CHAPTER 9

Bidirectional Automated Guided

Vehicle Systems (AGVS)
c. W. Kim and J.M.A. Tanchoco

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The flow path network of an automated guided vehicle (AGV) system is

defined by open aisles between machines, workstations, departments and
fixed structures on the shop floor. A lane connecting a pair of nodes in the
network can be unidirectional or bidirectional. There can be more than one
lane in the same aisle if the traffic requirement is heavy. Therefore, the flow
path networks of AGV systems can be classified into a (a) unidirectional
model, (b) a multiple-lane model, (c) a bidirectional model, and (d) a mixed
model, as depicted in Fig. 9.1.
The unidirectional model is widely used in practice because of its simplicity
in operational control. However, the simplicity is gained at the cost of reduced
efficiency and network reliability. In Fig. 9.1(a), for example, the only way
to get from node B to E is to follow lanes 2 and 6 even though there is a
shorter path using lane 5 if lane 5 is bidirectional. Also, if lane 2 becomes
unavailable, then there is no way to get from B to E. The multiple-lane model
is intended to overcome the deficiencies of the unidirectional model. The same
objectives can also be achieved by the bidirectional model if proper control
methods are available. The mixed model is an attempt to combine the
advantages of the three basic models. It is a generic design; all the basic
models are special cases of the mixed model. A more detailed discussion on
flow path models can be found in Egbelu and Tanchoco (1986).
The lanes in the bidirectional model are bidirectional in a switchable
manner. Although its operation is more complicated than the unidirectional
or multiple-lane model, the bidirectional model achieves significant reductions
in the total travel distances and space requirements for the flow path network,
and may be more economical where there are few vehicles in operation. A
bidirectional system can also achieve shorter flow times and higher throughput
rates compared to a unidirectional system with the same number of vehicles.
For a given production target, a bidirectional system may require fewer

The material in this chapter is obtained from Kim, C.W. and Tanchoco, I.M.A. (1991, 1993).

J. M. A. Tanchoco (ed.), Material Flow Systems in Manufacturing

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994
240 Bidirectional Automated Guided Vehicle Systems

(a) (b)

r---,
~

r
L
(e) (d)

Fig.9.1 AGV flow path network models: (a) unidirectional; (b) multiple lane; (c)
bidirectional; (d) mixed.

vehicles than a unidirectional system. Egbelu and Tanchoco (1986) showed

through a simulation study that bidirectional systems can significantly improve
the productivity and cut down the fleet size and the makespan. A bidirectional
system requires less space for the flow path.network compared to an equivalent
multiple-lane system. However, bidirectional systems are not generally used
in practice, even though many ofthe AGVs on the market have a bidirectional
capability. This seems to be mainly because there has been no proven method
for the operational control of such systems, except for a few academic research
results reported in the literature.
The purpose of this study is to develop an efficient and simple method for
the operational control of bidirectional AGV systems, and to provide a
reasonable prediction on the performance behavior of bidirectional AGV
systems in comparison to unidirectional systems under a general setting. An
efficient algorithm for finding conflict-free shortest-time routes for AGVs
moving in a bidirectional flow path network is described in section 9.2. Using
this algorithm as a basic tool, a conservative myopic strategy to coordinate
the movements of several vehicles in a bidirectional AGV system is described
in section 9.3. Then, simulation results to compare the performances of
unidirectional and bidirectional systems are presented in section 9.4.