See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283159186

Warehouse Layouts

Article · February 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-2274-6_3

CITATIONS READS

2 7,740

2 authors:

Goran Dukic Opetuk Tihomir

University of Zagreb University of Zagreb
22 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Order pickers / ergonomics / Forklifts View project

Textbook writing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Goran Dukic on 24 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter Number

Warehouse Layouts
Goran Dukic, Tihomir Opetuk
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture
Croatia

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 last 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. Those 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 those 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.

X.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 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
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 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 trade-offs 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
Chapter Title (Header position 1,5)
2

warehouse systems, are put on the strategic level. Based on the outcome of strategic
decisions, medium term 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 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 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 in 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 1960s. On the other hand, in 1980s and 1990s, the layout of unit-load
AS/RS received a lot of attention. 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 in 1990s, the layout of
conventional systems with manual order-picking from multiple aisles has been the topic of
several papers only in the last decade. Conventional warehouse layouts, both for the storage
area and order-picking area, imply a traditional warehouse layout. This is the layout that
can be 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
Chapter Title (Header position 1,5) 3

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, like 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 chapters 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.

X.2 Optimal layouts of storage area

The layout of storage area considered in this paper is the one with parallel pallet racks, as
illustrated in Fig. X.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 literature optimize the layout
minimizing the expected travel distance to store/retrieve an item.

Figure X.1 Traditional warehouse layouts (Pohl et al., 2009a)

Chapter Title (Header position 1,5)
4

The theoretical background to warehouse layout can be found in (Francis and White, 1974)
in Chapter 7, 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.
Fig. X.2 illustrates a general storage area with a capacity of Q storage locations per layer, for
given dimensions of storage location l1 x 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:

Q  b1
Lr  (X.1)
2  n1
Br  n 1  2  l 1  n 1  b 2 (X.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 & delivery point –
P&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:

L r Br
s   b3 (X.3)
2 4

Fig. X.2 Average travel to storage locations

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 (X.1) and (X.2) into (X.3)
leads to an expression where the expected travel is a function of only one variable – the
number of aisles; therefore s=f(n1). Finding the minimum yields the optimal number of
aisles as
Chapter Title (Header position 1,5) 5

Q  b1
n1  (X.4)
2  l 1  b2

Corresponding Lr and Br can be then calculated using (X.1) and (X.2). Theoretically, the
shape of 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 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 16 – 33% 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. X.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 dual-command 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. X.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. X.1 (right) is superior to the layout in Fig. X.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 in less dependence on one central P&D. In addition, it was shown
that optimal placement of middle cross-aisle is moved from the centre to the rear cross-aisle,
but improvements are in most cases less than 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 first-come first-served policy?

X.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
Chapter Title (Header position 1,5)
6

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
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 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 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 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. X.1. A non-linear
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 & Vis, 2006) the research 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
Chapter Title (Header position 1,5) 7

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 & 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) and (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 cross-aisles shown in Fig. X.3.

Fig. X.3 Multiple block warehouse layout (Roodbergen et al., 2008)

Chapter Title (Header position 1,5)
8

In papers (Roodbergen & De Koster, 2001a), (Vaughan & Petersen, 1999) and (Roodbergen &
De Koster, 2001b) 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 non-linear 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 variable – the
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 & 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 website www.roodbergen.com.
The order-picker routing in the layout with a cross-aisle in the middle of aisles parallel to
the front wall, Fig. X.1 (right), was analyzed in (Caron et al., 1998), while the optimal layout
was considered in (Caron et al., 2000).

X.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 & Meller, 2009a) the authors show that these design
assumptions, which are unnecessary from a construction point of view, limit efficiency and
productivity because they require of 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. X.4 (left). Disapproving the second assumption that picking aisles
must be parallel, they derived the so-called fishbone layout shown in Fig. X.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 3-5% 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 10–15%.
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
Chapter Title (Header position 1,5) 9

“chevron aisles” layout, illustrated in Fig. X.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 &
Meller, 2009b).

Fig. X.4 Innovative warehouse layouts (Gue & Meller, 2009b)

X.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 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 1x1 meter, and the width of all aisles is 2 meters. The basic traditional layout
had 12 main aisles (total width across aisles is 48 meters) and the length of main aisles was
24 meters (24 locations per row). Fig. X.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 X.6. A comparable fishbone design is shown in Fig. X.7 and a comparable
chevron layout in Fig. X.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 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. X.6.
Chapter Title (Header position 1,5)
10

Fig. X.5 Picking route example (S-shape policy) in the basic traditional layout

Fig. X.6 Picking route example (S-shape policy) in a traditional layout with a middle cross-
aisle

Such an algorithm is easily applicable to the fishbone design, as illustrated in Fig. X.7, and to
the chevron layout considered as a 2-block layout illustrated in Fig. X.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 X.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
Chapter Title (Header position 1,5) 11

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 increases– average
distance between picks decreases) there will be a point where adding a middle cross-aisle is
not beneficial.

Fig. X.7 Picking route example (S-shape policy) in a fishbone layout

Fig. X.8 Picking route example (S-shape policy) in a chevron layout

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 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
Chapter Title (Header position 1,5)
12

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.

S-shape Order size Composite Order size

routing policy 10 30 routing policy 10 30
Traditional Traditional
258.7 375.8 228.2 363.9
Warehouse layout

Warehouse layout
(basic) (basic)
Traditional Traditional
193.9 329.0 182.8 309
(middle cross-aisle) (middle cross-aisle)
Fishbone 227.5 351.9 Fishbone 213.1 317.3

Chevron 268.5 397.2 Chevron 233.2 370.2

Table X.1 Simulation results of average picking travel distance (in meters)

X.6 Conclusion
The fishbone layout is with no 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 future work should include more cases. Furthermore,
according to the previous research presented in sections X.2 and X.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 2 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. X.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
 Chapter Title (Header position 1,5) 13

area of basic traditional layout. The required area of the fishbone or the chevron layout is
also increased in comparison 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.

X.7 References
Bauer P (1985) Planung und Auslegung von Palettenlagern. Springer Verlag, Berlin
Caron F, Marchet G, Perego A (1998) Routing policies and COI-based storage policies in
picker-to-part systems. Int J Prod Res 36(3):713-732
Caron F, Marchet G, Perego A (2000) Optimal layout in low-level picker-to-part systems. Int
J Prod Res 38(1):101-107
De Koster R, Le-Duc T, Roodbergen KJ (2007) Design and control of warehouse order-
picking: A literature review. Eur J Oper Res 182:481-501
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 203:539-549
Gue KR, Meller RD (2009a) Aisle Configurations for Unit-Load Warehouses. IIE Trans
41(3):171-182
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, Hawaii
Petersen CG (1997) An evaluation of order picking routeing policies. Int J Oper Prod Man
17(11):1098-1111
Pohl LM, Meller RD, Gue KR (2009a) An Analysis of Dual Command Operations in
Common Warehouse Designs. Transport Res E 45(3):367-379
Pohl LM, Meller RD, Gue KR (2009b) Optimizing the Fishbone Aisle Design for Dual-
Command Operations in a Warehouse. Nav Res Log 56(5):389-403
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 133:32-43
Roodbergen KJ, De Koster R (2001b) Routing methods for warehouses with multiple cross
aisles. Int J Prod Res 39(9):1865-1883
Roodbergen KJ, Vis IFA (2006) A model for warehouse layout. IIE Trans 38(10):799-811
Roodbergen KJ, Sharp GP, Vis IFA (2008) Designing the layout structure of manual order
picking areas in warehouses. IIE Trans 40(11):1032-1045
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
122:515-533
Tompkins JA, White JA, Bozer YA, Frazelle EH, Tanchoco JMA, Trevino J (1996) Facilities
Planning 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, NY
Van den Berg J (1999) A literature survey on planning and control of warehousing systems,
IIE Trans 31:751-762
Vaughan TS, Petersen CG (1999) The effect of warehouse cross aisles on order picking
efficiency. Int J Prod Res 37(4):881-897

View publication stats