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

net/publication/342364113

Robotic mobile fulfilment systems considering customer classes

Article  in  International Journal of Production Research · December 2020

DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1779370

CITATIONS READS

10 461

3 authors, including:

Yeming Gong Zhe Yuan

emlyon business school EMLV Business School
155 PUBLICATIONS   1,530 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   190 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Warehousing View project

IT and Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhe Yuan on 08 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Robotic mobile fulfilment systems considering

customer classes

Yeming Gong , Mingzhou Jin & Zhe Yuan

To cite this article: Yeming Gong , Mingzhou Jin & Zhe Yuan (2020): Robotic mobile fulfilment
systems considering customer classes, International Journal of Production Research, DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2020.1779370

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1779370

Published online: 22 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1779370

Robotic mobile fulfilment systems considering customer classes

Yeming Gonga , Mingzhou Jin b and Zhe Yuan c

a EMLYON Business School, Ecully, France; b Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, USA;
c Research Center, EMLV Business School, Leonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Paris La Defense, France

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper studies a Robotic Mobile Fulfilment System (RMFS), featured by a number of robots lift- Received 5 September 2019
ing and transporting movables storage shelves from storage grids to order pickers. In such systems, Accepted 31 May 2020
online retailers often classify their customers by two major classes ‘expedited shipping’ and ‘stan- KEYWORDS
dard shipping’. We build high-dimension Markov models to describe this system with customer Warehouse management;
classes, calculate the throughput of this system given the number of robots and provide design facility planning and design;
rules to determine the optimal number of robots and their capacities considering the trade-off order picking; supply chain
between capacities of picker stations and robots. We verify the analytic results of Markov models delivery; robotic mobile
with simulations. We further consider multiple-picker RMFS and study its optimal design. fulfilment system

1. Introduction
This research is inspired by a new Robotic Mobile Ful-
filment System (RMFS), installed by many online retail-
ers such as Amazon and Zappos’s distribution centre
in Kentucky. The new system significantly improves the
performance of warehouse operations (Hoyt, Lee, and
Marks 2009). RMFS is a relatively new order fulfilment
system featured by a number of robots transporting mov-
able shelves from storage positions, called storage ‘grid’
by industry, to order picker workstations (Enright and
Wurman 2011; Lamballais, Roy, and De Koster 2017a).
Robotic warehouse techniques were researched before,
but they have not been economically feasible (par-
tially from the decreasing of robots price) and got real
implementation until recently (Azadeh, De Koster, and
Roy 2019). The robotic mobile fulfilment system has been
applied to warehouses in firms like Zappos, Walgreens,
Staples, Diapers, Gap, and Boston Scientific (Bell 2019).
In 2012, Amazon bought Kiva system for 775 million
USD and implemented a number of RMFS systems in
their fulfilment centres (Turban et al. 2018). Some other
material handling companies and robot companies are
developing different robotic picking systems. For exam-
ple, RMT Robotics, a high-tech company in Toronto,
Canada is developing robotic picking systems and robotic
case picking systems (see RMTrobotics.com). ADAM
(autonomous delivery and manipulation) robots of RMT
companies are similar to Kiva’s robots. Jingdong (see
jd.com), one of the largest online retailers with revenue
of 67.2 billion USD in 2018, is cooperating with Shanghai
Banwi IT Company (see banwi.cn) to build an RMFS sys-
tem, and implementing robotic picking in a warehouse of
5000 m2 in Shanghai.
RMFS applies affordable robots, very simple shelves,
basic conveyers for picker workstations, and centralised
control software to provide a so-called ‘Mobile Fulfil-
ment System’. Mobile robot is an important application
field for a number of control techniques, mainly dealing
with constraints (González et al. 2011). Using hundreds
of autonomous mobile robots and sophisticated control
software, the intelligent storage system can provide a
complete order fulfilment system for retailers. In a tra-
ditional warehouse, goods are moved using conveyors or
by human operators with tow racks or forklifts (Yuan
and Gong 2017). In RMFS, products are stored in some
light, simple and portable storage shelves in a parallel-
aisle storage zone. These storage shelves are not fixed to
the floor and can be lifted and moved by robots. When
an order is released, a robot receives the order infor-
mation wirelessly and uses cameras to read navigational
barcode stickers on the warehouse floor (Scanlon 2009).
The robot then navigates the warehouse to find the appro-
priate storage shelves containing the requested item(s),
lifts up the storage shelf after sliding under it, and brings
it to a picker workstation. A picker will pick out item(s)
and place them in a carton. Completed orders in cartons
will be moved by conveyors to packers or storage zone
for further handling and then to the docks for shipping.

CONTACT Zhe Yuan zhe.yuan@devinci.fr Research Center, EMLV Business School, Leonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Paris La Defense 92 916, France

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 Y. GONG ET AL.
Warehouse robots can improve the labour and space effi-
ciency, reduce the operational cost, and improve both
investment and operational flexility (Vincent 2018). The
Amazon Robotics operating in fulfilment centres in the
United States can improve nearly 50% capacities of han-
dling the inventory compared with traditional systems
(Welch 2015).
RMFS has been applied in two application settings in
retailing: traditional and online retailers (Razumov 2005;
Zou et al. 2017; Hitchcock et al. 2018). For traditional
retailers, the productivity or throughput is one important
measure (Hulten, Dean, and Harper 2007). For online
retailers, apart from the throughput, the response time
from order receiving to home delivery is important (Yuan
and Gong 2017). A typical online retailer may classify
customers into two or more classes by priorities. For
example, Amazon classifies its customers by two major
classes ‘expedited shipping’ and ‘standard shipping’. This
paper considers the order fulfilment system with two
classes.
Thereby, our research question is: ‘How to describe
RMFS and optimise its operations and designs to improve
its throughput, with considering customer classes?’ To
answer the research question, this paper will first con-
sider two customer classes for the RMFS using Markov
models and evaluate its performance for one picker. We
then build high-dimension Markov models to describe
the RMFS with multiple picker stations. We further deter-
mine the optimal number and capacity of robots, the
optimal number of pickers to maximise throughput.
Finally, we verify analytic results through simulation and
numerical experiments.
Our contributions are as follows:
(1) This is the among the earliest papers to study
RMFSs considering customer classes. Compared
with single-class system, this is a more realistic appli-
cation setting for online retailers.
(2) We make methodological contribution with high-
dimension Markov models that are able to capture
more operational details.
(3) We provide optimal facility designs to balance the
capacity of robots, the number of robots, and the
number of pickers. Our optimal design can signifi-
cantly improve the productivity.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows:
In the following section, we conduct a literature review.
Section 3 presents modelling and analysis for RMFS
models with customer classes considering a picker and
multiple picker stations. Section 4 shows computational
results and experiments. We conclude with our contribu-
tion and suggestion for further research in Section 5.
2. Literature review
This research is related to parts-to-picker systems,
robotic picking, automated guided vehicle system, and
robotic mobile order fulfilment system.
2.1. Parts-to-picker systems
There are two types of warehouse systems: parts-to-
picker and picker-to-parts systems (De Koster, Le-Duc,
and Roodbergen 2007). RMFS is closer to parts-to-picker
system if we view robots with products as parts. The lit-
erature on parts-to-picker systems, includes automated
storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS) (Roodbergen and
Vis 2009), carousels (Gu, Goetschalckx, and McGin-
nis 2010), and modular vertical lift modules (VLM)
(Dukic, Opetuk, and Lerher 2015).
AS/RSs are storage systems using arrays with fixed
path storage and retrieval machines running between
fixed storage racks. Providing the access to all stored
items, AS/RSs have been widely used in supply chain
and logistics industries (Roodbergen and Vis 2009).
AS/RSs can save floor space and labour costs, reduce
error rates, and realise high throughput (Rosenblatt, Roll,
and Zyser 1993). Obvious drawbacks of AS/RSs are the
low flexibility and high investment costs. Researchers
have studied different optimal operation and design
problems of AS/RSs, including travel-time models (Xu
et al. 2016; Schenone et al. 2019), request sequencing
problems (Yang et al. 2017), space estimation model
(Eldemir, Graves, and Malmborg 2004), throughput opti-
misation (Yu and Yu 2019), the storage assignment prob-
lem (Bozer and Cho 2005), and the class-based storage
problem (Roshan, Shojaie, and Javadi 2019).
A carousel system is used for storing products in dis-
tribution centres and manufacturing facilities (Lee and
Hwang 1988). The literature on carousels is extensive
(Hassini 2008), and horizontal or vertical carousel sys-
tems are suitable for different levels of storing small-
sized and medium-sized products in distribution centres
and manufacturing facilities (Pazour and Meller 2013).
Researchers have studied different optimal operation and
design problems of carousels, including throughput per-
formances (Litvak 2006), acceleration and deceleration
problems (Hwang, Song, and Kim 2004).
A new system based on AS/RS, called Vertical Lift
Module (VLM) is another type of parts-to-picker sys-
tem with vertically arranged trays stored on two sides
of the unit, an extractor device placed in the middle,
and an automated control system that delivers items to a
workstation (Dukic, Opetuk, and Lerher 2015). A variety
of configurations and applications change VLM systems
from manual picking of small items to automated picking

(Calzavara, Sgarbossa, and Persona 2019). Meller and
Klote (2004) study throughput models for carousel/VLM
systems with multiple carousels by modelling an approx-
imate two-server queuing system. Nicolas, Yannick, and
Ramzi (2018) optimise the practical order batching prob-
lem in an automated warehouse with vertical lift mod-
ules and use the real data to validate the model. Li,
Huang, and Dai (2017) optimise the order batching and
picker routing for a warehouse using parts-to-picker sys-
tem. They formulate an integer programming model
with the objective of minimising the total travelling
distance.
2.2. Automated guided vehicle system
An automated guided vehicle (AGV) system is equipped
with non-contact guided unmanned vehicles, and used
for repeating transportation tasks in areas of manufac-
turing systems, internal and external transportation sys-
tems, and warehouses (Vis 2006; Sabattini et al. 2017).
AGV’s control and design of transport routes have
become the focus of AGV researches (Baker and
Canessa 2009). The control and design involve the lay-
out of the flowpath, including fixed guided paths and
unfixed guided paths (Aiello, Enea, and Galante 2002),
vehicle routing and scheduling (Fazlollahtabar and Saidi-
Mehrabad 2015), traffic management (Xu et al. 2003),
vehicle dispatching, location of pick-up and deliv-
ery points (Kiran and Tansel 1989), battery manage-
ment (McHaney 1995), vehicle requirements (Bechtsis
et al. 2017), and position of idle vehicles (Gademann
and van de Velde 2000). Our research is related to two
research topics of AGV: the unfixed guided path design
and vehicle application in warehousing. In guided path
design with fixed routes, an AGV simply moves along
the path determined in advance (Ventura and Lee 2001),
with the objective to minimise transport time includ-
ing AGVs’s travel time and waiting time. However, other
AGVs use a non-oriented path guided system (Singh and
Tiwari 2002) and can relatively easily change their paths
(Tompkins et al. 2010). Our research is closer to unfixed
guided paths.
In the automotive industry, AGV systems are com-
monly used in assembly production lines to increase
the flexibility of transport, such as engine or chas-
sis assembly lines or robotic welding lines (Malsch
and Dohse 1993). AGV is an important equipment
for the flexible transshipment of work-piece or pal-
lets and transportation in storage systems and auto-
mated factories (Lu et al. 2017). In manufacturing fields,
AGV systems are applied to transport all materials
related to the manufacturing process (Fazlollahtabar,
Saidi-Mehrabad, and Balakrishnan 2015). The studies
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 3
of AGVs in warehouse systems have considered the
transporting capacity (Soukhal, Oulamara, and Mar-
tineau 2005), warehouse picking operations using mul-
tiple AGVs (Farahvash and Boucher 2004), and self-
organising approach for single AGV routing (Umar
et al. 2015). RMFS is an application using AGVs in ware-
house systems, but our main research subject is about
warehousing operation systems rather than the AGV
itself.
2.3. Robotic mobile order fulfilment systems
RMFS fulfils customer orders with mobile technique.
Mobile order fulfilment has been applied in warehouse
operations. Gong and De Koster (2008) study a ware-
house system that employs labour and a mobile order ful-
filment system to achieve time-based competitive advan-
tage for online retailers. Different from manual picker-to-
parts system, RMFS employs robots and a parts-to-picker
system with mobile communication and control. Wur-
man, D’Andrea, and Mick (2008), a pioneering researcher
in RMFS, studies coordination of hundreds of cooper-
ative autonomous vehicles in warehouses. Enright and
Wurman (2011) further study optimisation and coordi-
nated autonomy in a mobile fulfilment system. RMFS
mainly uses the centralised control (Merschformann,
Xie, and Erdmann 2017; Shabanov and Ivanov 2019).
Luna and Bekris (2011) propose a centralised algorithm
using two primitives to describe robots’ activities for solv-
ing multi-robot path planning problems. Milutinovi and
Lima (2006) model a centralised control with a number
of robots considering uncertainty. This control problem
is to optimise the cost function. Researchers also study
other problems for RMFS, such as simulation framework
(Merschformann, Xie, and Li 2017), path planning (Mer-
schformann, Xie, and Erdmann 2017; Lee et al. 2019),
decision rules (Merschformann et al. 2018), and repo-
sitioning of storage units (Merschformann 2018). As far
as we know, RMFS is one of the earliest business imple-
mentations of robotic picking in a general background
of warehouses or distribution centres and for general
products.
There exists the researches of applying robots in ware-
houses (Guizzo 2008) with real implementation. Knust
and Xie (2019) analyse the nurse rostering problem for
RMFS considering horizontal and vertical rules. They
propose a mixed integer programming model and use
computational experiments to solve the problem based
on data in Germany and Austria. Azadeh, De Koster,
and Roy (2019) review robotic handling systems which
include robotic mobile fulfilment systems. They analyse
models and methods to make optimal decisions. Yuan
and Gong (2017) design a speed delivery in an RMFS for
4 Y. GONG ET AL.

online retailers. They build single-service open queue- 3. Model analysis

ing networks for dedicated robots and multiple-service
This section focuses on RMFS with two customer
open queuing networks for pooled robots. They also
classes, including high-priority expedited orders and
consider the congestion in the RMFS. Zou et al. (2017)
low-priority standard orders. We consider two protocols:
study an assignment problem of workstations to robots
R robots serve for either one order picker, or serve for
in an RMFS. They propose new assignment rules and
multiple order pickers. We consider the layout of RMFS
build semi-open queueing networks to find an opti-
shown in Figure 1.
mal assignment rule. Roy et al. (2019) model multi-
Table 1 shows the symbols we use in this paper. To
class closed queueing networks to evaluate the per-
improve the performance of RMFS, we examine three
formance of single and multiple storage zones in an
main decision variables in the optimal design (Lambal-
RMFS, dedicated and pooled robot assignment, with
lais, Roy, and De Koster 2017b; Yuan and Gong 2017).
analysing order picking process and replenishment pro-
(1) We first need to determine the capacity of robots,
cess. Xie et al. (2019) present efficient order picking
featured by velocity. While a slower robot will lower the
methods an integrated model in by minimising capac-
throughput, a faster robot will create bottlenecks at picker
ity of pickers. Feng et al. (2018) study the RMFS’s
workstations and increase incidents such as the item fall-
optimisation problem of location of pickers. Lambal-
off. (2) Another variable is the optimal number of robots
lais, Roy, and De Koster (2020) construct a continu-
to balance with the capacity of pickers for improving the
ous time Markov chain to solve the optimisation inven-
performance. At Amazon, more robots are added into the
tory problem to minimise the throughput time in RMFS
floor during the holiday season. During off-peak seasons,
models. Lamballais, Roy, and De Koster (2017a) anal-
a large number of robots are put into the ‘sleep’ mode.
yse the performance by maximising the throughput
(3) The number of pickers is another decision variable to
of RMFS. They design storage areas and number of
trade off the capacities of picker stations and robots.
robots by estimating the order throughput and the aver-
age order cycle time. Queueing networks are widely
applied for RMFS models, and we analyse the RMFS
model with a picker by finite source networks. Gen- 3.1. RMFS model with customer classes and a picker
eral queueing networks cannot capture more opera- We describe the research problem by high-dimension
tional details. In our paper, we focus on multiple classes, Markov models. For the system with a single customer
we propose a specified Markov model which is based class, a researcher may not apply complex Markov mod-
on state variables, and can capture some operational els since finite source queuing models are enough for
details.

Figure 1. The layout of RMFS.


Table 1. Notation.
Symbol Meaning
E The number of expedited shipping requests in the system
R The number of robots
n The number of pickers
S The number of robots that are processing standard orders
P The number of robots that are in front of the picker
λs The shipping requests arrival rate
λe The expedited shipping requests arrival rate
μ The distribution rate of a picker
TH The throughput of the picker station and system
analysis (see Appendix A.1). We assume that the RMFS
uses a random storage policy, which is common for some
online retailers. In this section, we consider R robots and
one picker. The case will be extended to multiple pickers
in Section 3.2. The throughput of the RMFS is denoted
by TH. A typical online retailer uses a hybrid opera-
tions mode, classifying customer orders into classes by
their priorities. We use Markov models to describe RMFS
with two classes, including ‘standard shipping’ and ‘expe-
dited shipping’. Furthermore, we consider the following
system:
(1) The RMFS is applied to handle both expedited and
standard shipping orders. A set of robots are ded-
icated to a picker. Each picker and her associated
robots are independent from other pickers.
(2) The expedited shipping requests arrive in the system
following Poisson Process with the rate of λe and will
be immediately processed when a robot is available.
(3) Plenty of standard requests are waiting for being pro-
cessed because we are interested in the throughput.
(4) The system has R robots, each of which can han-
dle both expedited and standard shipping orders.
It takes exponentially distributed time for a robot
from leaving the picker without an order to coming
back with the shelf with an order (either expedited
or standard). The mean of the time is 1/λs .
(5) It takes the picker an exponentially distributed time,
with the mean of 1/μ, to unload an order from a
robot.
(6) A robot, once unloaded by the picker, will pro-
cess an expedited request if any expedited request
waits. Otherwise, the robot will immediately process
a standard request.
We define the state of the Markov Chain by a triplet of
(E, S, P). E is the number of expedited shipping requests
in the system, including both the ones in the expedite
waiting line and those are processed by robots. How-
ever, E does not include the expedited requests that are
currently in the queue waiting for or in the process by
the picker. S is the number of robots that are processing
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 5
standard orders, excluding the ones waiting for the picker.
P is the number of robots that are in front of the picker,
including the waiting ones and the one being processed
by the picker. These P robots may carry either expedited
or standard orders. Each robot is either picking up a
standard order, in the robot queue before the picker, in
the process with the picker, or picking up an expedited
order. When P = 0 or 1, there is no robot queue before
the picker. When robots are currently in the way of get-
ting expedited shipping orders, they are not in the robot
queue. In other words, expedited requests are waiting
for being processed (i.e. waiting for an available robot).
For example, (2, R − 1, 0) means the picker is idle, one
robot is working on one expedited shipping order, R−1
robots are working on standard shipping order, and one
expedited shipping request is waiting for the next avail-
able robot. For another example, (4, R − 5, 3) means the
picker is busy, two robots are waiting for the service from
the picker, R−5 robot are working on standard shipping
orders, two robots are working on expedited shipping
orders, and two expedited shipping requests are wait-
ing for the next available robot. The state space is {S =
0, . . . , R; P = 0, . . . , R − S; E = R − S − P, . . . , 0}.
We show the transition diagram in Appendix A.2. We
denote the equilibrium probability for the state of (E, S, P)
as Pr(E, S, P) and can calculate the throughput of RMFS
by Proposition 3.1 and the lead time of an expedited order
by Proposition 3.2.
Proposition 3.1: The throughput of the picker station and
system TH is
 

R ∞

μ 1− Pr(E, S, 0) . (1)
S=0 E=R−S
It is the actual service rate of the picker. The picker
is idle when no robots are with the picker. When S
robots are dealing with standard orders, the remaining
R−S robots are dealing with expedited orders and other
expedited shipping requests are in the queue.
Proposition 3.2: The lead time of an expedited order is
Le 1 1 LR
+ + + . (2)
λe μ λS μ(1 − Prpi )
The proof of Proposition 3.2 is shown in Appendix
A.3. It is not easy to directly compute the equilibrium
probability of the complex Markov system. We present
methods and an algorithm to specify parameter matrix
of these high-dimension Markov models, and make
the complex calculation feasible (see Appendices A.4
and A.5).
6 Y. GONG ET AL.

The objective function of RMFS model with customer We define the state of the Markov Chain by (E, S, P1 ,
classes and a picker is . . . , Pn ). E is the number of expedited shipping requests
 ∞
 in the system, including the ones in the expedite waiting

R 
max TH(μ, R, λs ) = μ 1 − Pr(E, S, 0) . line and the ones that are processed by robots. However,
S=0 E=R−S
E does not include the expedited request that is currently
(3) in the queue waiting for or processed by pickers. S is the
number of robots that are processing standard orders,
excluding the ones waiting for pickers. Pi is the num-
3.2. RMFS model with multiple pickers
ber of robots that are in front of picker i, including the
In this section, we further consider the application of waiting ones and ones being processed by to-share or
RMFS to online retailers with multiple picker worksta- not-to-share model. Pi includes robots which carry either
tions and two classes, including classes ‘Standard Ship- expedited or standard orders.
ping’ and ‘Expedited Shipping’. When the number of Each robot is either picking up a standard order, in the
pickers n ≥ 1, we need to handle the problem of shar- robot queue before pickers, in the process with pickers, or
ing pickers. The throughput
 of  not-to-share model is picking up an expedited order. When Pi = 0 or 1, it exists
given by TH = nμ(1 − RS=0 ∞ E=R−S Pr(E, S, 0)) with no robot queue n before picker i. When S + n
i=1 Pi <
the assumptions in Section 3.1. R, R − S − i=1 Pi robots are currently in the way of
For the to-share model, we consider the following getting expedited
n shipping orders. In other words, E −
system: (R − S − i=1 Pi ) expedited requests are waiting for
being processed (i.e. waiting for an available robot).
(1) An RMFS is applied to handle both expedited and The state space is {S = 0, . . . , R; P1 = 0,  . . . , R − S; P2 =
standard shipping orders. The RMFS has n pickers. 0, . . . , R− S − P1 ; Pn =  0, . . . , R − S − n−1i=1 Pi ; E = R
n n
(2) An RMFS has R robots, each of which can han- − S − i=1 Pi , R − S − i=1 Pi + 1, . . . , ∞}. Appendix
dle both expedited shipping and regular shipping. It A.6 lists possible transitions if the current state is
takes exponentially distributed time for a robot from (E, S, P1 , . . . , Pn ).
leaving a picker without an order to coming back To calculate the throughput of RMFS system TH with
with the shelf with an order (either expedite or stan- n pickers, we apply the following proposition:
dard to the same or different picker). The mean of
this time is 1/λs . The exponential distribution could Proposition 3.3: The throughput of RMFS system TH
be justified by the large value of R. with n pickers is
(3) The expedited shipping requests arrive in the sys-
⎛ n−1
tem following a Poisson Process with the rate of λe 
n 
R 
R−S R−S−
i=1 Pi
and will be immediately processed when a robot is TH = μi ⎝1 − ···
available. i=0 S=0 P1 =0 Pn =0
(4) Plenty of standard shipping requests are waiting ⎞
∞

for being processed because we are estimating the
× Pr(E, S, P1 , . . . , Pi = 0, . . . , Pn )⎠.
capacity of the system for expedited orders. n
E=R−S− i=1 Pi
(5) It takes the picker i, i = 1, . . . , n, an exponentially
distributed time, with the mean of 1/μi , to pick an (4)
order from a robot. In practice, the service rates
across pickers can vary. For a pick workstation i, its throughput is
(6) A robot that is once unloaded by a picker will process ⎛ n−1
R−S− Pi
an expedited request if there are expedited requests 
R 
R−S i=1
waiting. Otherwise, the robot will immediately pro- μi ⎝1 − ···
cess a standard request. S=0 P1 =0 Pn =0
⎞
(7) The RMFS has n + 1 queues in the system: (1) ∞

expedited shipping requests waiting for available × Pr(E, S, P1 , . . . , Pi = 0, . . . , Pn )⎠ .
robots, and (2) robots with picked orders waiting for n
E=R−S− i=1 Pi
picker i.
(8) A robot is assigned to the picker who has the min- It is the actual service rate of the picker i. The picker i
imum number of robots in front of her, including is idle when Pi = 0 (no robots are with the picker). The
the ones in the queue and the ones under service. Pi throughput of RMFS system with n pickers is the sum of
robots stay in front of picker i. actual service rates of n pickers.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 7

Therefore, the objective function of to-share RMFS

model with customer classes and multiple pickers is

max TH(μi , R, λs , n)
⎛ 
R−S− n−1
n R 
R−S i=1 Pi
= μi ⎝1 − ···
i=0 S=0 P1 =0 Pn =0
⎞
∞

× Pr(E, S, P1 , . . . , Pi = 0, . . . , Pn )⎠ .
n
E=R−S− i=1 Pi
(5)

The objective function of not-to-share RMFS model

with customer classes and multiple pickers is
 ∞

 R  Figure 2. Simulation of RMFS models with two classes and one
max TH(μ, R, λs , n) = nμ 1 − Pr(E, S, 0) .
picker.
S=0 E=R−S
(6)

4. Numerical experiments
In this section, we present numerical experiments to
verify RMFS with customer classes and multiple pick-
ers by simulation and to evaluate the performance of
RMFS, including comparing different operational pro-
tocols in terms of throughput. We also solve optimal
decision problems to determine the number of robots,
their capacities, and the number of pickers.

4.1. Verification of analytic results by simulation

We use Arena 14.0 to simulate the RMFS with two classes
and one picker(see Figure 2) and multiple pickers (see
Figure 3). For an RMFS with ‘expedite orders’ and ‘stan-
dard orders’, we simulate it based on assumptions pre-
sented in Section 3.1 for 1000 warehouse operational
hours. The average simulation running time is 18.49 sec-
onds per run on a computer with an ‘Intel Core i7-4600U’
CPU@2.1GHz and 16 GB RAM. We calculate the RMFS
model specified by Table A1 and Proposition 3.1, and use
Matlab to calculate results by the analytic Markov model
(for future details in algorithms and implementation, see
Appendices A.4 and A.5).
We define the bias as
1  |THg − THg |
M A S
× 100%,
M THgS
g=1
where THgA is the throughput value obtained using the
analytical Markov models and THgS is the throughput
value obtained by the simulation, g is the index of sim-
ulation run, and M is the total number of simulation
Figure 3. Comparison of the analysis and simulation for RMFS
models with multiple pickers.
runs. The average bias between analytical and simulation
is 1.11% based on 360 groups with different parameters
λs , λe and μ, with values R = 1:30, μ for 3 times, λs and
λe for twice respectively. g is the scenario index, featured
by different values of μ and R. Figure 2 presents analyti-
cal and simulates results when μ = 5, μ = 7 and μ = 9.
The units of parameters λs , λe , and μ are units/second.
RMFS models were specified by Table A1 and Propo-
sition 3.3. Figure 3 is the simulation of RMFS system with
multiple pickers. The average bias between analytical and
simulation is 3.79% based on 810 groups with different
parameters in n and μ, with values R = 1:30, n = 2:10,
μ for 3 times. Figure 3 presents analytical and simulative
results with parameters of μ = 4, n = 2.
8 Y. GONG ET AL.
Figure 4. The impact of ‘expedited shipping’ requests on the
throughput.
4.2. Performance evaluation
4.2.1. The impact of ‘expedited shipping’ requests on
the throughput
Figure 4 shows the influences of expedited order on the
throughput of RMFS.We change the arrival rates of expe-
dited orders λe and the number of robots R to observe the
change of throughput with the λe . We interestingly find
that when the number of robots R is lower than a cer-
tain number, we can observe the influence of λe . Given
a λs = 2 in this group of experiments, when the num-
ber of robots R is less than 25, the throughput increases
with λe . When the number of robots R is large enough
(after 25 robots), the expedited order has no significant
effect on the throughput. When the system remains sta-
ble, the arrival rate of the expedited order can affect the
throughput under the condition that the number and the
capacity of robots cannot handle. But when the number
and the capacity of robots are large enough to handle, the
throughput will be mainly influenced by the capacity of
the picker, μ.
4.2.2. Comparison of two protocols: single class or
two classes
We analyse the RMFS of a single class presented in
Appendix A.1 using finite source models, and Markov
models to analyse the RMFS of two classes described in
Section 3.1. We use Matlab to calculate two analytic mod-
els with the parameters of μ = 5, λs = 2 for single class
and μ = 5, λs = 2, λe = 1 for two classes.
Figure 5 shows that TH(R) is an increasing function
with the number of robots R, when 1 ≤ R ≤ 30. The
throughput of RMFS model with two classes is higher
than the throughput of RMFS model with single class. As
the number of robots R increases, the function TH(R) of
Figure 5. Comparison of the throughput of RMFS model with
single class and two classes.
two classes increases until the number of robots reaches
nine, where the throughput is 4.99, equals to μ, because
Prob(P = 0) ≈ 0. If R is infinite, the throughput TH of
this system is μ. If R is less than arg TH(μ), discussing
the difference of total throughput between single class
and two classes is interesting. We define the increasing
rate as |THR − THR−1 |/THR−1 × 100%, where THR is
the throughput when there are R robots in the system.
The highest increasing rate of two classes is 84.91% from
R = 1 to R = 2. The highest increasing rate of single class
is 55.56%, also from R = 1 to R = 2. When R < 6, the
increasing rate of two classes is higher than the increas-
ing rate of single class. When R = 6, the increasing rate
of two classes is 4.46%, which is lower than the increas-
ing rate of single class 5.88%. When R > 6, the increasing
rate of single class is higher than the increasing rate of
two classes. The largest throughput gap between single
class and two classes is 1.33 and the highest increasing
rate is 37.67%, when R = 6. The average throughput gap
between single class and two classes is 0.71 for 1 ≤ R ≤
30. In sum, the function TH(R) of two classes increases
faster and it also has a faster convergence than the func-
tion TH(R) of single class. When R = 6, the performance
gap between two classes and single class reaches the
maximum.
4.2.3. Comparison of one-picker and multiple-pickers
models
The analysis of one-picker model and multiple-pickers
with to-share model are respectively presented in
Section 3.1 and Section 3.2. As the number of robots
R increases as shown in Figure 6, the throughput
gap between the number of pickers n = 3 and n = 1
increases until R = 7. After R = 7, the increasing rate
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 9

Figure 7. Determine the number of robots.

Figure 6. Comparison of one-picker and multiple-pickers mod-
els.

of n = 3 and n = 1 are both close to zero. The maxi-

mum and average throughput gap between n = 3 and
n = 1 is 9 and 6.21 respectively. We define the gap rate as
|TH3 − TH1 |/TH1 × 100%, where TH3 is the through-
put with 3 pickers, TH1 is the throughput with a picker.
The maximum and the average gap rate between n = 3
and n = 1 is 472.65% and 244.55% respectively.

4.3. Optimal decision

4.3.1. Determine the optimal number of robots
Figure 7 shows TH(R) is an increasing function in R and
it will converge into a value TH¯ = nμ. After TH(R) con-
verges, the system cannot significantly benefit from the
increase of R. Considering the cost of robots, we can set
the following condition,|(TH(R) − TH)/ ¯ TH|¯ ≤ ξr such
that the relative difference between TH(R) and converged
value TH ¯ is less than a very small value ξr . ξr is deter-
Figure 8. Determine the capacity of robots.
mined by the tradeoff between the increase of TH and
the cost of robots.
We can get the optimal number of robots by
4.3.2. Determine the capacity of robots

 
¯  
 TH(R) − TH Figure 8 shows TH(λs ) is an increasing function of λs
∗
R = min R :   
¯
TH  ≤ ξr , (7) and it will converge into a value TH ¯ = nμ. The sys-
tem cannot significantly benefit from the increase of λs
which is the smallest value of R to satisfy the condition. when it is high. We can set the following condition,
We can use Figure 7 to determine the number of ¯ TH|
|(TH(λs ) − TH)/ ¯ ≤ ξλs such that the relative differ-
robots. For example, when we set ξr = 0.5% and have ence between TH(λs ) and the converged value TH ¯ is less
μ = 9, the optimal value is (11, 8.96), where the value than a very small value ξλs .
of 11 denotes the optimal number of robots, the value of We can get the optimal capacity of robots by
8.96 denotes the corresponding throughput. When μ =
8, the optimal value is (11, 7.98). When μ = 7, the opti-
  
mal value is (10, 6.98). When μ = 6, the optimal value is ¯ 
 TH(λs ) − TH
λ∗s = min λs :   ≤ ξλ ,
 (8)
(9, 5.98). When μ = 5, the optimal value is (8, 4.98). TH¯ s
10 Y. GONG ET AL.

Figure 10. Contour lines with considering the capacity of robots

Figure 9. Jointly determine the capacity λs and the number of
λs and the number of robots R.
robots R given a target TH.

which is the smallest value λs to satisfy the condition.

Since the increase of λs and the capacity of robots will
lead to cost.
We can use Figure 8 to determine the capacity of
robots with the increasing parameters of λs . For exam-
ple, if we set ξλs = 0.5%, when μ = 9 the optimal value
is (3.5, 8.97), where 3.5 denotes the optical capacity of
robots and 8.97 denotes the throughput with the opti-
mal capacity of robot. When μ = 8, the optimal value is
(3, 7.96).When μ = 7 the optimal value is (3, 6.99).

4.3.3. Jointly determine the capacity of robots and

the number of robots
We use Matlab to calculate the analytic RMFS model,
denoting λs as the capacity of robots. We can use Figure 9
to jointly determine the capacity of robots considering
the throughput and the contour line of R and λs when
the throughput reaches optimal value. We define contour
lines of R and λs as follows. Given a target TH 0 , a range
1 ≤ R ≤ R̄ for R, a range λs ≤ λs ≤ λ̄s , a contour line is a
set of points (R, λs ) ∈ {(R, λs ) | TH(R, λs ) = TH 0 , ∀1 ≤
R ≤ R̄, λs ≤ λs ≤ λ̄s }.
Figure 9 shows that TH(R, λs ) with the number of
robots R increases and the capacity of robots λs . The
maximal throughput is 9 when μ = 9 and λe = 1.
Figure 10 shows contour lines TH(R, λs ) = TH 0 with
considering the capacity of robots. Contour lines respec-
tively represent TH = 9 to TH = 1. For the same
throughput TH 0 , as the capacity of robots increases, the
needed number of robots declines. A warehouse manager
can use Figure 9 in her optimal planning. For example, if
she sets TH = 8 as the target for a picker and wants to
put six robots in an RMFS for a picker, the λs can be set
as two.
Figure 11. Jointly determine the capacity of pickers μ and the
number of robots R.
4.3.4. Jointly determine the capacity of a picker and
the number of robots
We use Matlab to calculate the analytic RMFS model,
denoting μ as the capacity of a picker. We can
use Figure 11 to jointly determine the capacity of a
picker considering the throughput and the contour
line TH(R, μ) given a target throughput TH 0 . We
define contour lines of R and μ as follows. Given a
target TH 0 , a range 1 ≤ R ≤ R̄ for R, a range μ ≤
μ ≤ μ̄, a contour line is a set of points (R, μ) ∈
{(R, μ) | TH(R, μ) = TH 0 , ∀1 ≤ R ≤ R̄, μ ≤ μ ≤ μ̄}.
Figure 11, a three-dimensional figure, shows how the
throughput changes with the number of robots R in a
range 1 ≤ R ≤ 20 and the capacity of pickers μ in a
range 1 ≤ μ ≤ 9. The maximal throughput is 9 when
μ = 9, 13 ≤ R ≤ 20. In sum, when R ≤ 12 the change

Figure 12. Contour lines with the capacity of pickers.
of throughput depends more on the number of robots.
When R > 12, the change of throughput depends more
on the capacity of pickers.
Figure 12 shows contour lines with considering the
capacity of pickers. Contour lines respectively represent
TH(R, μ) = 9 to TH(R, μ) = 1. For the same through-
put TH 0 , as the capacity of pickers increases, the needed
number of robots declines. We find the following obser-
vations:
Observation 4.1: When μ is relatively small for a TH 0 ,
TH is not sensitive to R. It is unnecessary for the RMFS
manager to increase the number of robots R.
Observation 4.2: When R is relatively small for a TH 0 ,
TH is not sensitive to μ. It is unnecessary for the RMFS
manager to increase the capacity of pickers μ.
Figure 12 can explain Observation 1 if the capacity of a
picker μ < 3, the vatical line for contour line shows that
TH is not sensitive to R. Figure 12 can explain Observa-
tion 2. For example, if the number of robots R ≤ 2, the
horizontal lines for contour line from TH(R, μ) = 4 to
TH(R, μ) = 9 show that TH is not sensitive to μ. In sum,
the capacity of pickers should be greater than or equal
to 3. When the number of robots is large, increasing the
capacity of pickers is an effective method to increase the
throughput.
4.3.5. Jointly determine the number of pickers and
the number of robots
We use Matlab to calculate the analytic multiple-pickers
RMFS model. We can use Figure 13 to jointly deter-
mine the number of pickers and the number of robots
considering the throughput and the contour line when
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 11
Figure 13. Jointly determine the number of pickers and the num-
ber of robots.
Figure 14. Contour lines with the number of pickers.
the throughput reaches optimal value. We define contour
lines of R and n as follows. Given a target TH 0 , a range
1 ≤ R ≤ R̄ for R, and a range n ≤ n ≤ n̄, a contour line is
a set of points (R, n) ∈ {(R, n) | TH(R, n) = TH 0 , ∀ 1 ≤
R ≤ R̄, n ≤ n ≤ n̄}.
The three-dimensional Figure 13 shows how the
throughput changes with the number of robots and the
number of pickers. The maximal throughput is 15.99,
when n = 6 and R = 15. When n ≤ 3, the throughput
increases with the number of robots and the number
of pickers increase. For n ≥ 4, the throughput decreases
when R ≤ 2 and then increases with the number of
robots. When R > 6, the change of throughput depends
more on the number of pickers.
Figure 14 shows contour lines with considering the
number of pickers. Contour lines respectively repre-
sent TH(R, n) = 16 to TH(R, n) = 5. We discuss contour
lines in two cases: (1) When TH(R, n) = 7, 8 . . . , 16, as
12 Y. GONG ET AL.
the number of pickers increases, the needed number
of robots is with a curve shape of ‘’. This is relative
to which one (pickers vs. robots) is the bottleneck for
the performance. Taking TH(R, n) = 8 as an example,
when the number of pickers is less than 2, the bottle-
neck is at the pickers. Increasing the number of robots
does not increase throughput too much. When the num-
ber of robots is less than 4, the bottleneck is at the
robots. Increasing the number of pickers does not signif-
icantly increase throughput. (2) When TH(R, n) = 5, 6,
the needed number of robots increases with the number
of pickers. Generally speaking, only when the number
of robots is large, increasing the number of pickers is
an effective method to increase the throughput. A man-
ager can use contour lines to optimise the planning of an
RMFS. For example, given a target TH 0 = 16 and n = 5,
she can set an optimal number of robots R = 9.
5. Concluding remarks
This paper studies a new order fulfilment system featured
by a number of robots transporting movables shelves to
order pickers. In our model, we consider order classes,
expedited and standard, to represent the needs of online
retailers to provide the responsive service to their cus-
tomers. We use throughput to measure the performance
of the system along with the lead time of expedited
orders. We develop Markov models to build the relation-
ship between those performance metrics and system con-
figuration, featured by the number of robots, the capacity
of robots, and the number of pickers. Numerical results
provide design rules to balance the three design variables.
Warehouse managers can use those rules to determine
the optimal configuration of the system.
The limitation of this study is that we mainly consider
stable stochastic systems, and have not considered insta-
ble stochastic systems. We use approximate methods to
construct and estimate the Markov models. It is interest-
ing to consider non-Poisson process for order arrivals.
This paper could be further extended to study different
the dwell point policies for the returned shelves. Other
rules of placing shelves may further help to improve the
productivity of the RMFS but require new models and
computational methods. The robots charging issue could
also be an interesting future topic.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This research was supported in part by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (No. 71620107002), the
National Social Science Foundation of China (16ZDA013),
and Erasmus+ [grant number 2019-1-FR01-KA203-063063].
Yeming GONG issupported by Business Intelligence Center of
EMLYON.
ORCID
Mingzhou Jin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2387-8129
Zhe Yuan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3656-8840
References
Aiello, G., M. Enea, and G. Galante. 2002. “An Integrated
Approach to the Facilities and Material Handling System
Design.” International Journal of Production Research 40
(15): 4007–4017.
Azadeh, Kaveh, René De Koster, and Debjit Roy. 2019.
“Robotized and Automated Warehouse Systems: Review
and Recent Developments.” Transportation Science 53 (4):
917–945.
Baker, Peter, and Marco Canessa. 2009. “Warehouse Design:
A Structured Approach.” European Journal of Operational
Research 193 (2): 425–436.
Bechtsis, Dimitrios, Naoum Tsolakis, Dimitrios Vlachos, and
Eleftherios Iakovou. 2017. “Sustainable Supply Chain Man-
agement in the Digitalisation Era: The Impact of Auto-
mated Guided Vehicles.” Journal of Cleaner Production 142:
3970–3984.
Bell, Jennie. 2019. “Zappos Explores Fresh Customer Service
Tactics With New Kentucky Fulfillment Center & Store.”
https://footwearnews.com/2019/business/retail/zappos-
fulfillment-center -retail-outlet-louisville-kentucky-120277
0182/.
Bozer, Yavuz A., and Myeonsig Cho. 2005. “Throughput Per-
formance of Automated Storage/retrieval Systems Under
Stochastic Demand.” IIE Transactions 37 (4): 367–378.
Calzavara, Martina, Fabio Sgarbossa, and Alessandro Persona.
2019. “Vertical Lift Modules for Small Items Order Picking:
An Economic Evaluation.” International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics 210: 199–210.
De Koster, René, Tho Le-Duc, and Kees Jan Roodbergen. 2007.
“Design and Control of Warehouse Order Picking: A Litera-
ture Review.” European Journal of Operational Research 182
(2): 481–501.
Dukic, Goran, Tihomir Opetuk, and Tone Lerher. 2015. “A
Throughput Model for a Dual-tray Vertical Lift Module with
a Human Order-picker.” International Journal of Production
Economics 170: 874–881.
Eldemir, Fahrettin, R. J. Graves, and C. J. Malmborg. 2004.
“New Cycle Time and Space Estimation Models for
Automated Storage and Retrieval System Conceptualiza-
tion.” International Journal of Production Research 42 (22):
4767–4783.
Enright, John J., and Peter R. Wurman. 2011. “Optimization
and Coordinated Autonomy in Mobile Fulfillment Systems.”
Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence
Workshop, WS-11-09, 33–38.
Farahvash, Pooya, and Thomas O. Boucher. 2004. “A Multi-
agent Architecture for Control of AGV Systems.” Robotics
and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 20 (6): 473–483.

Fazlollahtabar, Hamed, and Mohammad Saidi-Mehrabad.
2015. “Methodologies to Optimize Automated Guided Vehi-
cle Scheduling and Routing Problems: A Review Study.”
Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 77 (3-4): 525–545.
Fazlollahtabar, Hamed, Mohammad Saidi-Mehrabad, and
Jaydeep Balakrishnan. 2015. “Mathematical Optimization
for Earliness/tardiness Minimization in a Multiple Auto-
mated Guided Vehicle Manufacturing System via Integrated
Heuristic Algorithms.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems
72: 131–138.
Feng, Lijuan, Mingyao Qi, Shijia Hua, and Qingte Zhou. 2018.
“Picking Station Location in Traditional and Flying-V Aisle
Warehouses for Robotic Mobile Fulfillment System.” In 2018
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management (IEEM), 1436–1440. IEEE.
Gademann, Arnoldus Johannes Reinerus Maria, and Steef L.
van de Velde. 2000. “Positioning Automated Guided Vehicles
in a Loop Layout.” European Journal of Operational Research
127 (3): 565–573.
Gong, Yeming, and Rene De Koster. 2008. “A Polling-based
Dynamic Order Picking System for Online Retailers.” IIE
Transactions 40 (11): 1070–1082.
González, Ramón, Mirko Fiacchini, José Luis Guzmán,
Teodoro Álamo, and Francisco Rodríguez. 2011. “Robust
Tube-based Predictive Control for Mobile Robots in Off-
road Conditions.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems 59 (10):
711–726.
Gu, Jinxiang, Marc Goetschalckx, and Leon F. McGinnis. 2010.
“Research on Warehouse Design and Performance Evalua-
tion: A Comprehensive Review.” European Journal of Oper-
ational Research 203 (3): 539–549.
Guizzo, Erico. 2008. “Three Engineers, Hundreds of Robots,
One Warehouse.” IEEE Spectrum 45 (7): 26–34.
Hassini, Elkafi. 2008. “Carousel Storage Systems.” In Facil-
ity Logistics: Approaches and Solutions to Next Generation
Challenges, 199–234, USA: CRC Press.
Hitchcock, Riley James, Sarah A. McElroy, Darlene A. Veloso,
Edmund James Golby Spencer, Corrine C. Barchanowicz,
Aram Marabyan, Erik Davin Kokkonen, Joshua Lynton
Lowy, and Brian Porter. 2018. “Robotic Systems and Meth-
ods in Prediction and Presentation of Resource Availability.”
US Patent App. 15/859,225, May 3.
Hoyt, David, Hau Lee, and Michael Marks. 2009. “Zappos.com:
Developing a Supply Chain to Deliver Wow.”
Hulten, Charles R., Edwin R. Dean, and Michael Harper. 2007.
New Developments in Productivity Analysis. Vol. 63. Chicago,
USA: University of Chicago Press.
Hwang, Hark, Young-keun Song, and Kap-hwan Kim. 2004.
“The Impacts of Acceleration/deceleration on Travel Time
Models for Carousel Systems.” Computers & Industrial Engi-
neering 46 (2): 253–265.
Kiran, Ali S., and Barbaros C. Tansel. 1989. “Optimal Pickup
Point Location on Material Handling Networks.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research 27 (9): 1475–1486.
Knust, Frederik, and Lin Xie. 2019. “Simulated Anneal-
ing Approach to Nurse Rostering Benchmark and Real-
world Instances.” Annals of Operations Research 272 (1-2):
187–216.
Lamballais, Tim, Debjit Roy, and M. B. M. De Koster. 2017a.
“Estimating Performance in a Robotic Mobile Fulfillment
System.” European Journal of Operational Research 256 (3):
976–990.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 13
Lamballais, Tim, Debjit Roy, and M. B. M. De Koster. 2017b.
“Estimating Performance in a Robotic Mobile Fulfillment
System.” European Journal of Operational Research 256 (3):
976–990.
Lamballais, Tim, Debjit Roy, and René B. M. De Koster. 2020.
“Inventory Allocation in Robotic Mobile Fulfillment Sys-
tems.” IISE Transactions 52 (1): 1–17.
Lee, Moon-Kyu, and Hark Hwang. 1988. “An Approach in the
Design of a Unit-load Automated Carousel Storage System.”
Engineering Optimization 13 (3): 197–210.
Lee, C. K. M, Bingbing Lin, K. K. H. Ng, Yaqiong Lv, and
W. C. Tai. 2019. “Smart Robotic Mobile Fulfillment System
with Dynamic Conflict-free Strategies Considering Cyber-
physical Integration.” Advanced Engineering Informatics 42:
100998.
Li, Jianbin, Rihuan Huang, and James B. Dai. 2017. “Joint
Optimisation of Order Batching and Picker Routing in the
Online Retailer’s Warehouse in China.” International Journal
of Production Research55 (2): 447–461.
Litvak, Nelly. 2006. “Optimal Picking of Large Orders in
Carousel Systems.” Operations Research Letters34 (2): 219–227.
Lu, Shaoping, Chen Xu, Ray Y. Zhong, and Lihui Wang. 2017.
“A RFID-enabled Positioning System in Automated Guided
Vehicle for Smart Factories.” Journal of Manufacturing Sys-
tems 44: 179–190.
Luna, Ryan, and Kostas E. Bekris. 2011. “Efficient and Complete
Centralized Multi-Robot Path Planning.” In 2011 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
3268–3275. IEEE.
Malsch, Thomas, and Knuth Dohse. 1993. Breaking From Tay-
lorism: Changing Forms of Work in the Automobile Industry.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
McHaney, R. 1995. “Modelling Battery Constraints in Dis-
crete Event Automated Guided Vehicle Simulations.” Inter-
national Journal of Production Research 33 (11): 3023–3040.
Meller, Russell D., and John F. Klote. 2004. “A Throughput
Model for Carousel/VLM Pods.” IIE Transactions 36 (8):
725–741.
Merschformann, Marius. 2018. “Active Repositioning of Stor-
age Units in Robotic Mobile Fulfillment Systems.” In Opera-
tions Research Proceedings 2017, 379–385. Springer.
Merschformann, Marius, Tim Lamballais, René de Koster, and
Leena Suhl. 2018. “Decision Rules for Robotic Mobile Ful-
fillment Systems.” Preprint. arXiv:1801.06703.
Merschformann, Marius, Lin Xie, and Daniel Erdmann. 2017.
“Path Planning for Robotic Mobile Fulfillment Systems.”
Preprint. arXiv:1706.09347.
Merschformann, Marius, Lin Xie, and Hanyi Li. 2017.
“RAWSim-O: A Simulation Framework for Robotic Mobile
Fulfillment Systems.” Preprint. arXiv:1710.04726.
Milutinovi, Dejan, and Pedro Lima. 2006. “Modeling and
Optimal Centralized Control of a Large-size Robotic Pop-
ulation.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics 22 (6): 1280–
1285.
Nicolas, Lenoble, Frein Yannick, and Hammami Ramzi. 2018.
“Order Batching in An Automated Warehouse with Several
Vertical Lift Modules: Optimization and Experiments with
Real Data.” European Journal of Operational Research 267
(3): 958–976.
Pazour, Jennifer A., and Russell D. Meller. 2013. “The Impact of
Batch Retrievals on Throughput Performance of a Carousel
System Serviced by a Storage and Retrieval Machine.”
14 Y. GONG ET AL.
International Journal of Production Economics 142 (2):
332–342.
Razumov, Sergey. 2005. “Robotic Retail Facility.” US Patent
App. 10/832,383, October 27.
Roodbergen, Kees Jan, and Iris F. A. Vis. 2009. “A Survey of
Literature on Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems.”
European Journal of Operational Research 194 (2): 343–362.
Rosenblatt, Meir J., Yaakov Roll, and D. Vered Zyser. 1993.
“A Combined Optimization and Simulation Approach for
Designing Automated Storage/retrieval Systems.” IIE Trans-
actions 25 (1): 40–50.
Roshan, K., A. Shojaie, and M. Javadi. 2019. “Advanced Allo-
cation Policy in Class-based Storage to Improve AS/RS Effi-
ciency Toward Green Manufacturing.” International Journal
of Environmental Science and Technology 16 (10): 5695–5706.
Roy, Debjit, Shobhit Nigam, René de Koster, Ivo Adan, and
Jacques Resing. 2019. “Robot-storage Zone Assignment
Strategies in Mobile Fulfillment Systems.” Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 122:
119–142.
Sabattini, Lorenzo, Mika Aikio, Patric Beinschob, Markus
Boehning, Elena Cardarelli, Valerio Digani, and Annette
Krengel, et al. 2017. “The Pan-robots Project: Advanced
Automated Guided Vehicle Systems for Industrial Logistics.”
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 25 (1): 55–64.
Scanlon, Jessie. 2009. “How Kiva Robots Help Zappos and
Walgreens.” Retrieved April 10: 2010.
Schenone, M., G. Mangano, S. Grimaldi, and A. Cagliano. 2019.
“Estimating Travel Times in Dual Shuttle AS/RSs.: A Revised
Approach.” International Journal of Industrial Engineering
Computations 10 (3): 405–420.
Shabanov, Vladimir, and Donat Ivanov. 2019. “Organization
of Information Exchange in Coalitions of Intelligent Mobile
Robots.” In 2019 International Conference on Industrial Engi-
neering, Applications and Manufacturing (ICIEAM), 1–5.
IEEE.
Singh, S. P., and M. K. Tiwari. 2002. “Intelligent Agent Frame-
work to Determine the Optimal Conflict-free Path for An
Automated Guided Vehicles System.” International Journal
of Production Research 40 (16): 4195–4223.
Soukhal, Ameur, Ammar Oulamara, and Patrick Martineau.
2005. “Complexity of Flow Shop Scheduling Problems with
Transportation Constraints.” European Journal of Opera-
tional Research 161 (1): 32–41.
Tompkins, James A., John A. White, Yavuz A. Bozer, and
Jose Mario Azaña Tanchoco. 2010. Facilities Planning. USA:
Wiley.
Turban, Efraim, Jon Outland, David King, Jae Kyu Lee, Ting-
Peng Liang, and Deborrah C. Turban. 2018. “Order Fulfill-
ment Along the Supply Chain in e-Commerce.” In Electronic
Commerce 2018, 501–534. Springer, Cham.
Umar, Umar Ali, M. K. A. Ariffin, N. Ismail, and S. H.
k
Tang. 2015. “Hybrid Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms
for Integrated Dynamic Scheduling and Routing of Jobs
and Automated-guided Vehicle (AGV) in Flexible Manu-
facturing Systems (FMS) Environment.” The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 81 (9-12):
2123–2141.
Ventura, José A., and Chulung Lee. 2001. “A Study of the Tan-
dem Loop with Multiple Vehicles Configuration for Auto-
mated Guided Vehicle Systems.” Journal of Manufacturing
Systems 20 (3): 153–165.
Vincent, J. 2018. “Welcome to the Automated Warehouse of the
Future.” The Verge.
Vis, Iris F. A.. 2006. “Survey of Research in the Design and
Control of Automated Guided Vehicle Systems.” European
Journal of Operational Research 170 (3): 677–709.
Welch, Adrienne. 2015. “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Amazon
Prime Air.”
Wurman, Peter R., Raffaello D’Andrea, and Mounte Mick. 2008.
“Coordinating Hundreds of Cooperative, Autonomous
Vehicles in Warehouses.” AI Magazine 29 (1): 9–19.
Xie, Lin, Nils Thieme, Ruslan Krenzler, and Hanyi Li. 2019.
“Efficient Order Picking Methods in Robotic Mobile Fulfill-
ment Systems.” Preprint. arXiv:1902.03092.
Xu, Fuyi, Hendrik Van Brussel, Marnix Nuttin, and Ronny
Moreas. 2003. “Concepts for Dynamic Obstacle Avoidance
and Their Extended Application in Underground Naviga-
tion.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42 (1): 1–15.
Xu, Xianhao, Bipan Zou, Guwen Shen, and Yeming Gong.
2016. “Travel-time Models and Fill-grade Factor Analysis
for Double-deep Multi-aisle AS/RSs.” International Journal
of Production Research 54 (14): 4126–4144.
Yang, Peng, Yongfei Peng, Bin Ye, and Lixin Miao. 2017. “Inte-
grated Optimization of Location Assignment and Sequenc-
ing in Multi-shuttle Automated Storage and Retrieval Sys-
tems Under Modified 2 N-command Cycle Pattern.” Engi-
neering Optimization 49 (9): 1604–1620.
Yu, Hu, and Yugang Yu. 2019. “Optimising Two Dwell Point
Policies for AS/RSs with Input and Output Point At Oppo-
site Ends of the Aisle.” International Journal of Production
Research 57(21): 6615–6633.
Yuan, Zhe, and Yeming Yale Gong. 2017. “Bot-in-time Delivery
for Robotic Mobile Fulfillment Systems.” IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management 64 (1): 83–93.
Zou, Bipan, Yeming Gong, Xianhao Xu, and Zhe Yuan. 2017.
“Assignment Rules in Robotic Mobile Fulfilment Systems
for Online Retailers.” International Journal of Production
Research 55 (20): 6175–6192.
Appendix
A.1 RMFS model with single customer class
In this section, we consider RMFS models with single customer
class:
A.1.1 Single-picker system
We use the method of finite source models to describe RMFS
model with single class. Let k denote the number of customers
in the system (queue plus service in picker’s workstation), λ
denote the arrival rate in the system, μ denote the service rate
in the system. We have the limiting probability pk ,
λ R!
pk = p0 , 0 < k ≤ R; 0, k > R, (A1)
μ (R − k)!
Figure A1. RMFS model with single class.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 15

Figure A2. RMFS model with multiple servers.

where (3) The rate from a state of (E, S, P) to a state of (E − 1, S, P +

 R k −1 1) is (R − S − P) λs . The flows from bottom to top repre-
 λ R!
p0 = . (A2) sent arrivals of a robot carrying an expedited order at the
μ (R − k)! picker (see black and solid line). This event will happen
k=0
only when E ≥ 1.
A.1.2 Multiple-pickers system (4) The flows from right to left represent the completion of
We use Markovian models to describe an RMFS model with one picker job with the rate of μ (see blue and dashed line).
single class and m pickers. Let k denote the number of cus- This includes two situations. If E + S + P > R, the event
tomers in the system (queueing plus service in picker’s work- will happen like event (4.2). It is impossible to see state
station). E + S + P < R. If E + S + P < R, then there are idle robots.
This leads to the following set of birth-death coefficients. However, idle robots will always take a standard order so

that E + S + P < R causes contradictory.
(R − k)λ, 0 ≤ k ≤ R − 1 (4.1) The picker finishes the process of a robot and no
λk =
0, otherwise expedited request is waiting for robots. This event

will happen when E + S + P = R and P ≥ 1. The
kμ, 0 ≤ k ≤ m
μk = state will become (E, S + 1, P − 1).
mμ, k ≥ m
(4.2) The picker finishes a pickup and expedited requests
For the region 0 ≤ k ≤ m − 1, we have are waiting for robots. This event will happen only
k when E + S + P > R and P > 0.
 λ(R − i)
k−1
λ
pk = p0 = p0 CRk , 0 ≤ k ≤ m − 1.
i=0
(i + 1)μ μ
A.3 Proof of Proposition 3.2
(A3)
For the region m ≤ k ≤ R, we have Proof: The first term is the expected time for an expedited
order to wait for an available robot. By the Little’s law, the wait-

m−1
λ(R − i)  λ(R − i)
k−1
ing time equals Le /λe , where Le is the average waiting line
pk = p0
(i + 1)μ i=m mμ length for expedited orders for being processed and is
i=0
k 
R 
R−S ∞

λ k!
= p0 CRk mm−k , m ≤ k ≤ R. (A4) Le = (E − (R − S − P))Pr(E, S, P). (A5)
μ m! S=0 P=1 E=R−S−P+1

The second term is the expected time for the expedited order
A.2 The transition diagram for RMFS with two to be processed by the picker.
classes and a picker The third term is the time when a robot travels from
We show the transition diagram in Figure A3 and Table A1, the picker station to the expedited order and then trav-
els back and carries the order to the picker station. Prpi =
which has the following four types of transitions. R ∞
S=0 E=R−S Pr(E, S, 0) is the probability when the pick is
(1) The rate from a state of (E, S, P) to a state of (E + 1, S, P) is idle. The average line length of robots waiting for the picker
λe . The flows from top to bottom represent arrivals of an can be obtained from
expedited shipping request (see red and dashed line). 
R 
R ∞

(2) The rate from a state of (E, S, P) to a state of (E, S − 1, P + LR = P Pr(E, S, P), (A6)
1) is Sλs . The flows from left to right represent arrivals of P=0 S=0 E=R−S−P
a robot carrying a standard order at the picker (see black R ∞
and solid line). This event will happen only when S ≥ 1. and P(P = p) = S=0 E=R−S−P Pr(E, S, P). 

Table A1. The transition rates and diagram for RMFS model with two classes.
Event Next state Transition rate Comment
(1) One expedited request arrives (E + 1, S, P) λe
(2) One robot carrying a regular order comes back to the picker (E, S − 1, P + 1) Sλs When S ≥ 1
(3) One robot carrying an expedited order comes back to the picker (E − 1, S, P + 1) (R − S − P)λs Only when E ≥ 1
(4.1) The picker finishes the process of a robot and there is no (E, S + 1, P − 1) μ Only When E+S+ P = R and P ≥ 1
expedited request waiting for robots
(4.2) The picker finishes a pickup and expedited requests waiting (E, S, P − 1) μ When E+S+ P > R and P > 0
for robots
16 Y. GONG ET AL.

Figure A3. A Markov chain model for RMFS with two classes.

A.4 Calculate equilibrium probability OF(e,s,p) = (θ(e+1,s,p) c(e,s,p) λe + θ(e,s−1,p+1) c(e,s,p) SλS
The state space is  = {S = 0, . . . , R; P = 0, . . . , R − S; E = + θ(e−1,s,p+1) c(e,s,p) (R − S − P)λS
R − S − P, . . . , ∞}. The number of states is N. Let C be the state
space which satisfies conditions in comments of Table A1. Let + θ( e, s + 1, p − 1)c(e,s,p) μ


+ θ(e,s,p−1) c(e,s,p) μ)π(e,s,p) . (A7)
1, (e, s, p) 1, (e, s, p)C
θ(e,s,p) = , c(e,s,p) = .
0, otherwise 0, otherwise

We define transition rate from state (e, s, p) to (e , s , p ) as

Proof: For the state (e, s, p), its outgoing flows may go to states
q((e,s,p),(e ,s ,p )) .
in outgoing destination set

O(e,s,p) = {(e + 1, s, p), (e, s − 1, p + 1), (e − 1, s, p + 1),

Proposition A.1: The value OF(e,s,p) of outgoing flows from a
state (e, s, p) is (e, s + 1, p − 1), (e, s, p1 )},
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 17

but the state may be not in state space . The value of outgoing for any state (e ,s ,p ) ∈ O(e,s,p) ,
flows is if θ( e , s , p ) = 1 and c( e , s , p ) = 1,

q((e,s,p),(e ,s ,p ); for (e ,s ,p )
=(e,s,p)) π(e,s,p) . (A8) A(x, y) = A(x, y) − q(e,s,p),(e ,s ,p ) ,
x = Findex(E, S, P, R)y = Findex(E, S, P, R)
s p e
end
Then we apply Table A1 to specify OF(e,s,p) and get the 2.2 Specify the incoming flow to state (e,s,p)

proposition.  for any state (e ,s ,p ) ∈ I(e,s,p) ,
if θ( e , s , p ) = 1c( e , s , p ) = 1,
Proposition A.2: The value IF(e,s,p) of incoming flows to a state A(x, y) = A(x, y) + q(e ,s ,p ),(e,s,p) ,
(e, s, p) is i = Findex(E, S, P, R), j = Findex(E , S , P , R)
end
IF(e,s,p) = θ(e−1,s,p) c(e−1,s,p) λe π(e−1,s,p)
end
+ θ(e,s+1,p−1) c(e,s+1,p−1) (S + 1)λS π (e, s + 1, p − 1) end
end
+ θ(e+1,s,p−1) c(e+1,s,p−1) (R − S − P + 1)λS
3. Compute equilibrium probability
+ θ(e,s−1,p+1) c(e,s−1,p+1) μ A
π= .
b
+ θ(e,s,p+1) c(e,s,p+1) μ (A9)
In Algorithm 1, we need to specify the total number of states.
Proof: For states (e, s, p), its incoming flows may be from Let the upper bound of E be U, we have Proposition A.3.
an incoming source set I(e,s,p) = {(e − 1, s, p), (e, s − 1, p +
1), (e + 1, s, p − 1), (e, s − 1, p + 1), (e, s, p + 1)}, but some Proposition A.3: The total number of states is N = 16 (1 +
states may be not in the status space . The value of incoming R)(2 + R)(3U − R + 3).
flows is
  
q((e ,s ,p ),(e,s,p); for (e ,s ,p )
=(e,s,p)) π(e ,s ,p ) . (A10) Proof: By state space, we have N = RS=0 R−S P=0 (U − R + S +
s p e
P + 1). By Mathematica, its value is 16 (1 + R)(2 + R)(3U −
R + 3). For example, if the upper bound of E is R, the num-
Then we apply Table A1 to specify IF(e,s,p) and get the  
ber of status is N = RS=0 R−S 1
P=0 (S + P + 1) = 6 (1 + R)(2 +
proposition.  R)(3 + 2R). 
The equilibrium equation of state (e, s, p) is IF(e,s,p) − In Algorithm 1, a critical step is to specify positions and
OF(e,s,p) = 0. Let π be an N-dimension vector of equilibrium indexes for a state (e, s, p) in matrix A. This is important for
probability, Q be N × N matrix, and O be an N-dimension calculating throughput. In our program, we use a function
vector of 0. The nth row of Q consists of coefficients of the equi- Findex(e, s, p, R) to compute the position in matrix A by Propo-
librium equation for corresponding state (e, s, p), and the nth sition A.4.
column of Q consists of coefficients of state (e, s, p) in different
equilibrium equations. We have πQ = 0. Proposition A.4: The corresponding row index of state (e, s, p)
Let 1 be an N-dimension
 vector
 of 1. The additional nor- in matrix A is
malisation condition is RS=0 R−S P=0
Ē
E=R−S−P π(E,S,P) = 1,
x = Findex(e, s, p, R)
or π = 1. Let A = (Q, 1), b = (0, 1), we have πA = b.
1
1
= 1 + e + 2p + (p − 1)p − R − pR + s + ps + pU
2
A.5 An algorithm to calculate equilibrium
1
probability of complex Markov systems − s(−7 + 3R2 − 3Rs + s2 − 9U − 6RU + 3SU)
6
In this appendix, we present the algorithm used to calculate (A11)
equilibrium probability of Markov systems.
Proof: Based on Algorithm 1, the corresponding row index of
Algorithm A.1: state (e, s, p) in matrix A is:

1. Initiatation x = Findex(e, s, p, R)
1.1 Compute the number of states N; p−1

s−1 
R−S 
1.2 Initiate the space of A by A = zeros(N + 1,N); = (U − R + S + P + 1) + (U − R + s + P + 1)
A(N + 1,:) = ones(1,N); S=0 P=0 P=0
1.3 Initiate the space of b by b = zeros(N + 1,1);
b(N + 1) = 1; + (e − (R − s − p) + 1) (A12)
1.4 Initiate the space D = zeros(N + 1,1); We can calculate the value of i by Mathematica and get
1.5 Input the value of parameters. Proposition A.4. If U = R, we have:
2. Specifying matrix A
for S = 0:R x = Findex(e, s, p, R)
for P = 0:(R − S) 
s−1 
R−S
for E = (R − S − P):U = (U − R + S + P + 1)
2.1 Specify the outgoing flow from state (e,s,p) S=0 P=0
 18 Y. GONG ET AL.

Table A1. The transition rates and diagram for RMFS model with multiple pickers.
Event Next state Transition rate Comment
(1) One expedited request arrives (E + 1, S, P1 , . . . , Pn ) λe
(2) One robot carrying a regular order comes back to (E, S − 1, P1 , . . . , Pl + 1, . . . , Pn ) Sλs When S > 0 and l = arg mini Pi
the picker n 
(3) One robot carrying an expedited order comes back (E − 1, S, P1 , . . . , Pl + 1, . . . , Pn ) (R − S − i=1 Pi )λs Only when R − S − ni=1 Pi > 0 and
to the picker l = arg mini Pi 
(4.1) Pickers finish the process of a robot and there is (E, S + 1, P1 , . . . , Pi − 1, . . . , Pn ) μi Only When R − S − ni=1 Pi = E and
no expedited request waiting for robots Pi > 0 
(4.2) The picker finishes a pickup and there are (E, S, P1 , . . . , Pi − 1, . . . , Pn ) μi When R − S − ni=1 Pi < E and Pi > 0
expedited requests waiting for robots

p−1
 (2) The rate from a state of (E, S, P1 , . . . , Pn ) to a state of
+ (U − R + s + P + 1) + (e − (R − s − p) + 1) (E, S − 1, P1 , . . . , Pl + 1, . . . , Pn ) is Sλs . This event will
P=0 happen only when S > 0.
1 2 (3) The rate from a state of (E, S, P1 , . . . , Pn ) to a state of (E −
= [3p + p(3 + 6s) + s(7 + 9R + 3R2 − s2 )] 1, S, P1 , . . . , Pl + 1, . . . , Pn ) is R − S − ni=1 Pi λs , repre-
6
senting the arrival of a robot carrying an expedited order
+ (e − (R − s − p) + 1) (A13) at picker. This event will happen only when R − S −
the
n
We arrange the column associated with the state (e, s, p) with i=1 i > 0.
P
the same sequence in rows, and the state (e, s, p) is in yth column (4) The completion of job by the picker with a rate of μi . This
of matrix A and y = Findex(e, s, p, R).  includes the following two classes:
(4.1) The picker finishes the process of a robot and there
is no expedited request waiting for  robots. This event
A.6 The transition diagram for RMFS with two will happen only when R − S − ni=1 Pi = E and
classes and multiple pickers Pi > 0.
(4.2) The picker finishes a pickup and there are expedited
We explain the transition rate in Table A1 as follows, requests waiting for robots. This event will happen
only when R − S − ni=1 Pi < E and Pi > 0.
(1) The rate from a state of (E, S, P1 , . . . , Pn ) to a state of (E +
1, S, P1 , . . . , Pn ) is λe , caused by an expected order arrived.

View publication stats