IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 64, NO.
1, FEBRUARY 2017
Bot-In-Time Delivery for Robotic Mobile
Fulfillment Systems
Zhe Yuan and Yeming (Yale) Gong
Abstract—This paper studies a robotic mobile fulfillment sys-
tem (RMFS) featured by robots transporting movables shelves to
order pickers. The RMFS can increase productivity, reduce costs,
increase order picking accuracy, and improve operational flexibil-
ity. We build queue network models to describe the RMFS with two
protocols in sharing robots for pickers, propose the corresponding
algorithms, conduct numerical analyses, and evaluate the perfor-
mance of the RMFS by calculating the throughput time. We then
calculate the optimal number and the velocity of robots, and pro-
vide the effective design rules for the RMFS.
Index Terms—Distribution center, facility design, mobile fulfill-
ment system, order picking, queue networks, robotic warehouse,
speedy delivery, warehouse management.
I. INTRODUCTION
NLINE retailers face the problem of designing oper-
O ational processes to achieve speedy and cost-effective
delivery [1]. Driven by leading online retailers such as Amazon,
an increasing number of consumers expect same-day delivery.
Facing this challenge, many competitors are improving the ve-
locity and efficiency of delivery with new distribution facilities
[2], and warehouse automation has become a key solution [3].
Robotic mobile fulfillment systems (RMFSs) apply econom-
ically feasible robots [4], simple shelves, basic conveyers for
picker workstations, and centralized control softwares [5]. In
most of the traditional conveyor-based warehouses, items are
moved using conveyors, chutes, and carousels, or by human
operators with tow racks or forklifts [6]. A typical 10 000-m2
warehouse employs 75 pickers on 8-h shifts to fulfill 200 000
order picks per day [7]. In an RMFS, products are stored on
light, simple, and portable storage shelves in a parallel-aisle
storage zone. These storage shelves are not fixed to the floor and
can be moved by robots replacing conveyor belts and humans
[8]. When an order is released, a robot can receive the order
Manuscript received March 9, 2016; revised July 27, 2016 and November 3,
2016; accepted November 29, 2016. Date of publication January 18, 2017; date
of current version January 18, 2017. This work was supported by the China
Scholarship Council, by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
under Grant 71620107002, by the National Social Science Foundation under
Grant 16ZDA013, and by the Chutian Scholarship. Review of this manuscript
was arranged by Department Editor T. Ravichandran. (Corresponding author:
Yeming (Yale) Gong.)
Z. Yuan is with the Laboratory of Engineering Industry, Centrale-
Supélec, Université Paris Saclay, Châtenay-Malabry, 92290, France (e-mail:
zhe.yuan@centralesupelec.fr).
Y. (Y.) Gong is with the EMLYON Business School, Écully 69134, France
(e-mail: gong@em-lyon.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2016.2634540
0018-9391 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
83
information wirelessly (e.g., with WiFi) [9] and use a camera to
read navigational barcode stickers on the warehouse floor [10].
Robots then navigate the warehouse to find the appropriate
storage shelves containing the requested items, lift the storage
shelves up by sliding under them, and bring them to picker
workstations [11]. Pickers then select items and place them in
cartons. Completed orders in cartons are moved to a storage zone
and, then, to the docks for shipping when trucks arrive. Forbes
has called this business operation “bot-in-time” delivery, where
“bot” means a robot [12]. In a typical conveyor-based operation,
a picker can pick 200–400 items per hour, whereas warehousing
robots can present a new item to a picker every 6 s, leading to a
basic rate of 600 items per hour [6]. Amazon’s latest data show
that the company currently has deployed 13 distribution centers
with warehousing robots [13]. The RMFS can reduce order
fulfillment time in warehouses, allowing them to meet customer
expectations for speedy delivery. Admittedly, the RMFS can be
used only in reducing warehousing time, and online retailers
need other solutions to reduce the transportation time.
Automation and computer technology is rapidly developing,
wherein flexible manufacturing and intelligent logistics systems
are among the important solutions for current online retailers.
Intelligent robot control is a major research topic with high
value, and warehousing robots play a practical role as a branch
of robotics. This paper is timely based on the challenging
background of warehousing robots. Our research findings and
methods can be used in the operation management of robotic
warehouses, with practical management significance. The main
research problem of this paper is as follows: What are the
optimal number and velocity of robots to minimize the total
throughput time in an RMFS?
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section II,
we discuss the relevant literature. In Section III, based on open
queue networks, we develop models with both dedicated robots
and pooled robots to evaluate the throughput time. Section IV
verifies the analytical models via simulation, determines the
optimal number and velocity of robots, and considers congestion
of the system. We make concluding remarks in Section V.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Mobile order fulfillment has been applied in warehouse op-
erations [14]. An RMFS employs robots and a parts-to-picker
system with mobile communication and control. Researchers
have studied different optimal operation and design problems
of parts-to-picker systems, including travel-time models [15],
84 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 64, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2017
request sequencing problems [16], space estimation models
[17], throughput optimization [18], [19], and storage assignment
problems [20]. Song et al. [21] measured the key performance
of an order fulfillment system for multiple items. The optimiza-
tion of an individual warehousing robot includes battery man-
agement and time management [22]. As pioneer researchers in
mobile fulfillment systems, Wurman et al. [23] studied the co-
ordination of hundreds of cooperative autonomous vehicles in
warehouses. Enright and Wurman [24] solved the problem of
optimization and coordinated autonomy in a mobile fulfillment
system. Chen and Dong [25] formulated two order fulfillment
models considering customer priority in order to obtain reserv-
ing production capacity and reserving components for each cus-
tomer class. In order to achieve speedy delivery, we need to
consider the throughput time of the RMFS. There have been
literature reviews on travel time and waiting time in order ful-
fillment systems. Higa et al. [26] considered order waiting time
in a continuous review base-stock system with independent and
identically distributed replenishment lead times for each stock
unit. Wensing and Kuhn [27] analyzed expected waiting times
to evaluate the performance of an inventory system. Pan et al.
[28] formulated an order picking model using queue networks
considering waiting time, traveling time, and picking time in or-
der to minimize average order fulfillment time in a multipicker
system. Gong and De Koster [29] studied a mobile order fulfill-
ment system to achieve a time-based competitive advantage for
online retailers.
One of the research topics relevant to the RMFS is routing
design [30], and the objective of routing research is to minimize
the throughput time of a warehouse. Lee et al. [31] proposed the
heuristic algorithm of sequential path generation and generated
the shortest collision-free path for multiple agents in semiauto-
mated warehouses. Automated guided vehicles (AGVs) in the
automotive industry and the manufacturing industry are more
widely applied in long-distance path planning [32]. Qiu et al.
[33] focused on efficient algorithms for scheduling and rout-
ing problems of AGV systems. They classified algorithms into
algorithms for general path topologies, path layout optimiza-
tion, and specific path topology. The performance of the RMFS
is outstanding in fixed routing. Some literature simultaneously
addresses various design problems of AGV systems by using
simulation [34] and developing analytical models, which can
be applied for AGV systems [35]. Hu and Egbelu [36] studied
different scheduling strategies for existing idle AGVs when ser-
vice requests arrive. Few researchers have studied the design
and application of the RMFS, and the focus of this paper is on
the minimal throughput time with mathematical analysis and
simulation for the RMFS.
III. MODEL AND ANALYSIS
We consider the following layout shown in Fig. 1, which is
based on the layout of Zappos’s robotic order fulfillment systems
[37]. We use the following notations:
X abscissa of a robot’s position;
Y ordinate of a robot’s position;
R number of robots;
N number of pickers;
v velocity of robots;
Fig. 1. Layout of an RMFS.
W width of a robotic warehouse;
L length of a robotic warehouse;
T r throughput time;
λr arrival rate of robots;
μr service rate of robots;
μP service rate of pickers.
The RMFS is abstracted as a rasterized image, with each
square block corresponding to the grid position coordinates
(X, Y ). Triangles represent pickers. Circles without squares
represent walking warehousing robots, which are not carrying
shelves. Circles with solid-line squares are warehousing robots,
which have mounted a shelf. Dotted-line squares are empty
storage locations, and solid-line squares are with shelves. In or-
der to facilitate the calculation, we simplify the initial location
coordinates to (0, 0). We consider two protocols: 1) R robots
are served by one order picker; and 2) R robots are served by
multiple-order pickers. We assume that velocities of all robots
are the same. All moving robots in the RMFS are in good work-
ing condition, without failures.
A. Dedicated Robots
In this section, we consider a situation where R robots are
served by one order picker. The system is a centralized system
and the order arrival process to robots follows a Poisson process.
We assume that the system is continuous and the storage position
follows uniform distribution. After receiving an order request, a
robot originally staying in the order picker workstation follows
the protocol.
1) Leave the order picker station.
2) Travel to the storage grid to pick a shelf which includes
requested item(s).
3) Return to a picker station which is serving.
4) Return the shelf to its original storage position after the
worker picks the item.
5) Return to the picker station.
We have the following lemma.
Lemma 1: If robot r is served by the leftmost or rightmost
picker, the RMFS with a single picker can be described as an
M/G/1 queue.
YUAN AND GONG: BOT-IN-TIME DELIVERY FOR ROBOTIC MOBILE FULFILLMENT SYSTEMS 85

Proof: The arrival process follows a Poisson process. We Equation (6) can be used to design the velocity of robots, and
mainly need to show that the interservice time follows uniform we have the following design rule.
distribution. We assumed that the beginning position of robot r Design rule 1: There exists a minimal acceptable velocity of
is the leftmost picker’s position. Note that a robot receives the robots such that expected waiting time at robots is less than a
order information wirelessly, uses a camera to read navigational ωr .
barcode stickers on the warehouse floor, and travels in straight Proof: Since EWr (v) is a decreasing function of v, let the
lines. We suppose that a robot receives an order with a storage upper bound of EWr , a measure for the service level, at robots
position (Xr , Yr ). Let X ∼ U [0, W ], and the density function be ωr . The minimal acceptable velocity of robots v is given by
of X is f (x)
 1 7λr (W + L)2 W +L
0≤x≤W λr (W +L )
+ = ωr . (7)
W , 12v 2 (1 − ) v
f (x) = (1) v
0, otherwise.

The probability function of X is F (x) We calculate the squared coefficient of variation of an inter-
⎧ x arrival time of robots c2aR = 1, ρ = λr (Wv +L ) , the squared co-
⎨W, 0≤x≤W
⎪ efficient of variation of an interservice time of robots c2sR = 13 ,
F (x) = 1, x>W (2) μ = W v+L , and EWr from (6). Then, based on the equation
⎪
⎩
0, x < 0. c2dR = c2aR + 2ρ2 c2sR − 2ρ(1 − ρ)μEW from [39, eq. (37), p.
2799], we obtain the squared coefficient of variation of an in-
Let Y ∼ U [0, L], and the density function of Y is g(y) terdeparture time

1
, 0≤y≤L  
g(y) = L 2 2λ2r (W + L)2 λr (W + L)
(3) cdR = 1 + − 2λr 1 −
0, otherwise. 3v 2 v

The probability function of Y is G(y) 7λr (W + L)2 W +L

⎧y λ (W +L )
+ . (8)
12v 2 (1 − r
) v
⎨ L, 0 ≤ y ≤ L
⎪ v

G(y) = 1, y > L (4) 2) Superposition of departure streams from robots: The de-
⎪
⎩
0, y < 0. parture processes are merged into one process, which is also
the process of arrival to the picker. We use methods from [39,
Let Z = X + Y , and its density function is h(z), as shown in pp. 2794–2797] and have
Fig. 12 in Appendix A 
λaP = ΣR
1 λr . (9)
⎧ z
⎪
⎪ WL, 0≤z≤L With the asymptotic method, the squared coefficient of vari-
⎪
⎪
⎨ 1, L<z<W ation of an interarrival time of the picker is
h(z) = W (5) 
⎪
⎪
W +L −z
W ≤z ≤W +L 2λ2 (W + L)2
⎪ WL , λr
⎪
⎩ 2
caP = Σr =1 R
R
1+ r
0, otherwise. Σr =1 λr 3v 2
 
So, EZ = W 2+L is the expectation of Z. We denote ES as the λr (W + L)
− 2λr 1 −
expected service time of robots, and ES = 2Ev Z = W v+L . v
R robots will carry shelves to the picker. R departure pro- ⎡ ⎤
2
cesses are merged into an arrival process to the picker. The ⎣ 7λ (W + L) W + L ⎦ .
r + (10)
2 λr (W +L ) v
interservice time of the picker follows exponential distribution. 12v 1 − v
As such, the picker service system can be described as a G/M/1
system. We describe the system with Fig. 13 in Appendix B. 3) Analysis of pickers: The expected delay time in a picker
1) Analysis of robots: We use ED to denote the expected is given by Whitt [39, p. 2802]:
delay time and ES to denote the expected service time. The
expected waiting time EW = ED + ES. From [38, eq. (154), ρ(c2aP + c2sP )
(S 2 ) λE (S 2 )
EDP = g(ρ, c2aP , c2sP ). (11)
p. 280], we have EW = λE 1
2(1−ρ) + μ , where ED = 2(1−ρ) is
2μ(1 − ρ)
the delay time and μ1 is the service time. Considering robot r 2(1−ρ)(1−c 2a P ) 2 )
7(W +L ) 2
Here, g(ρ, c2aP , c2sP ) is defined as exp[− 3ρ(c 2a P +c 2s P )
]
2
as a server in an M/G/1 queue, we have E(S ) = ,
λr (W +L ) 2
6v 2 when c2aP < 1, and 1 when c2aP ≥ 1. We 2
substitute csP = 1
μ = W +L , and ρ =
v
. Substituting E(S ), μ, and ρ into and λaP = ΣR
v 1 λr into EDP and obtain
EW, we obtain the expected waiting time at the robot r
2
1 λr (caP + 1)
ΣR
EWr = 7λr (W +L ) 2
+ W +L EDP = g(ρ, c2aP , c2sP ). (12)
v . (6) 2μP (μP − ΣR1 λr )
λ (W + L )
12v 2 (1− r v )
86 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 64, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2017

We consider the mean number of jobs in queue Lq : Lemma 3: EDP (R) is a nonlinear function of R. When R ≥
3λ(W +L )
(ΣR 2 2 EDP (R) is an increasing function of R.
,
1 λr ) (caP + 1) 2v
Lq = g(ρ, c2aP , c2sP ). (13) Proof: The expected delay time at picker workstations is
2μP (μP − ΣR
1 λr )
This is also the number of robots that are carrying shelves λ(c2aP + 1)
and waiting before the picker. In this system, there is an upper EDP (R) = g(ρ, c2aP , c2sP ). (18)
2μP (μP − λ)
bound ι on Lq . We show that we can find a design rule for the
velocity of robots.
Design rule 2: There exists a minimal acceptable velocity of The monotony of EDP (R) is only related to c2aP (R). We
2
robots such that the number of robots who are carrying shelves r =1 λr = λ into caP (R) and obtain
substitute ΣR
and waiting before the picker Lq is less than ι from space con-
straints. 3λ2 (W + L)2 2λ(W + L)
c2aP (R) = 1 + −
Proof: c2aP is a decreasing function of v. g(ρ, c2aR , c2sR ) is a 2R2 v 2 Rv
decreasing function of v when c2aR < 1, and 1 when c2aR ≥ 1.  2
1 3 λ(W + L) 2
So, Lq is a decreasing function of v. By solving the following = + − . (19)
3 2 Rv 3
equation:
2 2
1 λr ) (caP (v 2 ) + 1)
(ΣR As R increases, the function EDP (R) is nonlinear. It first de-
Lq (v 2 ) = g(ρ, c2aP (v 2 ), c2sP )
2μP (μP − ΣR 1 rλ ) creases and then increases after reaching a critical point. When
=ι (14) 0 < R ≤ 3λ(W2v+L ) , the function EDP (R) decreases. When
R ≥ 3λ(W2v+L ) , EDP (R) increases. From (16), we derive the
we can get the minimal acceptable velocity of robots, v 2 . optimal robot number. 
 3λ(W +L )
Lemma 4: When 0 < R ≤ 2v , T r(R) is a decreasing
4) Analysis of system stability: For robots, λr < μr =
function, and we have an R limited by integer constraints. When
W +L , r = 1, . . . , R. For picker workstations, Σ1 λr < μP .
v R
R ≥ 3λ(W2v+L ) , T r(R) is a convex function.
5) Throughput time: We estimate the average customer
throughput time of orders, which is a sum of components: Proof: Let ∂ T∂rR(R ) = 0. We can obtain R0 from the following
the delay time EDr that an order spends in the queue wait- equation:
ing to be carried by robots, the average service time μ1r of
 2
a robot, the delay time EDP that an order carried by robots 6λ2 λ(W + L)
R02 = 2 2
g(ρ, caR , csR ) R0 −
spends in the queue waiting to be handled at picker worksta- μP (μP − λ) v
tions, and the expected picking time μ1P by order pickers. From  
v 1
T r = EDr + μ1r + EDP + μ1P , we have − . (20)
2λ(W + L) R0
7λr (W + L)2 W +L 1
Tr = + +
12v 2 (1 − λr (W +L )
v ) v μr If R > 3λ(W2v+L ) , the optimal number of robots R∗ = R0 . If
ΣR 2 R ≤ 3λ(W2v+L ) , the optimal number of robots R∗ = 3λ(W2v+L ) .
1 λr (caP + 1) 1
+ g(ρ, c2aP , c2sP ) + . (15)
2μP (μP − Σ1 λr )
R μP
6) The optimal number of robots: We assume that the work B. Pooled Robots
is equally allocated to R robots, the arrival rate of the Rth In this section, we consider a situation in which robots
robot is λr = λ/R, λr are equal, and ΣR
1 λr = λ. We obtain the can be served by multiple-order pickers. After receiving
function of T r(R) an order request, a robot follows the protocol proposed in
7 Rλ (W + L)2 1 Section III-A.
T r(R) = λ(W +L )
+ The system is centralized, and the order arrival process to
12v 2 (1 − Rv ) μr
robots follows a Poisson process with a rate of λ. Orders are
λ(c2aP + 1) 1 assigned to available robots following the rule of F CF S. Af-
+ g(ρ, c2aP , c2sP ) + . (16) ter orders arrive, each robot, originally staying with the or-
2μP (μP − λ) μP
der picker, leaves the picker and travels to storage positions to
Lemma 2: EDr (R) is a decreasing function of R. pick one shelf, which can provide items to that order. Then,
Proof: We can observe it from the robot returns to one of the pickers. The service rate of the
7 Rλ (W + L)2 picker processing an order is μp , and the service time follows
EDr (R) = λ(W +L ) a general distribution. The picker handles robots with the rule
12v 2 (1 − Rv )
of F CF S.
7λ(W + L)2 Open queue networks consist of an M/G/R queue and an
=  . (17) M/G/N queue. Two queuing systems are connected in the
12v 2 R − λ(Wv+L )
queue networks.
YUAN AND GONG: BOT-IN-TIME DELIVERY FOR ROBOTIC MOBILE FULFILLMENT SYSTEMS 87

1) Analysis of robots: The expected delay time in a robot is system, and Ss /Sr  is the number of robots that can be allowed
to stay in front of each picker station.
EDr = φ(ρ, c2aR , c2sR , R)
Considering the feasible space, we have Lq (β) ≤ Ss /Sr .
 
c2aR + c2sR From (25), we know that R and N are independent variables of
EDr (M/M/R). (21) Lq (c2aP includes R, and EDP (M/M/N ) includes N ), and the
2
optimization system is
φ(ρ, c2aR , c2sR , R) is given by Whitt [40, eq. (2.25)].
min Lq (β)
EDr (M/M/R) = μ R R R1(1−ρ) [ R(R ρ) R
!(1−ρ) ]ζ, and ζ is given by
Whitt [40, eq. (2.4)]. s.t. Lq (β) ≤ Ss /Sr . (26)
The departure process is also the arrival process to the picker.
We use methods from [39, p. 2799], and the squared coefficient We derive an optimal ratio of robots and pickers as follows:
of variation of an interarrival time of the picker is β1 = arg min{min Lq (β)|Lq (β) ≤ Ss /Sr }. (27)
2
ρ
c2aP = c2dR = 1 + (1 − ρ2 )(c2aR − 1) + √ (c2sR − 1) Considering the service level of the system, we can build the
R following optimization system:
ρ2 min T r(β)
= 1 + √ (c2sR − 1). (22)
R
s.t. Lq (β) ≤ ι. (28)
2) Analysis of pickers: The expected delay time in a
picker is We derive an optimal ratio of robots and pickers as follows:
2  β2 = arg min{min T r(β)|Lq (β) ≤ ι}.
2 2 caP + c2sP (29)
EDP = φ(ρ, caP , csP , N ) EDP (M/M/N ) (23)
2 When the number of pickers is the same, β is relevant to the
where c2aP
is given by (22), c2sP = 1, ρ = λ/(N μP ), investment cost of the robots. We can choose the minimal β
to ensure the minimum investment cost based on the satisfied
EDP (M/M/N ) = μ P N N1 (1−ρ) [ N(N!(1−ρ)
ρ) N
]ζ, and ζ is given by
service level. Considering the tradeoff between the investment
Whitt [40, eq. (2.4)].
cost of the robots and the service level in the feasible set, we
3) Analysis of system stability: For robots, λ < Rμr . For
can obtain an optimal ratio of robots and pickers
picker workstations, λ < N μP .
4) Throughput time: As in Section III-B, we have T r = β ∗ = min[β1 , β2 ]. (30)
EDr + μ1r + EDP + μ1P , where EDr is given by (21) and EDP
is given by (23) IV. NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS
 2 
2 2 caR + c2sR Section IV-A calculates the basic results and shows the
T r = φ(ρ, caR , csR , R)
2 change of EDr , EDP , and T r with R. Section IV-B veri-
    fies the analytical models via simulation and compares sim-
1 (Rρ)R 1
ζ + ulative and analytic results. Section IV-C jointly determines
μR R R(1 − ρ) R!(1 − ρ) μr R the number and velocity of robots without considering con-
 
 2 2
 c2aP + c2sP gestion. Section IV-D considers system congestion and com-
+ φ ρ, caP , csP , N pares the systems of pooled robots and dedicated robots with
2
    congestion.
1 (N ρ)N 1
ζ + . (24)
μP N N (1 − ρ) N !(1 − ρ) μP A. Basic Calculation Results
5) Analysis of system congestion: We consider the mean We use MATLAB R2014a to verify the analytic RMFS model
number of jobs in queue Lq in Section III-A, denoting μ as the capacity of a picker. We con-
  sider a 50-m-long and 40-m-wide warehouse with an arrival rate
 2 2
 c2aP + c2sP
Lq = λφ ρ, caP , csP , N EDP (M/M/N). (25) of 0.4/min, and the velocity of robots is 10 m/min. The change
2 of robots’ expected queuing delay time EDr (R), expected pick-
This is also the number of robots that are carrying shelves ing delay time EDP (R), and throughput time T r(R) is shown
and waiting before the pickers. In this system, the congestion in Fig. 2.
near picker workstations can be serious, since the space in front Fig. 2 shows that EDr (R) is a decreasing function of R
of each picker station is limited. Therefore, there is an upper and EDP (R) is a nonlinear function of R. Since the number of
bound ι on Lq . robots R is an integer, when v = 10 m/min, 0 < R ≤ 5, T r(R) is
We define Ss as the area in front of a picker station, and Sr a decreasing function. When R ≥ 5, T r(R) is a convex function.
as the occupied area of a robot. Considering the congestion, The optimal number of robots is seven, and the result is in line
we optimize the ratio of robots and pickers as β = R/N . The with the proved conclusion R∗ = 3λ(W2v+L ) . These results are
throughput time T r is used to measure the service level of the consistent with Lemmas 2–4.
88
Fig. 2. Change of ED r , ED P , and T r with R.
Fig. 3. Comparison of simulative and analytic results for the dedicated model.
B. Verification of Analytic Results Via Simulation
Arena 14.0 is used to simulate the single-service and multi-
service queuing systems. The purpose of the simulation experi-
ment is to examine the matching degree between the analytical
model and the simulative system. We build simulation models
in Arena 14.0 to verify the analysis model (see Appendix E for
simulation processes of the RMFS with dedicated robots). We
simulate the RMFS with dedicated robots and pooled robots
based on assumptions presented in Sections III-A and III-B for
1000 warehousing operational hours. The average simulation
running time is 17.64 s per run in a computer with an Intel Core
i7-4790S CPU at 3.20 GHz, and 8-GB RAM.
Fig. 3 presents the analytical and simulative results of the
dedicated robots model with different values of v. We defined
1
M |T r jA 1 −T r jS 1 |
the bias as M 1 j =1 × 100%, where T rjA 1 is the
S1
T rj
throughput time obtained using the analytical models, T rjS 1 is
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 64, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2017
Fig. 4. Comparison of simulative and analytic results for the pooled model.
the throughput time obtained by the simulation, j is the index of
a simulation run, and M1 is the total number of simulation runs.
The largest and average bias between analytical and simulation
values are 7.41% and 5.54% based on 400 groups of experi-
ments. j is the scenario index featured by difference values of
λ and R.
Fig. 4 presents analytical and simulative results of the pooled
robots model Awith various values of v. We defined the bias as
1
M |T r j 2 −T r jS 2 |
M2 j =1 S2 × 100%, where T rjA 2 is the throughput
T rj
time obtained by the analytical models, T rjS 2 is the through-
put time obtained by the simulation, j is the scenario index,
featured by difference values of λ, R, and N , and M2 is
the total number of simulation runs. The largest and average
bias between analytical and simulation values are 6.67% and
4.95% based on 1600 groups of experiments with different
parameters.
In two results, while simulative results are closer to reality,
the analytic results are based on the approximation methods
from [39] and [40]. This is a reason leading to the bias.
C. Optimal Decision
An important problem for the RMFS design is to determine
the optimal number and velocity of robots. This section shows
how to apply mobile picking systems in practice, especially to
optimize the number and velocity of robots.
1) Determine the Number of Robots: We consider a ware-
house with λ = 0.4, width W = 40, and aisle length L = 50.
When v = 10 m/min, by solving (16), we obtain the optimal
number of robots R∗ = 2λ(Wv +L ) = 7. Similarly, by solving
(16) and deleting values that do not satisfy the integer con-
straint, we obtain the optimal number of robots R∗ = 4. When
v = 30 m/min, the optimal number of robots R∗ = 2. When
v = 40 m/min, the optimal number of robots R∗ = 1. When
v = 50 m/min, the optimal number of robots R∗ = 1.
YUAN AND GONG: BOT-IN-TIME DELIVERY FOR ROBOTIC MOBILE FULFILLMENT SYSTEMS
Fig. 5. Throughput time with the change of R.
Fig. 6. Throughput time with the change of v.
Fig. 5 shows that with an increased number of robots, the
throughput time increases nonlinearly. Since R is an integer,
when v = 10 m/min, the number of robots is less than seven.
The throughput time decreases and then begins to increase.
When v = 20 m/min, the number of robots is less than four. The
throughput time decreases first and then increases. When v =
30 m/min, the number of robots is less than two. The throughput
time decreases and then increases. When v = 40 m/min, the
number of robots is less than one. The throughput time decreases
and then increases. When v = 50 m/min, the number of robots is
less than one. The throughput time decreases and then increases.
When the number of robots is more than 30, the throughput time
does not change much.
2) Determine the Velocity of Robots: Without considering
aisle congestion, Fig. 6 shows that as the velocity of robots
increases, the throughput time decreases. Because of technical
89
Fig. 7. Throughput time with the change of v and the change of R.
Fig. 8. Throughput time with the change of N and the change of R.
capacity, aisle width, and other constraints, the velocity of robots
has an upper bound.
3) Jointly Determine the Velocity of Robots: Fig. 7 shows a
3-D figure of the model of dedicated robots and shows that the
throughput time changes with v and R. The minimal value of
the throughput time is 11.9 min when R = 2 and v = 50 m/min.
From Fig. 7, for the influence on throughput time, the velocity
of robots is greater than the number of robots.
Fig. 8 shows a 3-D figure of the model of pooled robots and
shows that the throughput time changes with N and the change
of R. When the number of robots and pickers increases, the
throughput time decreases.
D. Considering System Congestion
This section takes system congestion into consideration
and shows how to optimize the ratio of robots and pickers.
90 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 64, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2017

Fig. 9. L q with the change of β considering the feasible area.

Fig. 10. Comparison of the two models with congestion.

Section IV-D2 compares pooled robots and dedicated robots

with congestion.
1) Considering the Feasible Set: The size of a robot is ap-
proximately 2 ft by 2.5 ft [5] and the area in front of each picker
station is approximately 29 ft2 . We set Ss = 29 ft2 , Sr = 5 ft2 ,
so Ss /Sr  = 5. We use MATLAB R2014a to calculate the two
analytic models with warehouse parameters W = 50, L = 40,
λ = 0.4, and v = 20 m/min. Fig. 9 shows that with congestion of
the system, considering the maximal number of robots that can
be allowed to stay in front of picker station, the optimal ratio of
robots and pickers is β ∗ = 6.
2) Comparison of Pooled Robots and Dedicated Robots With
Congestion: We compare the pooled robot model with the ded-
icated robot model considering the congestion in front of each
picker station, as presented in Sections III-A and III-B.
Fig. 10 shows the trend of the throughput time of the model
with congestion in front of each picker station, as the ratio of
robots and pickers β increases. The throughput time T r(β) of
Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysis of v.
dedicated robots is a decreasing function, as the ratio of robots
and pickers β increases. The throughput time of pooled robots
T r(β) first decreases and then increases as the ratio of robots and
model changing v from 15 to 35 at a step size of 5 and β from
pickers β increases considering the congestion in front of each
2 to 18 at a step size of 4.
picker station. For example, if N = 3 and R = 3, μP = 0.5; this
Only considering the velocity of robots v, Fig. 11 shows that
satisfies the stability condition of picker workstations λ < N μP .
with the increase of v, the throughput time decreases, but the
But μr = W v+L = 0.11 does not satisfy the stability condition of
decline rate of the throughput time decreases. Only considering
robots λ < Rμr . When 1 ≤ β ≤ 11, the throughput time of the
the ratio of robots and pickers, we can see that the throughput
RMFS model with pooled robots is less than the throughput time
time first decreases. When β is around 6, we get the minimal
of the RMFS model with dedicated robots. When 11 ≤ β ≤ 20,
throughput time. After that, the throughput time increases.
the throughput time of the RMFS model with pooled robots
is more than the throughput time of the RMFS model with
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
“dedicated robots” because of the congestion.
3) Sensitivity Analysis of the Velocity of Robots: Based on In this paper, we establish the model of dedicated robots
the congestion of the RMFS model with pooled robots, we with single-service open queuing networks and the model of
conduct a sensitivity analysis to observe the influence of the pooled robots with multiple-service open queuing networks for
velocity of robots v on the throughput time of the pooled robot the RMFS. The optimal number and velocity of warehouse
YUAN AND GONG: BOT-IN-TIME DELIVERY FOR ROBOTIC MOBILE FULFILLMENT SYSTEMS 91

Fig. 12. Density function of the travel distance Z .

robots are calculated in order to achieve effective warehous-

ing operations in terms of the total throughput time. We verify
the analytical results of the RMFS and simulate the open queue
networks systems. Numerical experiments for optimal decisions Fig. 13. Queue network model for an RMFS with “dedicated robots.”
are shown first with dedicated robots and pooled robots without
considering paths blocking. Then, we obtain the optimal ratio
of robots and pickers considering the feasible area and the con-
gestion of systems. Our research provides design support for
bot-in-time delivery and fast response for online retailers. Our
research findings and methods can be used in the facility design
and in the planning of robotic warehouses, with managerial rel-
evance particularly to online retailers handling the “last mile”
problem.
Our research has two differences with real systems. First,
our analytic model is based on Whitt approximations, which
will lead to relative errors. Second, we have not considered bat-
tery management in the RMFS. Future research might evaluate
battery charging and swapping strategies in the RMFS. Fig. 14. A queue networks model for RMFS with “pooled robots”.

APPENDIX A
DENSITY FUNCTION OF THE TRAVEL DISTANCE A. The Expected Delay Time in a Robot
In this appendix, Fig. 12 presents the density function of the The expected delay time in a robot EDr = φ(ρ, c2aR , c2sR , R)
travel distance Z. c 2 +c 2
( aR 2 sR)EDr (M/M/R),
1 (R ρ) R
APPENDIX B where EDr (M/M/R) = μR (1−ρ) [ R !(1−ρ) ]ζr and ζr =
 R −1
k = 1 (R ρ)
[ R(R
k
ρ) R −1
QUEUE NETWORK MODEL FOR THE RMFS WITH “DEDICATED +
!(1−ρ) k! ] .
ROBOTS” 2 2
φ(ρ, caR , csR , R) is defined as follows:
4(c 2 −c 2 )
In this appendix, Fig. 13 presents a queue networks model for When c2aR ≥ c2sR , φ(ρ, c2aR , c2sR , R) = ( 4c 2a R−3cs2R )φ1
aR sR
the RMFS with “dedicated robots.” c2 R c 2 +c 2
(R, ρ) + ( 4c 2 s−3c 2 )ψ( a R 2 s R , R, ρ).
aR sR
c 2 −c 2
APPENDIX C When c2aR < c2sR , φ(ρ, c2aR , c2sR , R) = ( 2c 2s R +2ca R2 )φ3
aR sR
QUEUE NETWORK MODEL FOR THE RMFS WITH “POOLED c 2 +3c 2a R c 2a R +c 2s R
(R, ρ) + ( 2cs2R 2 )ψ( 2 , R, ρ) .
ROBOTS” a R +2c s R
2 2
Where caR + csR
= 1, φ1 (R, ρ) = 1 + γ(R, ρ), φ2 (R, ρ) =
In this appendix, Fig. 14 presents a queue networks model for
1 − 4γ(R, ρ), φ3 (R, ρ) = φ2 (R, ρ) exp{ −2(1−ρ)
3ρ }, φ4 (R, ρ) =
the RMFS with “pooled robots.”
φ 3 (R ,ρ)
min{1, φ1 (R, ρ) + 2 }, and γ(R, ρ) = min{0.24, (1 −
1
APPENDIX D (4+5R ) −2 2
ρ)(R − 1) 16R ρ }.
EXPECTED DELAY TIME OF MODELS WITH “POOLED ROBOTS”
We consider the situation where robots are served by multiple- B. The Expected Delay Time in a Picker
order pickers. In this model, we consider the expected delay time
in a robot and the expected delay time in a picker. We use EDr The squared coefficient of variation of an interarrival
and EDP to denote the expected delay time in a robot and the time of the picker is c2aP = c2dR = 1 + (1 − ρ2 )(c2aR − 1) +
ρ2 2
expected delay time in a picker. √ (c2 − 1) = 1 + √ρR (c2sR − 1).
R sR
92 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 64, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2017

APPENDIX E SIMULATION MODEL OF THE RMFS WITH

“DEDICATED ROBOTS”
We take RMFS with “dedicated robots” for an example, and
build a simulation model of RMFS with “dedicated robots” to
simulate the queue networks.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Prof. M. Jin for his useful
comments.

REFERENCES
[1] H. L. Lee and S. Whang, “Winning the last mile of e-commerce,” MIT
Sloan Manage. Rev., vol. 42, no. 4, p. 54, 2001.
[2] J. Joong-Kun Cho, J. Ozment, and H. Sink, “Logistics capability, logistics
outsourcing and firm performance in an e-commerce market,” Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Log. Manage., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 336–359, 2008.
[3] P. Baker and Z. Halim, “An exploration of warehouse automation im-
plementations: Cost, service and flexibility issues,” Int. J. Supply Chain
Manage., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 129–138, 2007.
[4] G. C. Rapp, “Torts 2.0: The restatement 3rd and the architecture of partic-
ipation in american tort law,” William Mitchell Law Rev., vol. 37, p. 1582,
2010.
[5] V. Kopytoff, “In warehouses, kiva robots do the heavy lifting,” MIT
Technol. Rev., [Online]. Available: https://www.technologyreview.com/
s/428436/in-warehouses-kivas-robots-do-the-heavy-lifting/. Accessed on:
Jul. 20, 2012.
[6] E. Guizzo, “Three engineers, hundreds of robots, one warehouse,” IEEE
Spectrum, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 26–34, Jul. 2008.
[7] R. D’Andrea, “Guest editorial: A revolution in the warehouse: A retro-
spective on kiva systems and the grand challenges ahead,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Sci. Eng., vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 638–639, Oct. 2012.
[8] R. De Koster, T. Le-Duc, and K. J. Roodbergen, “Design and control of
warehouse order picking: A literature review,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 182,
no. 2, pp. 481–501, 2007.
[9] R. L. Nussbaum, “Changing the tooth-to-tail ratio using robotics and
automation to beat sequestration,” Air Space Power J., vol. 29, no. 5,
pp. 75–84, 2015.
[10] J. Scanlon, “How kiva robots help Zappos and Walgreens,” Bus. Week,
vol. 10, p. 2010, 2009.
[11] G. Q. Huang, M. Z. Chen, and J. Pan, “Robotics in ecommerce logistics,”
HKIE Trans., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 68–77, 2015.
[12] C. Steiner, “Bot-in-time delivery,” Forbes Mag., vol. 3, no. 16, p. 40, 2009.
[13] [Online]. Available: https://www.amazonrobotics.com. Accessed on: Jun.
17, 2016.
[14] P. Baker and M. Canessa, “Warehouse design: A structured approach,”
Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 193, no. 2, pp. 425–436, 2009.
[15] J. A. Tompkins, J. A. White, Y. A. Bozer, and J. M. A. Tanchoco, Facilities
Fig. 15. The simulation model of RMFS with “dedicated robots”. Planning. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2010.
[16] S. C. Graves, W. H. Hausman, and L. B. Schwarz, “Storage-retrieval
The expected delay time in a picker is EDP = interleaving in automatic warehousing systems,” Manage. Sci., vol. 23,
2 2
φ(ρ, c2aP , c2sP , N )( c aP +c
2
sP
)EDP (M/M/N ), no. 9, pp. 935–945, 1977.
(N ρ) N
[17] F. Eldemir, R. Graves, and C. Malmborg, “New cycle time and space
1
where EDP (M/M/N ) = μp(1−ρ) [ N !(1−ρ) ]ζp and ζP = estimation models for automated storage and retrieval system conceptual-
 N −1 ization,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 42, no. 22, pp. 4767–4783, 2004.
(N ρ) k −1
[ N(N!(1−ρ)
ρ) N
+ k = 1k ! ] . [18] R. D. Meller and J. F. Klote, “A throughput model for carousel/VLM
4(c 2 −c 2 ) pods,” IIE Trans., vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 725–741, 2004.
When c2aP ≥ c2sP , φ(ρ, c2aP , c2sP , N ) = ( 4c 2a P −3cs2P )φ1 [19] N. Litvak, “Optimal picking of large orders in carousel systems,” Oper.
aP sP
c2 P c 2 +c 2 Res. Lett., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 219–227, 2006.
(N, ρ) + ( 4c 2 s−3c 2 )ψ( a P 2 s P , N, ρ). [20] Y. A. Bozer and M. Cho, “Throughput performance of automated stor-
aP sP
c 2 −c 2 age/retrieval systems under stochastic demand,” IIE Trans., vol. 37, no. 4,
When c2aP < c2sP , φ(ρ, c2aP , c2sP , N ) = ( 2c 2s P +2ca P2 )φ3 pp. 367–378, 2005.
aP sP
c 2 +3c 2a P c 2a P +c 2s P [21] J.-S. Song, S. H. Xu, and B. Liu, “Order-fulfillment performance measures
(N, ρ) + ( 2cs2P 2 )ψ( 2 , N, ρ). in an assemble-to-order system with stochastic leadtimes,” Oper. Res.,
a P +2c s P
vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 131–149, 1999.
Where c2aP + c2sP
= 1, φ1 (N, ρ) = 1 + γ(N, ρ), φ2 (N, ρ) [22] R. D. Andrea and P. Wurman, “Future challenges of coordinating hundreds
= 1 − 4γ(N, ρ), φ3 (N, ρ) = φ2 (N, ρ) exp{ −2(1−ρ)
3ρ }, φ4 (N, of autonomous vehicles in distribution facilities,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
φ 3 (N ,ρ)
Technol. Practical Robot Appl., 2008, pp. 80–83.
ρ) = min{1, φ1 (N, ρ) + 2 }, and γ(N, ρ) = min{0.24, [23] P. R. Wurman, R. D’Andrea, and M. Mick, “Coordinating hundreds of
1 cooperative, autonomous vehicles in warehouses,” AI Mag., vol. 29, no. 1,
1) (4+5N ) −2 2
(1 − ρ)(N − 16N ρ }. pp. 9–19, 2008.
YUAN AND GONG: BOT-IN-TIME DELIVERY FOR ROBOTIC MOBILE FULFILLMENT SYSTEMS
[24] J. J. Enright and P. R. Wurman, “Optimization and coordinated autonomy
in mobile fulfillment systems,” in Proc. 9th AAAI Conf. Autom. Action
Planning Auton. Mobile Robots, 2011, pp. 33–38.
[25] J. Chen and M. Dong, “Available-to-promise-based flexible order alloca-
tion in ATO supply chains,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 52, no. 22, pp. 6717–
6738, 2014.
[26] I. Higa, A. M. Feyerherm, and A. L. Machado, “Waiting time in an (S- 1,
S) inventory system,” Oper. Res., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 674–680, 1975.
[27] T. Wensing and H. Kuhn, “Analysis of production and inventory systems
when orders may cross over,” Ann. Oper. Res., vol. 231, no. 1, pp. 265–281,
2015.
[28] J. C.-H. Pan, P.-H. Shih, and M.-H. Wu, “Storage assignment problem
with travel distance and blocking considerations for a picker-to-part order
picking system,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 527–535, 2012.
[29] Y. Gong and R. De Koster, “A polling-based dynamic order picking system
for online retailers,” IIE Trans., vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 1070–1082, 2008.
[30] P. Toth and D. Vigo, Vehicle Routing: Problems, Methods, and Applica-
tions. Philadelphia, PA, USA: SIAM, 2014.
[31] J. H. Lee, B. H. Lee, and M. H. Choi, “A real-time traffic control scheme of
multiple AGV systems for collision free minimum time motion: A routing
table approach,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, Syst. Humans, vol. 28,
no. 3, pp. 347–358, May 1998.
[32] I. F. Vis, “Survey of research in the design and control of automated guided
vehicle systems,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 170, no. 3, pp. 677–709, 2006.
[33] L. Qiu, W.-J. Hsu, S.-Y. Huang, and H. Wang, “Scheduling and routing
algorithms for AGVs: A survey,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 745–
760, 2002.
[34] L. Deroussi, M. Gourgand, and N. Tchernev, “A simple metaheuristic ap-
proach to the simultaneous scheduling of machines and automated guided
vehicles,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 2143–2164, 2008.
[35] P. Udhayakumar and S. Kumanan, “Task scheduling of AGV in FMS using
non-traditional optimization techniques,” Int. J. Simul. Model., vol. 9,
no. 1, pp. 28–39, 2010.
[36] C.-H. Hu and P. J. Egbelu, “A framework for the selection of idle vehicle
home locations in an automated guided vehicle system,” Int. J. Prod. Res.,
vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 543–562, 2000.
[37] D. Hoyt, H. Lee, and M. Marks, “Zappos.com: Developing a supply chain
to deliver wow,” Stanford Graduate School of Business (Cases), Case
no. GS65, 2009, pp. 1–27.
[38] R. W. Wolff, Stochastic Modeling and the Theory of Queues. Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA: Pearson, 1989.
93
[39] W. Whitt, “The queueing network analyzer,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 62,
no. 9, pp. 2779–2815, 1983.
[40] W. Whitt, “Approximations for the GI/G/m queue,” Prod. Oper. Manage.,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 114–161, 1993.
Zhe Yuan received the master’s degree in engineer-
ing from the Huazhong University of Science and
Technology, Wuhan, China, in 2015. She is currently
working toward the Ph.D. degree in industrial en-
gineering at CentraleSupélec, University of Paris-
Saclay, Paris, France.
She has authored or co-authored articles in jour-
nals such as the International Journal of Produc-
tion Research and Chinese Management Science.
Her research interests include operations manage-
ment, warehouse management, and flexibility in
supply chain management.
Yeming (Yale) Gong received the Ph.D. degree in
management from the Rotterdam School of Manage-
ment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the
Netherlands, in 2009.
He is an Associate Professor with the EMLYON
Business School, Lyon, France. He studies the inter-
face between operations management and IT, logis-
tics, and supply chain management. He has authored
or co-authored two books with Erasmus and Springer,
and articles in journals such as Production and Op-
erations Management, the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, IIE Transactions, the European Journal of Oper-
ational Research, the International Journal of Production Economics, and the
International Journal of Production Research.
Dr. Gong received the Best Paper Award in design and manufacturing from
the Institute of Industrial Engineers in 2010.