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

net/publication/316793622

Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems: A Performances Comparison

between Free-Fall-Flow-Rack and Classic Flow-Rack

Conference Paper · May 2017

DOI: 10.1109/ICoSC.2017.7958654

CITATIONS READS

3 1,772

2 authors:

Metahri Dhiyaeddine Khalid Hachemi

Université d'Oran 2 Mohamed Ben Ahmed Université d'Oran 2 Mohamed Ben Ahmed
6 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Performance evaluation of Drug dispensing systems View project

Drug distribution: Evaluation of prescription drug delivery time of manual and automated distribution View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Metahri Dhiyaeddine on 21 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Automated storage and retrieval systems: a performances comparison
between Free-fall-flow-rack and classic flow-rack*
Dhiyaeddine Metahri
Abstract— Since their introduction, automated storage and
retrieval systems (AS/RS) give a better solution for the inventory
management in industrial companies and distribution centres to
improve theirs performances. The main objective of the paper
is to offer a performance comparison between two kinds of
AS/RS (Free-Fall flow-rack and classic flow-rack), to highlight
the benefits of using FF-flow-rack AS/RS in warehousing
systems. Three comparison parameters has been considered:
the average retrieval-travel-time, the total retrieval-travel-time,
and throughput of a customer request. For this, multiple
simulations are performed for different rack configurations with
the same characteristics of both systems. The obtained results
show that using the FF-flow-rack in place of the classic flow-
rack will greatly decrease the average retrieval-travel-time and
the total retrieval-travel-time of customer request. Indeed, the
improvement of the throughput in the FF-flow-rack AS/RS can
reach around 90% compared to the throughput in the classic
flow-rack AS/RS.
I. INTRODUCTION
Quite recently, considerable attention has been paid to
the automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS) by the
industrial companies. AS/RS represents an innovative alter-
native to controlling and managing warehouse. They were
widely used in a variety of industries and as part of advanced
manufacturing systems [1]. The principal advantages of these
systems are savings in labour costs and floor space, the ease
and the speed of handling items, and improved throughput
level [2].
The AS/RS is decomposed into several parts such as stor-
age racks, aisles, storage and retrieval (S/R) machines,
pickup/delivery (P/D) stations and the control system. Racks
are composed of bins that can store loads. Aisles are the
spaces between the racks. Storage and retrieval machines
are fully automated cranes that can pick up and drop off
loads. Pickup/delivery (P/D) stations are used for incoming
and outgoing loads. The control system is responsible for
managing storage and retrieval operations.
There are several types of ASRS, namely, unit-load AS/RS,
mini-load AS/RS, man-on-board AS/RS, carousel AS/RS,
deep-lane AS/RS, multi aisles AS/RS, Mobil-racks AS/RS,
and flow-rack AS/RS.
A new variant of flow-rack AS/RS has been introduced by
MEKAPHARM [3], This system uses human or a single
machine for storage operations, and uses a combination
*This work was not supported by any organization
1 Dhiyaeddine Metahri is with the Institute of Maintenance and Industrial
Safety, University of Oran 2, B.P. 170 El M’naouer Oran 31000 ALGERIA
metahri.dhiyaeddine@gmail.com
2 Khalid Hachemi is with the Institute of Maintenance and Industrial
Safety, University of Oran 2, B.P. 170 El M’naouer Oran 31000 ALGERIA
hachemi.khalid@univ-oran2.dz
1 and Khalid Hachemi 2
between the free-fall movement and a transport conveyor
for retrieval operations. We shall call it the Free-fall flow-
rack AS/RS or (FF-flow rack AS/RS). It can operate without
any storage/retrieval machines, versus the classic flow-rack
AS/RS, where the system used a (S/R) machines that trav-
elling simultaneously horizontally and vertically.
AS/RS require a very high investment, inflexible layout and
fixed storage capacity. For this reason, this paper proposes a
comparative study between the FF-flow rack and the classic
flow-rack in term of throughput, average retrieval-travel-time,
and the total retrieval time of customer request. We per-
formed this comparison in order to give a recommendation
concerning the use of each system.
The rest of this paper is divided into five sections. Section
2 gives a brief overview of the previous research. In section
3 the FF-flow-rack AS/RS and the classic flow-rack AS/RS
are described. The retrieval-travel-time models are presented
in section 4. Section 5 shows the obtained results of the
comparison between the FF-flow rack AS/RS and the classic
flow-rack AS/RS. The conclusion is reported in Section 6.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Various researches have been proposed to estimate the
expected travel time of the S/R machine in the AS/RS,
because this time represents the most important criterion used
to evaluate the performance of an AS/RS. Much research on
the modelling of the expected travel time has been done.
First, we present the travel time models of the unit-load
AS/RS. Then we present the travel time models for different
types of flow-rack AS/RS.
A. Travel time models for unit-load AS/RS
Hausman et al. [4] were the first to have proposed travel-
time model of the single command cycle. The authors
assumed square-in-time continuous racks. They were consid-
ered random, full turnover, and class-based storage assign-
ment policies. This study was extended by Graves et al. [5]
by modelling the travel time model of dual command cycle
for the same assumptions. The most interesting approach
to this issue has been proposed by Bozer and white [6].
They developed the expected single and dual travel time
models of rectangular rack under a random storage and for
different positions input/output point. Additionally, various
dwell-point strategies for the storage/retrieval machine were
examined.
B. Travel time models for different types of flow-rack AS/RS
Various approaches have been proposed to study the flow-
rack AS/RS. By the inspiration of the previous work of Bozer
and white [6], Sari et al. [7] presented a mathematical models operator, where he takes out the products from the pickup
for the expected travel-time for a flow-rack AS/RS, which station to store it in the adequate bin. While the retrieval
use two (S/R) machines. The first model is developed by operation is fully automated. It consists of the ejection of
using a continuous approach and compared with a discrete the desired product, which will cause the free fall of this
model for accuracy via simulation. The authors conclude that product on the transport conveyor, where it is transferred to
the expressions based on continuous approach are extremely the drop-off station.
practical due to the difference in computation time. After
that, Sari [8] performed a comparative study between unit-
load AS/RS and flow-rack AS/RS. The author considered
two comparison parameters: space utilization and travel time.
In a recent paper, Hachemi et al. [9] extended the problem
of retrieval sequencing for flow-rack AS/RS by integrating
the product expiry date. They introduced an optimization
method as a decision process which performs a real-time
optimization into two phases and formulated as an integer
program.
Recently, Sari and Bessnouci [10] have proposed a new
kind of flow-rack AS/RS that using a single machine for
storage and retrieval operations instead of two machines.
They developed analytical-travel-time models of the storage
and retrieval machine under randomized storage assignment.
Two dwell point positions were considered. Otherwise, De
koster et al. [11] used a lifting mechanism in the opposite Fig. 1. Typical configuration of FF-flow-rack AS/RS
face of the S/R machine for a flow-rack AS/RS. They
presented a closed-form expression of expected retrieval-
travel-time for single-command cycles, and derived an ap- B. CLASSIC FLOW-RACK AS/RS
proximate travel-time expression for dual command cycles of
the system. Also, Chen et al. [12] designed a bi-directional-
flow-rack (BFR) in which bins in adjacent columns slope
to opposite directions. They develop a travel-time model for
BFR systems.
In summary, various types of AS/RS have been studied. To
our knowledge, there is no study has been done to the subject
of performance comparison between the FF-flow-rack and
the classic flow-rack. Therefore, this subject represents the
main contribution of our paper.
III. SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION
A. FF-flow-rack AS/RS
A new kind of flow-rack AS/R was introduced by
MEKAPHARM company , which is known by the trade
name ”APOTEKA ” [3]. It is mainly used for the automation
of the drug distribution in pharmacies, and in all sectors that
handling products which support free fall movement.
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the FF-flow-rack AS/RS include the
following components: a deep rack composed of multitude Fig. 2. Typical configuration of classic flow-rack AS/RS
sloping bins, which uses a gravitational conveyor equipped
with rolling wheels to allow the sliding of products by gravity As shown in Fig. 2, the classic flow-rack AS/RS has
from the storage to the picking side of the system. Each the same rack structure like the FF-flow-rack. Whereas, the
bin is composed of a plurality of segments (locations) that particularity of this system is that it used a two S/R machines,
contains several identical products (the same SKU: Stock one move from the pickup station to a bin in the storage side
Keeping Unit) placed one after the other. A pickup station is of the rack to load items, and the second move from a bin
located on the storage face, and a drop-off station is located in the retrieval face to the drop off station to pick items.
on the retrieval face. A transport conveyor used to connect Both machines can move on the (x-y) plane simultaneously
the rack to the drop-off station. horizontally and vertically, and are linked by a restoring
The system operation of the FF-flow-rack AS/RS is as conveyor. This system was studied by sari et al. [7] where
follows: The storage operation is manually prepared by an they developed its discrete model that modelling the average
retrieval-travel-time. This model will be presented in the A. Average retrieval-travel-time A1 for the FF-flow-rack
following part. AS/RS
0
The vertical travel time tv of a particular item stored in
position (i,j) to reach the impact point can be calculated as
IV. RETRIEVAL TRAVEL TIME MODELS follows:
r
In this part, we only interest to the retrieval operation. For 0 2p
this, a discreet expression of the average retrieval-travel-time tv = j (1)
g
for the FF-flow-rack AS/RS and the classic flow-rack AS/RS 0
have been developed. The horizontal travel time th needed to transport the same
The following notations are introduced: item to the drop-off station is:
L, H, D the length, height and depth of the rack. 0 i
l, h, d the length, height and depth of a storage segment. th = (2)
Vc
(i,j) the bin coordinates according to (x-y) plan.
0
NL the number of bins per line. The total travel time tg that the item needed to reach the
0
Nc the number of bins per column. drop-off station is the sum of the vertical travel time tv and
0
NP F the total number of bins in pick face. the horizontal travel time th :
NP F = NL ∗ NC
M the number of segments in each bin.
r
0 i 2p
N the total number of bins. N = NP F ∗ M tg = + j (3)
Vc g
Vc the speed of the transport conveyor.
Vh the horizontal speed of the S/R machine. Thus, the average retrieval-travel-time A1 for all items is:
Vv the vertical speed of the S/R machine.
NL X Nc r
g the acceleration due to gravity. g= 9.81m/s2 . 1 X 2p i
0
tv the vertical travel-time from a bin to the impact A1 = [ j+ ] (4)
NL .Nc i=1 j=1 g Vc
point on the transport conveyor.
0
th the horizontal travel-time from the impact point to B. Average retrieval-travel-time A2 for the classic flow-rack
the drop-off station. AS/RS
0
tg the total travel-time from a bin to the drop-off 0
The horizontal travel time th needed to reach a particular
station.
item stored in position (i, j) can be calculated as follows:
A1 the average retrieval travel-time of the FF-flow-rack
AS/RS. 0 i
A2 the average retrieval travel-time of the classic th = (5)
Vh
flow-rack AS/RS.
0
CR the number of items of a customer request. The vertical travel time tv needed to reach the same item is:
R1 the total retrieval travel-time of customer request in
FF-flow-rack AS/RS. 0 j
tv = (6)
R2 the total retrieval travel-time of customer request in Vv
classic flow-rack AS/RS. By using tchebychev travel, the time needed to reach this bin
0
is the maximum between the horizontal travel time th and
0
This paper is based on the following assumptions: the vertical travel time tv :

i j
• The rack is considered to be a discrete rectangular pick max[ , ] (7)
Vh Vv
face where the drop-off station is located at the lower
0
left-hand corner. The total travel time tg required by the retrieval machine is
• The rack length, height and depth are known. the sum of the time needed to go from the drop off station
• Constant and identical speeds are assumed for the to the bin position (i,j) and the time necessary to return from
transport conveyor and the retrieval machine. this bin to the drop off station is:
• We consider only the retrieval operations.
• We assumed that any product within the pick face has 0 i j
tg = 2 ∗ max[ , ] (8)
the same probability to be retrieved. Vh Vv
• Dedicated storage policy is used, which means that each Thus, the average retrieval-travel-time A2 for all items is:
product type is assigned to a fixed bin, and the average
retrieval-travel-time of all items N stored in the rack NL X Nc
become, the average retrieval-travel-time of items NP F 2 X i j
A2 = max[ , ] (9)
stored only in the pick rack-face. NL .Nc i=1 j=1 Vh Vv
 V. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON The comparison results of a 20 different configurations of
both systems according to the average retrieval-travel-time
In order to perform a comparison study between the
are presented in Table .1 and also schematized in Fig .4 and
FF-flow rack AS/RS and the classic flow-rack AS/RS, we
Fig .5.
evaluate the performance of each system by using a computer
simulation. Simulation is typically used in the literature
to study AS/RS [6; 13; 14]. Where, the simulation results
present an efficient tool to perform this comparison study.
This comparative study is based on the following assump-
tions:
• Both system (FF-Flow-rack AS/RS and Classic Flow-
rack AS/RS) have the same rack dimensions and capac-
ity.
• We consider three comparison parameters: the aver-
Fig. 4. Comparison between average retrieval-travel-time results given by
age retrieval travel time, total retrieval-travel-time and the FF-flow-rack and Flow-rack classic
throughput of customer request.
• The dimensions of a storage segment (l*h*d) of both
systems are: (15cm ∗ 10cm ∗ 10cm).
• Each system has the same speeds, where:
Vc = Vv = Vh = 3m/s.
To simulate the studied AS/RS we chose to use (MATLAB
R2010a) software. The algorithm for the simulations is
shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 5. The deviation between average retrieval-travel-time results of the

FF-flow-rack and classic flow-rack

As shown in Fig. 5, the reduction of the average retrieval-

travel-time in the FF-flow-rack AS/RS can be close to 38%
compared to the average retrieval-travel-time of the classic
flow-rack AS/RS.
Concerning the second and the third parameters of com-
parison (total retrieval travel time and throughput of a
customer request), a customer request of 10 items was
performed (CR = 10) for the same 20 configurations that
simulated in Table 1. Each request was randomly generated
for each of 100000 iteration.
Fig. 3. Organization chart of the computer simulation The throughput is calculated as follows:
CR
To visit all the storage bin of the rack, a sequence of one T hroughput = (11)
T otal retrieval travel time
million retrieval operations (r = 106 ) is used in the simu-
lation (The scanning of all the rack surface allows a better Table .2, Fig. 6, Fig. 7,and Fig. 8 summarizes the obtained
estimation of the retrieval-travel-time). In order to reproduce results from the comparison.
the real dynamic behaviour of each System, the retrieval
operations are randomly generated according to uniform
law, since the lack of prior information of the customer’s
requests. The average retrieval-travel-time of the FF-flow-
rack and the classic flow-rack is calculated by Equation (4)
and Equation (9), respectively.These two equations represent
dynamic models of the two AS/RS (FF-flow rack and the
classic flow rack), since the retrieval operation are randomly
generated and there is no prior information on their execution
time. The equation that describes the deviation is as follows:
Fig. 6. Comparison between request time results given by the FF-flow-rack
A2 − A1 and the Flow-rack classic
Deviation(%) = 100 ∗ ( ) (10)
A2
 TABLE I TABLE II
C OMPARISON BETWEEN FF- FLOW RACK AND F LOW- RACK CLASSIC C OMPARISON BETWEEN FF- FLOW RACK AND F LOW- RACK CLASSIC
RESULTS ACCORDING TO THE AVERAGE RETRIEVAL - TRAVEL - TIME RESULTS ACCORDING TO THE THROUGHPUT AND TOTAL TIME OF A
REQUEST
Configurations

Number of bins per line NL

Number of bins per column NC

Number of segments per binM

Total number of bins in pick face NP F

Total number of binsN

A1 (sec)

A2 (sec)

Deviation (%)

Configurations

R1 (sec)

R2 (sec)

Throughput of FF-flow-rack

Throughput of flow-rack classic

Deviation (%)
1 1.7859 15.4842 5.5994 0.6458 88.4663
2 1.9037 16.7048 5.2530 0.5986 88.6039
1 20 24 20 480 9600 1.1799 1.5499 23.8754 3 2.1395 19.1402 4.6740 0.5225 88.8220
2 22 24 20 528 10560 1.2465 1.6702 25.3674 4 2.0659 18.3676 4.8404 0.5444 88.7523
3 26 24 20 624 12480 1.3796 1.9149 27.9544 5 2.2810 20.5719 4.3840 0.4861 88.9120
4 24 28 20 672 13440 1.3491 1.8376 26.5804 6 2.6152 24.2232 3.8238 0.4128 89.2036
5 28 26 20 728 14560 1.4646 2.0594 28.8839 7 2.5176 23.1069 3.9721 0.4328 89.1046
6 34 24 20 816 16320 1.6467 2.4221 32.0139 8 2.4205 22.0383 4.1314 0.4538 89.0168
7 32 26 20 832 16640 1.5991 2.3115 30.8215 9 2.7767 25.7889 3.6014 0.3878 89.2331
8 30 28 20 840 16800 1.5495 2.2040 29.6971 10 2.8988 27.0992 3.4497 0.3690 89.3030
9 36 28 20 1008 20160 1.7495 2.5810 32.2159 11 3.2349 30.8037 3.0912 0.3246 89.4982
10 38 28 20 1064 21280 1.8158 2.7079 32.9434 12 3.4530 33.2794 2.8960 0.3005 89.6243
11 44 26 20 1144 22880 1.9977 3.0789 35.1168 13 3.1362 29.6432 3.1886 0.3373 89.4202
12 48 24 20 1152 23040 2.1123 3.3284 36.5368 14 3.3534 32.0948 2.9820 0.3116 89.5515
13 42 28 20 1176 23520 1.9492 2.9645 34.2499 15 3.0378 28.5178 3.2919 0.3507 89.3479
14 46 26 20 1196 23920 2.0646 3.2097 35.6758 16 3.5951 34.6912 2.7816 0.2883 89.6368
15 40 30 20 1200 24000 1.9005 2.8523 33.3685 17 3.7557 36.1980 2.6626 0.2763 89.6245
16 50 26 20 1300 26000 2.1977 3.4695 36.6570 18 3.8749 37.5439 2.5807 0.2664 89.6791
17 52 30 20 1560 31200 2.3001 3.6242 36.5360 19 3.9952 38.8466 2.5030 0.2574 89.7155
18 54 30 20 1620 32400 2.3653 3.7516 36.9509 20 4.1158 40.1829 2.4297 0.2489 89.7573
19 56 30 20 1680 33600 2.4324 3.8824 37.3481
20 58 30 20 1740 34800 2.5009 4.0171 37.7438
classic flow-rack increases when a simultaneous retrieval of
items is applying. This difference can reach 90%.
0
Let Sg [k] denote the vector of the total retrieval-travel-time
of the K th items, where K ∈ [1, CR ]. The most remarkable
results to emerge from this study are:
• Total retrieval-travel-time of a customer request for the
FF-flow-rack R1 is :
0
R1 = maxC
k=1 (Sg [k])
R
(12)
Fig. 7. Comparison between throughput results given by the FF-flow-rack • Total retrieval-travel-time of a customer request for the
and Flow-rack classic classic flow-rack R2 is :
CR
X 0
R2 = tg (13)
k=1
The gain in travel time of the FF-flow-rack AS/RS com-
pared to the classic AS/RS flow rack can be even greater
when the dimensions of the rack increase. Finally, the
performance of the FF-flow-rack AS/RS can be even better
if we considers the possibility of simultaneous retrieval of
several products (customer?s request), this characteristic does
Fig. 8. The deviation between request time results of the FF-flow-rack and not exist in the classic flow-rack because of the constraint
the classic flow-rack related to the capacity of the retrieval machine.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
It can be seen in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and Fig. 8 that the This paper presents a comparison study between the
difference of performance between the FF-flow-rack and the FF-flow rack AS/RS and the classic flow-rack AS/RS.
 Three comparison parameters has been considered: the aver- [14] MANZINI, Riccardo, ACCORSI, Riccardo, BARUFFALDI, Giulia,
age retrieval-travel-time, throughput, and the total retrieval- et al. Travel time models for deep-lane unit-load autonomous vehi-
cle storage and retrieval system (AVS/RS). International Journal of
travel-time of a customer request. The comparison results Production Research, 2016, vol. 54, no 14, p. 4286-4304.
obtained by the simulation show a significant reduction in [15] ROSENBLATT, Meir J., ROLL, Yaakov, et VERED ZYSER, D.
the average retrieval-travel-time and throughput in a FF-flow- A combined optimization and simulation approach for designing
automated storage/retrieval systems. IIE transactions, 1993, vol. 25,
rack AS/RS, which can reach the 38% and 90%, respectively. no 1, p. 40-50. MLA.
Moreover, the main advantages of the FF-flow-rack AS/RS
include the possibility of simultaneous retrieval of several
products, the reduction of the initial investment due to the
replacement of the S/R machine (according to Rosenblatt
and Roll [15] it represents approximately 40% or more of
the system cost) by the combination between the free-fall
movement, and the transport conveyor for the retrieval of
items.
Finally, we concluded that each AS/RS type has a specific
application. Therefore, we recommended to use the FF-flow-
rack in the case of items with low seize and weight, such
as the pharmaceutical products, food, textile and electronic
components. However, it is not recommended to use this kind
of AS/RS in the case of voluminous and/or fragile products,
since the free-fall of products can damage them.

R EFERENCES

[1] VAN DEN BERG, Jeroen P. et GADEMANN, A. J. R. M. Simulation

study of an automated storage/retrieval system. International Journal
of Production Research, 2000, vol. 38, no 6, p. 1339-1356.
[2] ROODBERGEN, Kees Jan et VIS, Iris FA. A survey of literature
on automated storage and retrieval systems. European journal of
operational research, 2009, vol. 194, no 2, p. 343-362.
[3] MEKAPHARM, C. Fiche caractristiques de l’automate APOTEKA.
Accessed October 22, 2016. http://mekapharm.com/apoteka/.1999.
[4] HAUSMAN, Warren H., SCHWARZ, Leroy B., et GRAVES, Stephen
C. Optimal storage assignment in automatic warehousing systems.
Management Science, 1976, vol. 22, no 6, p. 629-638.
[5] GRAVES, Stephen C., HAUSMAN, Warren H., et SCHWARZ, Leroy
B. Storage-retrieval interleaving in automatic warehousing systems.
Management Science, 1977, vol. 23, no 9, p. 935-945.
[6] BOZER, Yavuz A. et WHITE, John A. Travel-time models for
automated storage/retrieval systems. IIE transactions, 1984, vol. 16,
no 4, p. 329-338.
[7] SARI, Zaki, SAYGIN, Can, et GHOUALI, Noureddine. Travel-time
models for flow-rack automated storage and retrieval systems. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2005,
vol. 25, no 9-10, p. 979-987.
[8] Sari, Z. (2010). Performance evaluation of flow-rack and unit load
automated storage & retrieval systems. Proceedings of ISTEC 2010,
605-615.
[9] HACHEMI, Khalid et BESOMBES, Batrix. Integration of products
expiry dates in optimal scheduling of storage/retrieval operations for
a flow-rack AS/RS. International Journal of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, 2013, vol. 15, no 2, p. 216-233.
[10] BESSENOUCI, Hakim Nadir, SARI, Zaki, et GHOMRI, Latfa. Meta-
heuristic based control of a flow rack automated storage retrieval
system. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2012, vol. 23, no 4, p.
1157-1166.
[11] DE KOSTER, R.(M.) BM, LE-DUC, Tho, et YUGANG, Y. Optimal
storage rack design for a 3-dimensional compact AS/RS. International
journal of production research, 2008, vol. 46, no 6, p. 1495-1514.
[12] CHEN, Zhuxi, LI, Xiaoping, et GUPTA, Jatinder ND. A bi-directional
flow-rack automated storage and retrieval system for unit-load ware-
houses. International Journal of Production Research, 2015, vol. 53,
no 14, p. 4176-4188.
[13] HU, Ya-Hong, HUANG, Shell Ying, CHEN, Chuanyu, et al. Travel
time analysis of a new automated storage and retrieval system.
Computers & Operations Research, 2005, vol. 32, no 6, p. 1515-1544.

View publication stats