1 / 16

Plant Simulation Warehousing & Logistics Library Case studies

Plant Simulation Warehousing & Logistics Library Case studies. Auke Nieuwenhuis MSc. October 2012. Cases Studies. Overview. Build Warehouse simulation from scratch Case A, Greenfield Case B, Existing cross dock Case C, Refurbishing Case D, Expand operations Case E, Future growth.

berny
Download Presentation

Plant Simulation Warehousing & Logistics Library Case studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Plant Simulation Warehousing & Logistics LibraryCase studies AukeNieuwenhuis MSc October 2012

  2. Cases Studies

  3. Overview • Build Warehouse simulation from scratch • Case A, Greenfield • Case B, Existing cross dock • Case C, Refurbishing • Case D, Expand operations • Case E, Future growth

  4. Build warehouse from scratch • Create layout • Define operation strategies • Import data • Define Supply Chain • Check model consistency • Run model

  5. Case A: Greenfield • Validate under different scenarios: • Number of equipments/resources needed for optimal operation • Impact on equipment/throughput of: • Telescopic conveyors • Fly Staging • Fork 4 • Slip Sheets • Analysis of warehouse behavior over time • Define constraints on different demand levels • 2 vs. 3 shift operation • Warehouse SKU arrangement effect on throughput/resources • Fenced area utilization

  6. Case A: Results • Results: • By adjusting resources we can save EUR300Kon investment (11% of yearly warehouse cost) • Thereafter EUR69K on annual basis • Storage by rotation can save 13% FLT, and the number grows with warehouse size • With telescopic forks you can save 15% resources on loading/unloading dead pile trucks • Docks will not become a mayor constraint • Warehouse traffic is concentrated at the front of the warehouse • Efforts (consultancy): • 10 daysfor the entire project • Simulationsdonebyclient • Conxlusionandreccomendations are donetogetherwithclient

  7. Case B: Existing cross dock • Validate under different scenarios: • Number of equipments/resources needed for optimal operation • Type of equipment (single pallet vs double pallet) • Different layout configurations for same operation • Analysis of warehouse behavior over time • Define constraints on regular / busy day • Define best out of three layout scenarios • Measure effect of traffic jam • Utilization per activity type

  8. Case B: Results • Results: • Rejected original flow through warehouse, define new flow. • Reduce traffic jams with 60% • Validate design with operation for busy day • Best fit for layout vs resources vs traffic jam • Validate storage locations with input / output • Efforts (consultancy): • 15 days for the entire project

  9. Case C: Refurbishing • Validate under different scenarios: • Number and type of equipments/resources needed for optimal operation • Different Storage strategies • Different pick routing strategies • Analysis of warehouse behavior over time • Define constraints on regular / busy day • What resource does which activity • Work in teams • Utilization per resource type • Minimize distance travelled in case pick area

  10. Case C: Results • Results: • Save EUR 260K in equipment investment due to agile operations • Save EUR 60K annually due to agile operation • Avoid investing in manual equipment • Assign jobs agile • System can easily handle peak operations • Efforts (consultancy): • 26 days for the entire project

  11. Case D: Expand operation • Validate under different scenarios: • Number of equipments/resources needed for optimal operation • Type of equipment (single pallet vs. double pallet) • Different customer service windows to balance workload over 24 hour period • High detailed workflow including customizations and empty pallet flow • Analysis of warehouse behavior over time • Define constraints on regular / busy day • Define best truck loading technology with respect to staging capacity and rework area • Measure effect of traffic jam • Measure effect of climate control doors

  12. Case D: Results • Results: • Modify original design with operation for busy day, avoid big peak in staging • Use right outbound flow to increase speed of truck waiting at dock and minimum time for pallet on staging • Use cheaper solution in infeed and outfeed • Reject the idea of handover areas • Efforts (consultancy): • 26 days for the entire project

  13. Case E: Future growth • Validate under different scenarios: • Number of equipments/resources needed for optimal operation next year, in three years and in eight years • Phase out old warehouse and implement new warehouse in different phases (one, three and eight years) • Increasing and changing demand in one year, three years and eight years • Analysis of warehouse behavior over time • Define agile storage strategy • Choose from layout options • Design and validate monorail system from local production to the warehouse • Refine the resource and equipment selection

  14. Case E: Results • Results: • Improved storage strategy for better utilization • Define # resources in one year, three years and 8 years • Choose from various layout options • Reject handover area • Implement cross dock area • Split inbound and outbound by separate resources • Efforts (consultancy): • 26 days for the entire project

  15. Auke Nieuwenhuis – Product manager Website: www.cardsplmsolutions.com Email: auke@cards-group.com

More Related