on warehouse design and performance
evaluation: a comprehensive review. Eur J Oper Res 203:539549
Gue KR, Meller RD (2009a) Aisle configurations for unit-load warehouses. IIE Trans
41(3):171182
Gue KR, Meller RD (2009b) The application of new aisle designs for unit-load warehouses.
In: Proceedings of 2009 NSF engineering research and innovation conference. Honolulu
Petersen CG (1997) An evaluation of order picking routeing policies. Int J Oper Prod Man
17(11):10981111
Pohl LM, Meller RD, Gue KR (2009a) An analysis of dual command operations in common
warehouse designs. Transport Res E 45(3):367379
Pohl LM, Meller RD, Gue KR (2009b) Optimizing the fishbone aisle design for dual-command
operations in a warehouse. Nav Res Log 56(5):389403
Roodbergen KJ (2001) Layout and routing methods for warehouses. ERIM, Rotterdam
Roodbergen KJ, De Koster R (2001a) Routing order pickers in a warehouse with a middle aisle.
Eur J Oper Res 133:3243
Roodbergen KJ, De Koster R (2001b) Routing methods for warehouses with multiple cross aisles.
Int J Prod Res 39(9):18651883
Roodbergen KJ, Vis IFA (2006) A model for warehouse layout. IIE Trans 38(10):799811
Roodbergen KJ, Sharp GP, Vis IFA (2008) Designing the layout structure of manual order
picking areas in warehouses. IIE Trans 40(11):10321045
Rouwenhorst B, Reuter B, Stockrahm V, Van Houtum GJ, Mantel RJ, Zijm WHM (2000)
Warehouse design and control: framework and literature review. Eur J Oper Res 122:515533
Tompkins JA, White JA, Bozer YA, Frazelle EH, Tanchoco JMA, Trevino J (1996) Facilities
planning, 2nd edn. Wiley, NY
Van den Berg J (1999) A literature survey on planning and control of warehousing systems. IIE
Trans 31:751762
Vaughan TS, Petersen CG (1999) The effect of warehouse cross aisles on order picking
efficiency. Int J Prod Res 37(4):881897