Complexity, space and time
It's a reality for companies in today's omnichannel environment: business can outrun distribution capacity. At some point, none of it fits together and the operations pushed beyond its ability to fulfill orders and meet customer demands.
In this case, an automobile parts distributor asked Cisco-Eagle to build its new distribution center with these factors in mind.
Application, fit and concepts
The distributor considered several avenues as it decided on its plans.
One idea was full-on automation, with minimal personnel involvement in the process. Another was more manual, with people at the center of the picking operation. The final design was in the middle ground: a multilevel pick module that takes advantage of both automated and manual elements.
The system feeds totes from each of the pick module levels and the floor level to packing or shipping stations.
- The operation features two types of orders—sales orders and transfer orders.
- Sales orders are picked and then conveyed to packing stations for direct customer shipment.
- Transfer orders are sent to shipping stations to be weighed and immediately shipped.
- The designated speed was 20 cases per hour.
- The load was a range of plastic totes, which could range from 2 to 110 pounds, depending on the product mix.
System operations and design decisions
In this process, multiple types of technologies were considered.
RFID vs. QR codes
In this application, the client initially specified RFID technology for tote identification.
After a technology evaluation, Cisco-Eagle recommended the alternative of identifying totes with a permanent label defined by bar or QR codes. This was because RFID is less reliable, more complex, and more expensive than QR systems. This led to the implementation of QR codes, which reduced both cost and complexity.
Vertical transport options
One of the design decisions every pick module application makes is how it transports orders between levels. There are multiple ways, including spiral conveyors, incline conveyors, package lifts and more. The right choice depends on operational, space and throughput considerations.
Above: space comparison with spiral conveyor on the left, incline conveyor on the right. In this case, incline conveyors were the choice to fit operational needs.
Both spiral conveyors and incline systems were considered for this project. After analysis, incline conveyors were chosen due to the following factors:
- Continuous flow: because decline conveyors require no traffic controls to induct totes into a spiral conveyor at the pick module first level. This made product flow easier, less costly, and less complex to control.
- Space: In many applications, spirals are chosen due to their more compact footprint, but space for incline conveyors was available in this instance.
- Cost: incline/decline conveyors were less expensive but met all other operational directives.
These decisions are made in most every operation where product flow moves between levels and efficient throughput is a goal. Careful analysis helps us ensure the right result.
Read more in-depth: Vertical Package Transport: Incline Conveyors vs. Reciprocating Lifts vs. Spiral Conveyors
The results
The installed project accomplished its goals. It reduces errors, increases throughput and optimizes the picking process. More parts are being processed faster and more efficiently to meet customer demands, which was the primary aim of the project.
