PROPOSED MODERN CONSTRUCTION OF A MODERN WAREHOUSE AT

MOSORIOT IN NANDI COUNTY

CENTER NAME : RIFT VALLEY TECHNICAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

PRESENTER :

INDEX NO. : 534101

CENTER CODE : 534101

COURSE NAME : DIPLOMA IN BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

COURSE CODE
: 2705
PRESENTED TO

: KENYA NATIONAL EXAMINATION COUNCIL IN

PARTAIL FULFILLMENT FOR THE AWARD OF

DIPLOMA IN BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

SUPERVISOR : MR

SERIES : NOVEMBER 2022

1
 DECLARATION
I declare that this project is my original work and has not been presented for the award of diploma
in Building Technology in any Institution.

Name:

Signature …………………………………………………………………….

Date …………………………………………………………………….

Supervisor approval

I confirm that the work reported in this project was carried out by the candidate under my supervision
and has been submitted with my approval as college supervisors.

Supervisor; MR
Signature ……………………………… Date…………………………..

2
 DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to my parents, and my siblings, for their unwavering financial and emotional
support as well as undying love and encouragement throughout my academic journey.

3
 DECLARATION
I declare that this project is my own work and it has never been presented by any individual in any
Institutions or even University.

4
 ABSTRACT
Designing a new warehouse to improve space utilization and handling efficiency: A case
study of a production warehouse. The focus on warehousing has grown in the industry
during the 21st century to increase the competitive advantage of companies. Despite this,
the development of the coil warehouse at Alfa Laval has received little focus during the
last decades. This is in contrast to Alfa Laval's goal of following global industrial
development. the purpose of the project is to provide recommendations of how the
production warehouse of coils can be designed to increase space utilization and make the
handling process more efficient.
The recommendations are provided through fulfilling the objectives of the project. The
first objective is to describe the current situation to get an understanding of the processes
needed and which changes that are suitable. The second objective is to identify the
challenges with storage of coils to know what the new solution should be able to solve.
The third objective is to identify the contextual factors to take the unchangeable
parameters into account. The fourth and final objective is to identify suitable
configurational elements which the final recommendations will be based on.
The method used in this thesis is the case study which consists of analyzing the problem
in the context of Mosoriot Nandi County. The case study began with a literature review to
understand what previously had been written about warehousing. Following this, the
current situation at Nandi County was mapped through observations and interviews of
employees as well as data extraction from information systems. Finally, the collected data
was analyzed to identify the suitable configurational elements which were combined into
two recommendations.
The result of the project is two recommendations which both decrease the majority of the
identified challenges. Both of the recommendations have the same changes in the
operations with a movement of the quality inspection and unpackaging from the picking
phase to the receiving phase, to make it possible to pick directly to the production, and
with an introduction of more structured picking and storage policies. The storage of the
first recommendation is to use cantilever racks and to store the coils without pallets. The
second recommendation is to automate the picking and put-away process through
installation of an overhead crane with the coils stacked on the ground without aisles.
 ABBREVIATIONS
AS/RS - Automated Storage and Retrieval
System ERP - Enterprise Resource Planning
FIFO - First In First Out
FMCG - Fast Moving Consumer
Goods KPI - Key Performance
Indicator
LIFO - Last In First
Out PA - Packaging
Area QR - Quick
Response
SKU - Stock Keeping Unit
WMS - Warehouse Management
System YS - Yard Storage

Table of Contents
DECLARATION..................................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION.....................................................................................................................iii
DECLARATION.................................................................................................................iv
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................5
ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................6
CHAPTER ONE...................................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study.................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem................................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose and Objectives...................................................................................................2
1.3.1 Specific Objectives.......................................................................................................2
1.4 Delimitation.....................................................................................................................2
CHAPTER TWO...................................................................................................................3
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................3
2.1 Warehouses in general....................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Types and purposes of warehouses..............................................................................3
2.1.2 Warehouse goals..........................................................................................................4
2.2 Warehouse design and resources.....................................................................................4
2.2..1 Physical layout............................................................................................................4
2.2.2 Equipment....................................................................................................................8
2.2.3 Automation solutions...................................................................................................9
2.2.4 Information systems...................................................................................................10
2.2.5 Labor and activities....................................................................................................12
2.3 Warehouse operations...................................................................................................13
2.3.1 Receiving....................................................................................................................14
2.3.2 Put-away and Storage.................................................................................................14
2.3.3 Picking and Sorting....................................................................................................15
2.3.4 Packing and Shipping.................................................................................................16
2.3.5 Operational configuration options..............................................................................16
The Warehouse design and resources.................................................................................18
Physical layout....................................................................................................................18
Equipment...........................................................................................................................19
Automation solutions..........................................................................................................20
Information systems............................................................................................................20
Cantilever............................................................................................................................21
Overhead crane....................................................................................................................22
CHAPTER FOUR...............................................................................................................24
4.0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS...................................................24
4.1 General warehouse Appearance....................................................................................24
4.1.1 Portal frame diagrams................................................................................................24
4.1.2 Beam design...............................................................................................................26
4.2 Cantilever beam.............................................................................................................26
4.2.1 Simple hand calculations............................................................................................26
4.3 ANALYSIS OF WAREHOUSE BUILDING...............................................................28
4.3.1 Column Analysis........................................................................................................28
4.3.2 Buckling analysis.......................................................................................................29
4.3.3 Buckling analysis using FEM....................................................................................29
4.3.4 Wind Load on Column...............................................................................................30
4.3.5 Column base Joint......................................................................................................33
4.4 Truss member redesign.................................................................................................33
4.4.1 Bracing beam members..............................................................................................35
4.4.2 Beams connecting the trusses.....................................................................................37
4.5 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................38
CHAPTER FIVE.................................................................................................................39
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONLUSIONS..........................................................39
5.1 Findings.........................................................................................................................39
5.2 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................39
5.3 Recommendations.........................................................................................................40
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................41
APPENDI A: BILL OF QUANTITY....................................................................................i
APPENDIX B - Coil rack.....................................................................................................8
APPENDIX C - CoilStore rack.............................................................................................8
APPENDIX D - Cantilever rack...........................................................................................9
APPENDIX E - Overhead crane...........................................................................................9
 CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
A study by the ministry of Agriculture et al (2009) on the effect of warehousing on
farmers suggest that warehousing of cereals is one of the most devastating issues in
the world and the cereals farmers in Rift Valley particularly the cereals production
zones like Turbo east and west sub counties are mostly affected. Although the Kenya
government has realized the magnitude of the storage problems among the farmers
and has established some few warehousing facilities in these zones. It’s not clear
why its usage and establishment in this region is slow. Some of the enablers to
warehousing are; achieve economies in production, maintain a dependable source of
supply, meet the fluctuations in demand due to seasonality and competition and
support just-in-time programs of suppliers and customers Bhat et al (2011). With the
rapidly changing business environment affecting challenges and opportunities to
organizations, observing organization value is of utmost importance and imperative
for organizational sustainability. For this reason the number of organizations
preferring to adopt and establish warehousing facilities is on the increase for the
purpose of increasing the customer satisfaction and consequently increases the
competitive advantage for the department. Lewis et al, (2004).
One of their production sites of heat exchangers is located in Lund, Sweden, which
is also where their headquarters is located. The thesis will have a focus on the
production warehouse of coils at this factory. The heat exchangers consist of many
metal sheets separating where the cold and hot fluids flow and it is through these
plates the heat transfers, which can be seen in Figure 1.1. The plates are produced at
site in Lund from metal sheets, which are stored in coils, and get punched to the
right pattern. It is the warehouse storage of these coils which will be in focus of this
report.
The existing storage method at Mosoriot is not reflecting the global change of
viewing warehouses as strategic components (Kembro et al., 2018) nor is it in line
with their strive for high customer service.
1.2 Statement of the Problem.
The existing setup of the warehouse neither matches the development of warehouses in
general nor the goal from Nandi County (Ministry of Agriculture, 2020). The setup and
working method have been almost the same since the 1970s which shows that something
has to be done. The result of storing cereals is the use of coils outside, both in tents
1
without heat and open in the yard, is that the coils need to acclimatize in the warehouse
inside the production facility for 24 hours before they can be used. This is a result of the
changing properties of metal with different temperatures and to get rid of the
condensation between the layers in the coil. The extra time added to just acclimatize the
coils is a non-value adding activity. This setup of warehousing also results in a lot of
double- handling, which also is a non-value adding activity and should be avoided.
Another time-consuming activity is the transportation of coils from the storage to the
production. Because of the placement of the tents and the coils in the yard there is a lot of
time spent on just transporting the coils. The majority of the coils are stored on the
ground in around five pallet deep lanes. This placement and the lack of localization of
where the coils are stored results in much time of just locating the right coil. The low
space utilization is, in addition to the ground storage, lowered even more because of the
wide aisles needed for the large trucks used for transportation.

1.3 Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the project is to provide Mosoriot Farmers with two recommendations of
how the production of a modern warehouse can be designed to increase space utilization
and make the handling process more efficient.
1.3.1 Specific Objectives
Describe the current warehouse configuration
2: Identify the challenges with storage of coils
3: Identify the contextual factors for Mosoriot Nandi County
4: Identify suitable configurational elements in this context

1.4 Delimitation
This study will be focused on designing a new warehouse, to store cereals, with a focus
on reducing the identified current challenges with regard to the existing contextual
factors. Activities such as ordering, inventory control, deliveries from suppliers,
designing of the building beyond the size, and a detailed mapping of the layout will be
excluded. The scope of the recommendations will include areas such as how the overall
operations should be conducted. The recommendations also include which equipment
that should be used and how the physical layout should look like, as well as a
specification on what functions that the information systems need to have. The changes
of performance at Nandi County are linked to the implementation and change
management but will however be excluded because it is not connected to the purpose.
Because of the time scope of this thesis, 20 weeks, and that it is a new design and not a
redesign, many areas will be included but only generally.

2
 CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Warehouses in general
2.1.1 Types and purposes of warehouses
To be able to design a good layout it is important to understand the functions and
characteristics of a warehouse. Rouwenhorst et al. (2000) distinguishes two different
types: the distribution warehouse and the production warehouse. The distribution
warehouse's major function is to store products for fulfillment of an often large number of
customer orders. The assortment of different SKUs is often very high, and every
customer order often consists of very few order lines, which lays the base for a complex
and costly picking process. A main design criterion is therefore to maximize throughput.
The function of a production warehouse is on the other hand to store goods associated
with a manufacturing or assembly process, such as raw-materials or work-in-progress.
These may be stored for longer time periods because of differences in such as
procurement and production batches. A typical design criterion is therefore often the
storage capacity.
Elaborating on the different types of warehouses, the warehouses can also be
characterized on a more detailed level. Rouwenhorst et al. (2000) discussed three
different groups: processes, resources, and organization. The processes include
operations such as receiving, put-away, picking, and shipping (Bartholdi and Hackman,
2010). The resources refer to the equipment and manpower necessary to operate the
warehouse. This may be equipment such as storage systems, various trucks, or
information systems (Rouwenhorst et al., 2000). Lastly, organizations concern all
planning and control procedures used to run the warehouse. This regard matters such as
storage and picking policies (Rouwenhorst et al., 2000; Gu et al., 2007).
Another modified view of warehouse classification is presented by Jacyna et al. (2015),
which Figure 3.2 visualizes. This view is based on the functions and tasks of the
warehouse and includes aspects such as how material flows are directed and transformed,
the level of value- adding activities, and storage period. The different sub-areas are type
of business, level of distribution, production process level, storage type, inventory
turnover, volumes of material flow, storage condition, and form of package. Each axis
has representative values with the least complex value closest to the middle. This implies
that more complex warehouses are present at the far ends, while lesser complex
warehouses are centered in the middle of the spider chart.
Figure 3.2 - Functional classification of warehouse facilities, based on (Jacyna et al.,

3
2015)

2.1.2 Warehouse goals

How the warehouse should be designed is highly dependent on the goal with the
warehouse. If the goal is to store as many items in the warehouse as possible the space
utilization is the target, while if the flexibility and responsiveness of the flow is the goal
the accessibility to all the SKUs is more important. These two examples are contrary,
which many configurational elements are, and the warehouse cannot fulfill both of them
at the same time and tradeoffs have to be made (Gu et al., 2010). But the goal can be to
increase both of them as much as possible. This means that the goal of the warehouse has
to be clear when it is designed to know which configurational goal to focus on. Kembro
and Norrman (2019) brought up some of the configurational goals that warehouses could
have, which are: reduced lead time, reduced material-handling costs, increased utilization
of space, increased total throughput, improved safety, reduced travel time and distance,
limited congestion, reduced administrative activities, and increased flexibility.

2.2 Warehouse design and resources

When describing a warehouse, it is important to understand the different available
resources and how they are configured. These areas include the physical layout,
equipment, automation solutions, information systems, and labor, and will be described
in the following sub-chapters Both the impact and effort from changes in these areas is
also important to take into consideration. The impact effort matrix (American Society of
Quality, n.d.), seen in Figure 3.3, is one tool that facilitates the comparison between
different changes.

Figure 3.3 – Impact effort matrix, (American Society of Quality, n.d.)

2.2..1 Physical layout

The basic requirements for warehouse operations are to receive SKUs from suppliers,
store the SKUs, retrieve them from their location, and ship the order to the customer. To
4
meet these requirements resources such as space, labor, and equipment need to be
allocated between warehouse functions to meet the capacity, throughput, and service
levels (Gu et al., 2007). With the performance being largely determined in the planning
phase, it is important to consider the design of the warehouse already from the start
(Rouwenhorst et al., 2000). An important aspect of designing a warehouse is its layout.
The design of the layout includes determining the number of aisles, their dimension and
orientation, location of input and output, estimating space requirements, and many more
(Hassan, 2002). This is a complex task because of the large number of possible decision
combinations, making it difficult to find the optimal solution. Many of the decisions are
also trade-offs that have to be considered (Rouwenhorst et al., 2000; Hassan, 2002).
Bartholdi and Hackman (2010) divided the layout into three different areas to consider:
space utilization, aisle configuration and location of receiving and shipping.
Space utilization is important to consider for cost-effective warehousing. Costs are often
based on the square-meter of the warehouse, and by increasing the space utilization it is
possible to decrease the cost per pallet location (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010). Space
requirements depend on various factors, such as aisles, inventory levels, and the size,
type, and number of storage equipment (Hassan, 2002). One way to consider this is to
increase the height of the storage. Installing pallet racks enables pallets to be stored on
top of each other and increases the number of pallet positions per square-meter of floor
space. There are different rack options available, and the decision should be based on a
comparison of its gains versus the cost of installing the racks. Another way of affecting
the space utilization is to adjust the lane depth. Aisles provide accessibility, not storage,
and are therefore not directly revenue generating. By arranging locations in lanes these
positions share the same aisle space and therefore also share the cost of aisles. Deeper
lanes provide more pallet locations, but they also become less accessible for the pickers.
It is therefore important to balance space utilization with material handling (Bartholdi and
Hackman, 2010).
Aisle configuration is an important problem to consider because of its impact on space
needs, operations, and material handling. Common decisions include the number and
length of aisles, existence of cross aisles, and the number of storage blocks (de Koster et
al., 2007). A large number of aisles consume space while a small number of them cause
congestion. The decision of the configuration will therefore be a trade-off between large
space and congestion (Hassan, 2002). The most common objective of all aisle
configurations is to reduce the travelling distance within the warehouse (de Koster et al.,
2007; Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010). If a picker is directed to another SKU location in
the warehouse before returning to a checkpoint, such as the unloading dock, it may be
beneficial in terms of reducing travelling distance to include cross-aisles, see the left
configuration in Figure 3.4. Another idea, which is in contrast to the common parallel
aisles aligned with the shipping and receiving docks, is to introduce angled cross-aisles.
This is called a fishbone layout, see the right configuration in Figure 3.4, and could
reduce the travel times by 20 % (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010).

5
Figure 3.4 - Cross-aisle layout (left), Fishbone layout(right), (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010)
The location of the receiving and shipping docks is another decision to consider when
designing the layout. Two of the most common configurations in literature are flow-

through and U-flow (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010; Hassan, 2002; Huertas et al., 2007).
With the flow-through configuration the receiving and shipping docks are located on
opposite sides. Many positions are equally convenient, but very few are very convenient.
This is appropriate for high volume warehouses and reduces congestion. The U-flow
configuration has the docks located on the same side of the warehouse, making
convenient locations even better while inconvenient locations are made even worse.
This creates flexibility for the usage of the docks and their equipment and is suited for
warehouses with few SKUs standing for a large portion of the picks (Huertas et al.,
2007). The different layouts can be seen in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5 - Flow-through layout (left), U-flow layout (right). (Darker shading indicates
more convenient locations), (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010)
The physical layout decisions discussed above are summarized along with their advantage in
Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1 - Configuration decision of physical layout
Configuration area Sub-area Reason

Space utilization Floor storage Cheap

Rack storage Increase volume utilization

6
 Lane depth Increase space utilization
with deeper lanes
Receiving and shipping Flow-through Many locations with good
location accessibility
U-flow Few locations with great
accessibility
Aisle configuration Many aisles Less congestion

Few aisles Higher space utilization

Cross aisles Reduces travel distance for

multiple picks

7
2.2.2 Equipment
To increase labor and space utilization a warehouse can choose between various storage
and handling equipment. The storage equipment allows more SKUs to be presented on
the pick- face, the front of the storage presented to the picker, and divides storage into
subregions to enable denser packing. The handling equipment facilitates movement of
SKUs from receiving to storage or from storage to shipping. (Bartholdi and Hackman,
2010). The name, description, as well as advantages and disadvantages of common
storage equipment types are summarized in Table 3.2. Depending on which storage
equipment that is used there is different handling equipment that can be selected. These
are presented in Table 3.3 below.
Table 3.2 - Storage equipment types, based on (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010)

Type Description Advantage Disadvantage

Single-deep rack Store’s pallets one Every pallet is Require more aisle
deep independently space to access the
accessible pallets

Double-deep rack Store pallets two Every lane is Risk’s double-

deep individually handling because of
accessible, requires LIFO, requires a
fewer aisles special truck to
reach

Push-back rack An extensive of Pallet positions are Risk of double

double-deep racks more accessible handling because
and works like a of LIFO
drawer

Drive-in rack Allows a lift truck to Good for space Risk of double
drive into the rack to utilization handling because of
access the SKUs. LIFO. Slower to
Retrieval and put- retrieve and put-
away is done from away
the same side

Drive-through rack Allows a lift truck to Good for space Slower to retrieve
drive into the rack to utilization. Enables and put-away
access the SKUs. FIFO operations, put-
Retrieval and put- away and retrieving to
away is done from can be performed
opposite sides individually

8
 Flow through rack A deep-lane rack Good for space Less suitable for an
with an angle which utilization. Enables assortment with
moves the coils to FIFO operations, put- many articles with
one end of the rack away and retrieving to few of each
can be performed
individually

Table 3.3 - Handling equipment types, based on (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010; Rushton
et al., 2014)
Type Description

Counterbalance truck Standard truck version

Reach truck Enables forks to extend to reach pallets further in

Turret truck Enables the truck to turn 90 degrees in any direction

Overhead travelling Normally consists of a lifting device attached to a beam that

cranes travel on two rails fixed high on poles

2.2.3 Automation solutions

Warehouse operations require large space for facilities and tend to be labor intensive.
Storing SKUs in racks and moving them through aisles requires large facilities, and order
picking is a repetitive activity of poor ergonomics (Azadeh et al., 2019). With both land
and labor being limited and expensive, many firms have turned towards automation
(Baker and Halim, 2007). Warehouse automation can serve as a substitute for labor. One
example of this is the Automated Storage and Retrieval System (AS/RS) which consists
of an automated device within each aisle that can move both vertically and horizontally to
store and retrieve products.
Decisions regarding warehouse automation should be considered carefully and are not
suited for all circumstances. Automation is good at performing the specific task it was
designed for and if able to run constantly it can prove to be a good investment decision
(Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010). It can also help accommodate growth by making better
use of the available resources, where e.g., physical expansion or acquiring more labor is
not an option (Baker and Halim, 2007). However, automated solutions have complex and
long implementation processes and are very inflexible to meet changing market
requirements such as new product requirements (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010; Baker
and Halim, 2007). To facilitate this decision, Naish and Baker (2004) have created an
assessment tool which can be seen in Figure
3.6. The level of automation is there based on the through-put and number of SKUs in the
warehouse.

9
Figure 3.6 - Automation assessment tool, (Naish and Baker, 2004)

2.2.4 Information systems

Information systems play an important role in handling complex processes, such as
warehouses, and selecting the correct system that is suitable is not a trivial task. This is
because of the many different software solutions available on the market (Faber et al.,
2013). These softwares can either be general and be connected to many different
departments of the company or specialized in certain functions like warehousing. The
broader solutions often support various processes in the company, such as an Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) system. While these offer wide functionalities it is difficult to
configure them for specific situations. The specialized solutions on the other hand support
fewer processes but with more depth, e.g., a WMS (Faber et al., 2013).
Having the correct information about products, resources, and processes at the right time
is crucial for achieving high performance in a modern warehouse. A WMS makes it
possible to efficiently manage both inbound and outbound processes by controlling the
physical and informative flows within a warehouse (Baruffaldi et al., 2019; Faber, 2002).
A WMS can gather, store, and provide information regarding processes, products, and
resources to other modules of the company's ERP (Baruffaldi et al., 2019). Since a
warehouse can be seen as a node in the flow of products, it is of importance that the
WMS communicates with other administrative functions such as procurement, production
control, and transportation. It is becoming more and more common that these are
integrated into the ERP. In contrast to the ERP, which has a planning horizon of several
weeks and covers functions located all over the company, a WMS is limited to the
warehouse function and has short-term planning, shop-floor control, and warehouse
activities (Faber, 2002). In addition to having to communicate with other administrative
functions, a WMS also has to communicate with technical functions such as Radio
Frequency Identification and AS/RS control systems to control material handling and
movement within the warehouse (Rushton et al., 2014).
A WMS can have different levels of complexity and are categorized as basic or advanced

10
systems depending on which functions are included. The more basic functions included in
a WMS are connected to processes such as receiving, put-away, and picking
(Bartholdi and

11
Hackman, 2010). This can refer to tools that support stock and location control with the
help of e.g., scanning systems. The system could also generate, and display, storage and
picking instructions. In general, the basic WMS is simple and focuses on throughput
(Faber, 2002). The more advanced WMS on the other hand can offer tools that enable
optimizing the warehouse. This regards complex storage allocation strategies, optimizing
the picking route to minimize travelling distance, as well as supporting value-adding
activities (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010; Faber, 2002). To get a visualization of which
functionalities the different systems support, a figure constructed by Nettsträter (2015) is
presented in Figure 3.7 below.

Figure 3.7 - Visualization of different WMS functions, (Nettsträter ,2015)

There are many benefits that can be gained by implementing a WMS. Harb et al. (2016)
investigated a private company and found that locations became clear and well defined,
in comparison to the previous crowded warehouse. There was also a much higher
accuracy in stock level reporting. Furthermore, a WMS can help solve problems related
to manual tasks and errors, and incorrect storage locations (Anđelković and
Radosavljević, 2018). It also presents opportunities to adapt the operations to your
context by introducing storage policies based on algorithms of e.g., weight, shape, or
First In First Out (FIFO) (Wang, 2010). Companies that have chosen to not implement a
WMS in their warehouse are at a competitive disadvantage and are less prepared for
changes in customer demand (Faber, 2002; Baruffaldi, 2019). It is important to consider
that implementing the wrong WMS may also lead to a competitive or cost disadvantage.
It is therefore needed to carefully consider which functions should be included (Faber,
2002).

2.2.5 Labor and activities

Warehouses require labor to operate, and it is important to manage this resource
efficiently, especially since it in many countries is an expensive resource. Activities
downstream are often more labor-intensive because of the involvement of smaller
handling units, such as picking of cases or single packages. A warehouse typically bills
its customers for a fixed handling cost but pays its forklift drivers per hour. It should
12
therefore be a goal to maximize the number of handles per hour a worker performs.
(Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010) A way to improve warehouse performance is through
manpower planning. Strategies of this can be to employ temporary workers to cope with
variations of demand and supply in labor because of e.g., seasonality. Another way to
cope with this is to create more flexible contracts for fixed employees, so that the number
of work hours per year is distributed in line with the demand of labor (De Leeuw and
Wiers, 2015). De Leeuw and Wiers (2015) also mentions job rotation, where workers are
able to switch between multiple tasks in the warehouse, and workload balancing, where
orders are postponed from busy days to quiet days to even out the workload and reduce
cost for overtime and temporary staff. The different methods to cope with demand
variations is summarized in Table 3.4 below.
Table 3.4 - Methods of handling demand variations
Area Method Description
Labor management Temporary workers Flexibility on number of
full-time employees
Flexible contracts Flexibility on working hours

Job rotation Flexibility on number of

employees at different
functions inhouse
Work-load balancing Flexibility by postponing
orders to get an even flow

2.3 Warehouse operations

Every warehouse should be designed according to the requirements set by its supply
chain and may serve different purposes. Despite that, many warehouses have certain
operations in common. Literature has agreed on a similar view of these common
processes and describes them as receiving a shipment, storing the products, picking the
demanded products, and shipping them to the customer (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010;
Rouwenhorst et al., 2000; Gu et al., 2007). A graphical view of these operations and their
order is seen in Figure 3.8 below.

Figure 3.8 - Warehouse operations, adapted from de Koster et al. (2007)

13
2.3.1 Receiving
The warehouse operations begin with the goods arriving in a loading unit at a scheduled
slot (Gu et al., 2007). Once the goods have arrived, they are unloaded and prepared for
put-away. Activities performed include shipment confirmation, e.g., scanning, so that
ownership is transferred, and inventory levels updated. Products are also inspected for
deviations so that claims can be charged for incorrect or damaged units (Bartholdi and
Hackman 2010; Rushton et al., 2014). Incorrect products will have an impact on the put-
away, storage, picking and shipping by risking stocking the bay area. The incoming
goods often arrive in pallet-loads and are in certain cases repacked into different storage
units before they are transported to the next process (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010;
Rouwenhorst et al., 2000). To support these activities there is a need for sufficient
information systems and material handling units.

2.3.2 Put-away and Storage

The designated storage location largely determines the speed and cost of retrieving the
SKUs and it is therefore important to consider when putting away the received goods
(Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010). When the goods are taken from the receiving area and
placed at the storage location, they are also scanned to update the inventory positions in
the system. Information such as weight, dimensions, and positions available facilitates the
put-away process. Because of the large distance travelled from the docks to the storage
locations the costs can account for up to 15 % of the total warehouse expenses (Bartholdi
and Hackman, 2010).

Figure 3.9 - Forward-picking strategy, adapted from Bartholdi and Hackman (2010)

In addition to the shared and dedicated storage assignments policies there are also class-
based storage and family grouping. A class-based policy is a combination of the shared
and dedicated storage and is suitable for warehouses with SKUs that have large
differences in popularity. The SKUs are divided into classes, commonly in up to four
groups, based on their pick frequency. The different classes are then assigned to a
dedicated area within the warehouse where within the area there is shared storage. The
final storage policy, family grouping, takes into account which SKUs that are often
requested together, such as batteries and flashlights, and stores them next to each other to
minimize travelling. Family grouping can also be complemented with the other policies
mentioned above (Gu et al., 2007; Rouwenhorst et al., 2000).

14
2.3.3 Picking and Sorting
Picking is the most labor-intensive activity within a warehouse and stands for about 55 %
of its total operating costs (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010; de Koster et al. 2007;
Davarzani and Norrman, 2015). Therefore, it is important to consider how the picking is
done in the warehouse. The picking process is initiated with the receival of a customer
order which states which SKU and in what quantity it is requested (Rushton et al., 2014).
This order is then transformed into a pick list, where every pick-line corresponds to
which location and in what quantity it should be picked. If the warehouse uses
information systems these can reorganize the picking list for greater efficiency (Bartholdi
and Hackman, 2010). A general decision to take is if orders should be picked in parallel
or in serial. With parallel picking orders are picked in parallel by multiple workers at a
time while serial picking implies that the order is picked by one worker at a time. The
trade-off of this decision is that picking in parallel is faster but requires the items to be
consolidated and sorted at a later stage (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010). Another decision
to take is regarding which picking policy should be employed. Literature has discussed
different picking policies such as single-order picking, one order is picked per tour, and
batch picking, a set of orders are grouped and picked by a single tour, and they all consist
of some or all the following basic steps: batching, routing and sequencing, and sorting
(Gu et al., 2007; Davarzani and Norrman, 2015).
Batching is a picking policy where different customer orders are grouped into batches so
that they can be picked simultaneously during a single tour. The accumulated picked
articles are then consolidated and sorted during a set time window before the next batch
is performed (Gu et al., 2007). This is a preferred method when orders are small and it is
contrary to a single order picking policy where one order is picked per picking tour (de
Koster et al., 2007). Batching requires additional activities such as sorting to be
performed. This can be done either while picking, or when the batch is complete and
consolidated (Gu et al., 2007).
Routing and sequencing deals with sorting the items on the pick list to ensure an efficient
route as possible through the warehouse (de Koster et al., 2007). With travelling
accounting for over half of the total picking costs, the objective is typically to minimize
the total handling costs (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010; Gu et al., 2007). The optimal
picking route may be illogical for pickers, require advanced software support, and does
not take aisle congestion into account. Therefore, a common solution in practice is to
apply heuristic methods (de Koster et al, 2007). Petersen (1997) discussed five different
heuristic routing policies which can be seen in Figure 3.10.

15
Figure 3.10 - Routing methods, adapted from Petersen (1997)
The most basic heuristic for routing is the Transversal. With this method the picker enters
an aisle if it contains a pick and travels through the aisle. Another version of this is the
Return strategy, with the only difference of the picker entering and leaving an aisle from
the same end. The Midpoint strategy divides the warehouse into two sections. The picker
can then only access picks as far as the mid-point before returning. The Largest gap
policy is a modified version of the Midpoint strategy. The difference is that the picker
enters an aisle as far as the largest gap within an aisle, instead of the midpoint. The gap
represents the distance between two adjacent picks. The last method described is the
Composite policy. This is a combination of the transversal and return policy.

2.3.4 Packing and Shipping

After the orders have been retrieved and sorted, they are packed and shipped. Activities
that can be performed include kitting, labeling, or shrink-wrapping smaller units to a
pallet (Rushton et al., 2014). In this phase it is also important to consider scheduling of
trucks at the shipping docks (Gu et al., 2007). The goods are also likely to be scanned
during the loading process to ensure that the inventory is updated, and ownership
transferred (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2010).

2.3.5 Operational configuration options

The Warehouse design framework
As discussed in this chapter, designing a warehouse involves a large number of decisions,
which often are of conflicting nature, and many decisions require trade-offs to be
considered (Rouwenhorst et al., 2000). It is difficult to determine a strict border between
these decisions because of the interconnection and relationship between them (Gu et al.,
2010; Baker and Canessa, 2009). To avoid sub-optimization, it is important that these
relationships are considered (Rouwenhorst et al., 2000). The process typically follows
certain phases, from functional description, through technical specification, to equipment
selection and determination of layout, and in every stage, requirements have to be met
16
(Rouwenhorst et al., 2000). This makes warehouse design a highly complex task, which
is emphasized by the large number of possible designs (Hassan, 2002). Baker and
Canessa (2009) states that there appears to be no simple optimization solution for the
design process where inputs are transferred to an optimal design.
To facilitate the designing of a warehouse, literature has presented several different
frameworks. Rouwenhorst et al. (2000) divided the different decisions, and previously
mentioned stages, into strategic, tactical, and operational levels. It is then argued for a
top- down approach to consider these levels in sequence. Analytical Structure and
Framework
The frame of reference will be used to analyze the collected data to be able to generate
two recommendations of how the new warehouse should be designed. The first objective
will be answered by looking into the current situation of the operations, design and
resources of the case company. This will also enable the identification of the current
challenges which is part of the second objective. These challenges are then analyzed
together with the identified contextual factors. The focus will be to investigate how these
challenges and factors influence the warehouse configuration. This will regard the
operations, such as put-away, storage, and picking, as well as design and resources, such
as layout, equipment, and information systems. The knowledge gained from these areas
will then be used, together with the warehouse goals and theory foundation, to solve the
challenges while keeping the contextual factors in mind.

17
The Warehouse design and resources

Physical layout
The warehouse layout consists of three different facilities as well as a storage openly in
the yard, all of which together with their geographical location can be viewed in Figure
4.4. The first facility is a tent, from now on referred to as Tent 1, and is located next to
the production building. This is the main storage facility that is being used for coil
storage. The next facility is also a tent and is referred to as Tent 2. This is located
approximately 200 meters across the yard from the entrance to the production building.
The third storage area is located next to the production machinery within the production
facility and is referred to as the coil stock area and consists of one aisle. This aisle
consists of 21 lanes on the floor where on average two coils can be stored in each lane.
The coils are stored directly on rubber blocks in this area, instead of on pallets which
they are in the other areas. In addition to the three facilities there is also storage present
openly outside in the yard. There are both SKUs stored outside the walls of Tent 2 as
well as in a separate location referred to as Yard Storage (YS). The area where the SKUs
are prepared for either production or re-storage is the Packaging Area (PA) in the figure
below.

Figure 4.4 - Layout visualization of the location of storage facilities

Tent 1 has two access gates which are located on opposite sides of the building.
However, only the gate located towards the production is being used which indicates a
primarily U-flow configuration, in contrast to the flow-through layout. The overall
warehouse dimension is long and narrow. Inside the building, the coils are stored on the
ground with approximately 3-6 deep lanes, depending on the size of the coils. These
lanes are arranged in a locally called, “sun fan- formation”, to facilitate the access of the
coils by minimizing the sharp turns needed by fork- lift drivers. This refers to the lanes
being angled towards the access gate used. The warehouse uses a single aisle which is
arranged like a circle with storage lanes on both sides of the aisle, both next to the walls
and in the middle of the tent. The only space which is not allocated to storage is an area
next to the entrance gate. This is allocated to receiving goods from suppliers and can be
seen as a receiving dock. A simplified visualization of the layout in Tent 1 can be seen in
Figure 4.5 below.

18
Figure 4.5 - Illustration of the layout in Tent 1
Tent 2 is smaller in comparison to Tent 1 and is located further away from production.
This facility is not only dedicated to coil storage but is instead shared with sheets. The
tent has no clear aisle or layout configuration but can instead be viewed as an ad-hoc
layout where goods are stored where free floor space is present. This facility only has
one entrance gate, and it is located in the middle of the widest side of the tent. There is
one storage rack in use although the majority of the coils are stored using floor storage.
The rack is placed alongside the short side of the tent and is shared by both coils and
sheets. The floor in Tent 2 is a cast concrete slab, in contrast to Tent 1 which is placed
directly on the existing asphalt.
Lastly, the open yard storage consists of straight lanes outside the walls of Tent 2 as well
as at the separate YS. The YS area is a marked area with associated lane positions
marked in the asphalt. The approximated storage area and locations available are
presented in Table 4.2 below. Because of the yard storage having no area limitations it is
not included in the table. At the other facilities the storage locations are approximated
using the average coils per lane.
Table 4.2 - Approximated size and number of storage locations
Facility Area Storage locations

Tent 1 1200 m2 400

Tent 2 550 m2 180
Coil stock 175 m2 75
Aside from these facilities the company has rented a warehouse located approximately
15 kilometers from the production to store additional coils. These are stored there
because of a lack of space and can often be delivered to the production site within the
same day. These coils are often slow-movers or red listed, coils with quality deviations
that are unfit for usage in the production and are waiting to be sent back to the supplier.

Equipment
The coils are stored either by pallets or in roll blocks, where the coils are placed fixed

19
between two rubber blocks on the ground. The palletized coils are mainly stored in floor
storage, with only one storage rack existing in Tent 2. The rack consists of three levels
and is single-deep. The reason for only using one rack in Tent 2 is because of it being
shared with sheets, which Alfa Laval prefers to store on the ground. The fact that the
floor in Tent 1 is asphalt means that it is not possible to install racks there. Because of
the coils' round nature, they are not stackable on top of each other even though they are
stored on pallets. It is possible to stack them if they lie down but the majority are
standing up.
Because of the heavy nature and different handling units of the coils the warehouse is
equipped with two different trucks dedicated for coil storage. One is a regular
counterbalance truck that is used for moving the palletized coils between the storage
facilities outside of the production facility and the packing area. Because of the coils
being de-palletized in the packing area there is a need for another truck to handle it
within the production facility, between the packing area, the coil stock area, and
production. This is a beam truck, and it is equipped with a beam instead of forks to be
able to pick up the coils by the bobbin, the center of the coil, and it is only able to drive
indoors. Both of the trucks are equipped with a monitor where the truck driver can
access the information system to retrieve the location of a coil.
In the production facility, at the packing area, there is an overhead crane. This crane is
used by the warehouse workers to raise the coils that are stored with the flat surface
down on the pallet. It is difficult to lay down a raised coil with the overhead crane
resulting in that coils that are raised are stored in the coil stock area until they are
completely used or obsolete. Previously, Alfa Laval purchased a coil turning machine.
However, the coil turner was never implemented and is currently stored in the Arlöv
warehouse.

Automation solutions
The warehouse does not currently have any automation solutions. All of the operations
associated with the coil storage are done manually, either by hand or with the aid of
various equipment. Management is however not discouraged in using automated
solutions in the future.

Information systems
The case company uses Jeeves as their ERP system. Jeeves supports functions such as
inventory management and purchasing. The system does not support any optimization
functions connected to the warehouse and there is currently no WMS addon in use. It is
only possible to track the location, i.e., which facility and aisle, a SKU is located in the
warehouse. Up until recently, at the beginning of 2020, the location tracking input was
done manually. However, Alfa Laval then implemented AlfaQ to better support this.
AlfaQ enables the use of barcodes and QR-codes that update the change of position for
SKUs automatically when they are scanned.
In addition to Jeeves and AlfaQ, there are also several excel-files in use that support
these systems. These files are connected to the production planning to schedule which
batches that should be produced and in which order. The warehouse employees then use
a file connected to the production file to decide which coil to pick and when. This file
shows how much available material the production has and what they will need in the
near future. It also shows the status of the coils planned for production. This regards to if
the coil needs to be picked from a tent and therefore required to perform additional

20
activities, such as unpacking, or if it is already located at the coil stock and only requires
to be picked up by the boom truck and be placed at the production machine.

Cantilever
The first recommendation is to use cantilever storage racks where the coils are stored
without pallets and the handling is done manually with a truck equipped with a boom
attachment. An example of these racks can be seen in Appendix D and the recommended
layout is demonstrated in Figure 6.2. The configuration consists of four aisles which
is a trade-off between minimizing the footprint and having an adequate receiving area to
handle peaks, while still ensuring feasible dimensions of the building. The aisles are
oriented parallel to the flow with a U-flow configuration in accordance with the
popularity distribution. To utilize the height the racks are four levels high, where the first
level consists of cradles on the ground and the rest are cantilever arms.
The solution has two possibilities of capacity with the suggested layout that are
dependent on which lane depth that is used. With each cantilever being 800 mm, the
maximum feasible lane depth is determined by the coil widths stored on each arm. The
first setup is that single-deep storage is used where each arm or cradle stores only one
coil, no matter the width. This makes all the coils accessible which reduces the double-
handling but with the downside of lower space utilization. The other setup is that multi-
deep storage is used where only the same type of article is stored on each arm or cradle.
This increases the space utilization but decreases the accessibility of the coils. Both these
types use the same number of cantilevers and cradles and have the same footprint.

Figure 6.2 - Layout configuration of the cantilever storage warehouse

The suggested layout consists of 800 arms or cradles which correspond to either 800 or
950 storage locations depending on if a single or multi-deep setup is used. The total
footprint is 1,050 m2 out of which 75 m2 is reserved for the receiving of new coils. The
layout is accompanied by data regarding footprints and capacities in Table 6.3 below.

21
Table 6.3 - Footprint and capacity of the suggested layout
Overall footprint 1,050 m2
Receiving area 75 m2
Storage locations 950 coils
Overhead crane
The second recommendation is an automated overhead crane solution. The interface
between the employee and the automated solution is an input and output zone where the
coils are placed for either put-away or retrieved for picking. An example of how this
solution can look is seen in Appendix E and the recommended layout is seen in Figure
6.3. The space utilization is increased by removing all of the aisles between the stored
coils since they now are picked with an overhead crane. The only space needed between
the coils is 300 mm between the bobbin of the coil where they are picked with the crane
and 150 mm in the other direction. The coils are stored on the ground, standing up,
where the coils with a width of at least 625 mm are stacked on top of each other, two
levels high. The rest of the coils are stored without stacking because of the tipping
hazard, either with or without additional support. Because of the few stackable coils due
to the product characteristics, the height utilization will be lower. Since this solution is
fully automated from the input/output-zone the storage area is enclosed to ensure the
safety of the employees by preventing access to the operating area.

Figure 6.3 - Layout configuration of the overhead crane storage warehouse

The suggested layout will result in 950 storage locations with a total footprint of 1,400
m2. Out of this there is 75 m2 reserved for the receiving of new coils. The layout is
accompanied by data regarding footprints and capacities in Table 6.4 below.
Table 6.4 - Footprint and capacity of the suggested layout
Overall footprint 1,400 m2

22
Receiving area 75 m2
Storage locations 950 coils

23
 CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS

4.1 General warehouse Appearance

4.1.1 Portal frame diagrams

24
25
4.1.2 Beam design

4.2 Cantilever beam

4.2.1 Simple hand calculations

The physical problem is a cantilever beam structural steel (S355) with a

point force at one end of the beam. The main aim is to find the maximum
stresses and deflection of the beam. Figure 20 shows the physical problem
and cross section.

Figure 20 Cantilever beam details

Table 2 Properties of the beam and the forces applied

26
 PROPERTIES VALUE (UNITS)
Young´s Modulus (E) 210,000MPa

Beam length (L) 2000mm

Centroid of beam 25mm

(y)
Second moment of 307500mm4
area (I)
Force (N) 200N

Area (mm2) 900mm2

Maximum bending 400KN.mm
moment (M max)
The following formulas are used to calculate the maximum stress, deflec-
tion distance, allowable deflection and allowed stress values respectively.

Mmax
max
yI
3
F
max L
3E
I

Dallowable L
36
0

y
Sf 
2

27
4.3 ANALYSIS OF WAREHOUSE BUILDING
The analysis is focused on the “skeleton” part of the warehouse building. This includes the
truss column assembly, beams connecting truss, bracings and joints. The technical drawings
of the buildings are used to model the “skeleton” in CAD software as shown in figure 29
below.

4.3.1 Column Analysis

The column (HEA-180) is very important as it links the roof truss and the
foundation as shown in figure 29. It mainly has two sources of stress, wind
load and snow load. The snow load results to buckling of the column and
the wind load causes the column to act like a cantilever beam with a distrib-
uted load.

European standard EN 1991-1-3 is used to find the snow load. The snow
load that is distributed on the roof is determined using equation 5 and is
calculated as shown below.

S  iCeCtSk  1.92 3
10
Pa

The uniform distributed load on the roof is calculated using equation 6 and
is presented below.

UDL  LPforce

 9.21
N/m

28
4.3.2 Buckling analysis

The first step is to identify the point load at the column using the steps
shown in table 1. The figure below illustrates the free body diagram of the
top frame that is directly acted upon by the UDL. The main aim is to
identify the reaction at (A) where the column is pinned.

4.3.3 Buckling analysis using FEM

The FEM analysis software is used to analyse the column to find out if the same critical
buckling load will occur and to visualize the simulation. The analysis is modelled in Creo-
Simulate as shown in figure 31 and 32 below.

Figure 31 Idealized model showing axial force

29
4.3.4 Wind Load on Column
First, the wind load has to be defined according to the standards. The wind
pressure on an external surface is calculated using the following formula.
(EN – 1991 – 1 -4, 43)

We qpZeCpe

Where qp (ze) is the peak velocity pressure and Cpe is the pressure
co-effi- cient for external surface.

Peak velocity pressure = 600 N/m2

Pressure co-effecient = 1.4

We = 840 N/m2

Finally, the UDL (N/m) on the column is solved using equation 6 as

follows. Pressure load = 840 N/m2

Length = 4.797m

3
UDL  pressureloadLength  4.029  10

The problem is modelled in Creo – Simulate as shown in figure 34 below.

30
Figure 34 Wind

UDL on the

31
4.3.5 Column base Joint
The base of the column is supposed to be very stable to provide the rigidity required during
minor vibrations. The base supports the column which in turn supports the roof truss and
walls of the building. This tells that the base strength integrity should be very high.

The base joint includes anchor bolts, a plate and the concrete base support. The anchor bolts
are inside the concrete and are held in position by the plate. The base is in the technical
drawing is as shown in figure 38 below.

Figure 38 Column base

The bolts used for the joint are unique since their main function is to act as anchors to the
column. Figure 39 below shows an example anchor bolt in use connected with concrete.

Figure 39 Anchor bolt in concrete (A word about anchor bolts, 1992)

The loads that occur on the bolt depend on the loads that are on the column. These loads
include; roof snow load, wind load and column weight. These loads exert tension,
compression and shear forces on the bolt. Sometimes the forces might act together for

32
example.
4.4 Truss member redesign
In the roof truss analysis the middle section member has the highest stress resulting from the
snow load. If dramatic snow fall occurs, then the beam would be very close to failure. This
raises the need for redesign.

Structural design

33
Figure 75 High stress members to be redesigned

The cross-section of the highlighted members is changed to decrease the stress values. This is
illustrated in the figures below.

Simulated model after redesign

The cross section of the beam shown above was 50mm by 50mm by 3mm with second
moment of area of 19.47 mm4. The new design has a cross section of 70mm by 70mm by
5mm with second moment of inertia of 84.63mm4. As shown in the figure 76, the Von Mises
stress is now 12.89MPa compared to the 27.76MPa that was calculated in figure 42. This
illustrates that the truss is stronger and stiffer than before due to the changes made of the
cross section.

4.4.1 Bracing beam members

Some of the bracing beam members experienced high stresses and deflec- tion almost too
close to the safety values. This calls for a mandatory change to the design of the bracings.
The obvious change for this problem is to increase the flexural stiffness of the beam
members. The second option is to increase the number of beam members to increase the
overall strength. This latter option has a negative effect on the overall weight of the structure.
The higher the number of members, the more the weight increases. The best option is to
increase the flexural stiffness by increasing the second moment of area.

As shown in figure 61, the two beam members of the bracing experience very high stresses.

34
The beam members have a cross section of 60mm by 60mm by 3mm. The high stresses of up
to 125MPa are too dangerous. The beam cross section is changed to 80mm by 80mm by 5mm
and the simu- lated results for the snow load are shown below. The stress has decreased by
more than 100MPa to 47.28MPa by changing the cross section properties of the beams. The
new result is acceptable and safer.

35
Figure 77 High stress beams.

Figure 78 Simulated results

4.4.2 Beams connecting the trusses

The beams connecting the trusses in the middle of the structure are next redesigned. The main
issue with these beams is the deflection and overall stiffness. The same procedure is used for
making the new design. The cross sections of the beams before are 60mm by 60mm by 3mm.
The simulated results of the new design are shown in the figures below.

The cross section value of the new design is 80mm by 80mm by 3mm. The new cross section
results to a higher flexural stiffness causing reduced stresses and deflections. The new high
stress and deflection values are 36.3MPa and 9.69mm respectively. These values are less than
the values displayed in figure 79 and 80.

36
Figure 79 Deflection results

Figure 80 Stress results

4.5 Conclusion

There are several ways of performing the redesign of the members. The most economical and
safe method is always preferred. By increasing the flexural stiffness (E*I) of the beams in the
structure, high deflection and stress levels are greatly reduced. The new beam designs are
incorporated in the structures and a new analysis is done. The difference is very clear in the
results and the new design is accepted with a high level of confidence.

37
 CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONLUSIONS
5.1 Findings
Through observations, interviews, and quantitative data several challenges with the
current warehouse configuration were identified. These were then discussed under the
different sub- configural areas in the previous subchapters, both with regards to the
current challenges as well as suggested changes. This part will serve as a summary of the
most impactful challenges, where some challenges are merged together for
simplification purposes.
The first major challenge is related to the many different touch points existing with the
current coil flow. Between the physical storage and the production machines there are
both the PA, where the quality check and additional activities are performed, and the coil
stock, where the coils are temporarily stored before consumption. These unnecessary
touch points do not provide any value but rather prolong the time between retrieval and
consumption. In addition to this they also increase the footprint associated with the coil
storage.
The second major challenge is the large occurrence of double-handling. When a pick is
to be performed the current physical layout results in the need of having to move other
coils back and forth to retrieve the one that is requested. The double-handling also
occurs because of the storage being both with and without pallets, resulting in palletizing
and depalletizing coils moving through the PA. Finally, the double-handling is also
related to the unnecessary touch points which increase the number of times a coil is
moved.
The third major challenge is related to the late quality check which results in a risk of
storing coils with quality deviations. Since many coils are not frequently picked it also
complicates the quality-claim processes. In addition to this, the late quality check also
increases the picking times. With the quality check including depalletizing, unpackaging,
and inspecting the coil, the picking time is substantially increased. All of the challenges
described are not in line with Alfa Laval's goals of space utilization and handling
efficiency, and changes to these challenges would have a great impact in achieving these
goals.
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
The objectives of this report were (i) Describe the current warehouse configuration, (ii)
Identify the challenges with storage of coils, (iii) Identify the contextual factors for Alfa
Laval, and (iv) Identify suitable configural elements in this context. A holistic summary
of the most important findings is presented below. For further details the reader is
referred to the other chapters.
Through the description of the current situation the challenges and contextual factors
could be identified. The challenges were used to know what the new solutions were
supposed to avoid or reduce while the contextual factors provided a framework on what
the new solution had to adapt to. Some of the more important challenges identified were
the long picking time that was based on the late quality check and that there were many
unnecessary touchpoints in the chain. The long picking time was also connected to the
need of changing trucks because of the transport being done both outdoors and indoors,
as well as with different handling units. The late quality check also increased the risk of

38
handling coils with quality deviations which resulted in unnecessary handling and
storage of coils that would be sent back to the manufacturer in a later stage. This in turn
increased the risk of not meeting the deadline from the customer because of the long
lead time of a new coil delivery. Another challenge was the double-handling which was
a result of the combination of storing the coils on the floor in up to six coils deep lanes
and that the picking policy was FIFO. This meant that the coil further in usually was the
one to be picked and resulted in the need of moving all the coils in front of it. This floor
storage and the lack of adequate equipment resulted in a low space utilization.
The contextual factors that affected the possible recommendations the most were the
product characteristics and the customer characteristics. The product characteristics had
a large impact on how the picking could be done and which storage methods were
applicable to the situation. Because of the size of the coils only one coil could be picked
each time and the storage had to support the tipping hazard of the coils. The coil
dimensions also had a significant impact on which storage equipment that was suitable.
With regard to customer characteristics, certain customers have a high demand on
traceability of the coil all the way from the production of the material to the finished
product. This, in combination with the customers with nuclear heat exchangers, resulted
in the need of high traceability and quality of the operations and storage.

5.3 Recommendations
When it comes to the decision on which of these recommendations to proceed with, one
has to see which trade-offs there are. The cantilever solution has a higher space
utilization, is cheaper to install, is more flexible when it comes to the needed storage
space, has a lower risk of disrupting the production if something happens, and is more
likely to handle introduction of new coils better than the overhead crane. The cantilever
will also be a smaller step in the development of the warehouse which lowers the effort
needed and increases the chance of succeeding with the implementation. On the other
hand, the overhead crane increases the safety of the operations, lowers the risk of
damaging the coils which increases the quality, and lowers the risk that it is the wrong
coil picked for production. In addition to this, space utilization is also a great
improvement in comparison with the current situation. However, to achieve this impact
there is a greater effort needed because of the large difference in development between
the current setup and the overhead crane. To conclude, the cantilever recommendation
has a good impact and requires less effort while the overhead crane recommendation
requires more effort but has a greater impact.
Despite which recommendation that is chosen they will still reduce the same challenges
that were discovered, which can be seen in Table 6.7. They do address them in different
ways and to different extents, but they do both make a large difference compared to the
current setup.

39
 REFERENCES
Alfa Laval AB, (2020). Annual Report 2019.
https://www.alfalaval.com/media/news/investors/2020/alfa-laval-s-annual-report-for-
2019/ [Accessed 11 Jan. 2021]
Alfa Laval AB, (n.d.a) Gasketed plate heat exchangers Available at:
https://www.alfalaval.com/globalassets/documents/microsites/heating-and-cooling-
hub/pd- leaflets---gasketed/alfa-laval-gasketed-plate-heat-exchangers.pdf [Accessed 2
Feb. 2021]
Alfa Laval AB, (n.d.b). History of Alfa Laval. [online] Available at:
https://www.alfalaval.se/om-oss/our-company/alfa-lavals-historia/ [Accessed 11 Jan.
2021]
Alfa Laval AB, (n.d.c). Selection guide. [online] Available at:
https://www.alfalaval.se/microsites/packningsforsedda-plattvarmevaxlare/verktyg/
valguide/ [Accessed 11 Jan. 2021]
Anđelković, A. and Radosavljević, M. (2018). Improving order-picking process through
implementation of warehouse management system. Strategic Management, Vol. 23(2),
pp. 3- 10.
Azadeh, K., De Koster, R. and Roy, D. (2019). Robotized and Automated
Warehouse Systems: Review and Recent Developments. Transportation Science,
Vol. 53(4), pp. 917- 945.
Baruffaldi, G., Accorsi, R. and Manzini, R. (2019). Warehouse management system
customization and information availability in 3pl companies. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, Vol. 119(2), pp. 251-273.
Baker, P. and Canessa, M. (2009). Warehouse design: A structured approach.
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 193(2), pp. 425-436.
Baker, P. and Halim, Z. (2007). An exploration of warehouse automation
implementations: cost, service and flexibility issues. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 12(2), pp. 129-138.
Bartholdi, J.J. and Hackman, S.T. (2010). Warehouse & Distribution Science, Release
0.93, The supply Chain and Logistics Institute School of Industrial and Systems
Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta: GA 30332-0205
Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis.
Educational Research. Vol. 45(2), pp. 143-154. DOI: 10.1080/0013188032000133548
Bodner, D., Govindaraj, T., Karathur, K., Zerangue, N. and McGinnis, L. (2002). A
Process Model and Support Tools for Warehouse Design. Proceedings of the 2002
NFS Design. In: Service and Manufacturing Grantees and Research Conference.
[online] Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.203.1033&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Accessed 22 February 2021]
Da Cunha Reis, A., Gomes de Souza, C., Nogueira da Costa, N., Cordeiro Stender, G.,
Senna Vieira, P. and Domingues Pizzolato, N. (2017). Warehouse design: a systematic
literature review. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.
14(4), p. 542.
Davarzani, H. and Norrman, A. (2015). Toward a relevant agenda for warehousing

40
research: literature review and practitioners’ input. Logistics Research, Vol. 8(1). de
Koster, R., Le-Duc, T. and Roodbergen, K. (2007). Design and control of warehouse
order picking: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.
182(2),
pp.481-501.
De Leeuw, S. and Wiers, V.C.S. (2015). Warehouse manpower planning strategies in
times of financial crisis: evidence from logistics service providers and retailers in the
Netherlands. Production Planning & Control, Vol. 26(4), pp. 328-337.
Demagcranes.com, (2021). Prozesslösnung für Stalhandlning [online] Available at:
https://www.demagcranes.com/de-at/company/case-studies/becker-stahl-service
[Accessed 8
April 2021].
Faber, N., de Koster, M. and Smidts, A. (2013). Organizing warehouse management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 33(9), pp.1230-1256.
Faber, N., de Koster, R. and Smidts, A. (2018). Survival of the fittest: the impact
of fit between warehouse management structure and warehouse context on
warehouse performance. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56(1-
2), pp. 120-139.
Faber, N., de Koster, R. and van de Velde, S. (2002). Linking warehouse complexity to
warehouse planning and control structure. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, Vol. 32(5), pp. 381-395.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.
Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12(2), pp. 219-245.
Govindaraj, T., Blanco, E.E., Bodner, D.A., Goetschalckx, M., McGinnis, L.F. and Sharp
G.P. (2000). Design of warehousing and distribution systems: an object model of facilities,
functions and information. In: ieee international conference on systems, man and cybernetics.
[online] Nashville: IEEE, pp. 1099-1104, DOI: 10.1109/ICSMC.2000.885998
Gu, J., Goetschalckx, M. and McGinnis, L. (2007). Research on warehouse
operation: A comprehensive review. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.
177(1), pp. 1-21.
Gu, J., Goetschalckx, M. and McGinnis, L.F. (2010), Research on warehouse
design and performance evaluation: A comprehensive review. European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 203(3), pp. 539-549.
Harb, A., Kassem, A., Chartouni, M. and Chaaya, L. (2016). Effects of Warehouse
Management and engineering system on cost reduction and operations improvement. In:
2016 Sixth International Conference on Digital Information Processing and
Communications (ICDIPC) Beirut: Piscataway, NJ USA, pp. 8-12, 207. DOI:
10.1109/ICDIPC.2016.7470783
Hassan, M. (2002). A framework for the design of warehouse layout. Facilities,
Vol. 20(13/14), pp. 432-440.

41
 Bill Nr.2 - Godowns
APPENDI A: BILL OF QUANTITY
Item Descriptions Qty Unit Rate Amount (TZS)
A ELEMENT NR 1: SUBSTRUCTURE
Site Preparations;
Clearing the site; grubbing up roots bushes, scrub,
undergrowth or the likesmall trees not exceeding 600 mm girth 551 m2 350.00 192,850.00

Excavation and Earthworks; 551 m2 495,900.00

B Excavate oversite average 150mm deep to remove 900.00
top soil, convey average 50 linear meters and deposit
in temporary spoil heaps

Excavate pit for column base commencing at stripped level 68 m3 488,750.00

and not exceeding 1.50meters deep
C 7,187.50

Excavate foundation trench commencing at stripped level and not 73 m3 958,125.00

exceeding 1.50meters deep
D 13,125.00

Extra over any kind of excavation for breaking up rock and the like 18 m3 517,500.00

E 28,750.00
Earth backfilling of selected materials around the foundations 46 m3 198,375.00

F 4,312.50
Ditto around columns 66 m3 429,000.00

Earth filling of imported selected excavated material, 159 m3 1,074,840.00

G well rammed and consolidated to make up levels 6,500.00
under floors.
H 6,760.00
Load up surplus excavated material and remove away from 9 m3 101,700.00
site

J
Disposal of water 1 Item 430,000.00
Allow for keeping all excavations free from water 11,300.00
(except spring or runing water) by pumping,baling or
by other means necessary
K 430,000.00
Plaking and strutting 1 Item 220,000.00
Allow for the provision and subsquent removal of
planking and strutting to up hold and maintain
all faces of excavations

L 220,000.00
To Collection 5,107,040.00

42
 Bill Nr.2 - Godowns

Item Descriptions Qty Unit Rate Amount (TZS)

Substructure Cont'd

Hardcore
150mm Bed levelled and blinded to receive 397 m2
A
damp proof membrane 2,137.50 848,587.50

150mm Ditto, sloping 17 m2

B 6,500.00 110,500.00
Soil sterilization
"Gammalin"solution applied at a rate of 7 litres 414 m2
per square metre to hardcore beds
C 9,500.00 3,933,000.00
CONCRETE WORK

Plain Concrete grade "10" 45 m2

50mm Blinding
D 170,000.00 7,650,000.00
Plain concrete Grade "15" 21 m3
Strip Foundations

E 220,000.00 4,620,000.00
125mm Thick bed 397 m2

125mm thich Ramps 17 m2

F 28,000.00 11,116,000.00
Reinforced concrete grade '20' including vibrating 11 m3
G around reinforcement 28,000.00 476,000.00
Column bases

H 270,000.00 2,970,000.00
Columns 2 m3

Ground beams 9 m3
J 270,000.00 540,000.00
Reinforcement
High yield strength deformed type 2 steel bar
K
reinforcement to BS 4449:1969 270,000.00 2,430,000.00

8mm Diameter bars 448 kg

16mm Diameter bars 2256 kg

L
3,900.00 1,747,200.00

M
3,900.00 8,798,400.00

To Collection 45,239,687.50

43
 Bill Nr.2 - Godowns
Item Descriptions Qty Unit Rate Amount (TZS)
Substructure Cont'd

A Sawn formwork to: 61 m2 35,122.00 2,142,442.00

Vertical sides of columns

Vertical edge of bed over 150mm but not exceeding 99 m

B 8,681.25 859,443.75
350mm high

WALLING

Solid concrete blocks to BS2828 type 'A' bedded

and jointed in cement mortar (1:3)

230mm Wall 129 m2

C 33,200.00 4,282,800.00
Hessian based bitumem damp proof course to BS 743 74 m
D type 5A 230mm wide laid horizontally on blockwork 15,000.00 1,110,000.00

Damp proof membrane; 414 m2

E 500Gauge polythene damp proof membrane laid
over blinded hardcore (measured separately) 2,500.00 1,035,000.00

Sundries;

12mm Cement and sand (1:3) external rendering to 59 m2

concrete blockwall to match existing
F 4,500.00 265,500.00
Prepare and apply two coats of black bituminous 59 m2
paint on rendered or concrete surface, externally to
G match existing 11,000.00 649,000.00

To collection 10,344,185.75
COLLECTION

Page 2/1 5,107,040.00

Page 2/2 45,239,687.50

Page 2/3 10,344,185.75

ELEMENT NR.1: SUBSTRUCTURE TOTAL CARRIED TO SUMMARY OF BILL NR. 60,690,913.25

2

Item Descriptions Qty Unit Rate Amount (TZS)

ELEMENT NR. 2: FRAME; CONCRETE WORK
Reinforced conrete grade '20' including vibrating
around reinforcement

Page 2 / 6
 Bill Nr.2 - Godowns

Columns 9 m3 220,000.00 1,980,000.00

A
Beams 13 m3 220,000.00 2,860,000.00

B
Reinforcement;

High yield strength deformed type 2 steel bar

reinforcement to BS4449:1969

8mm Diameter bars 174 Kg 3,900.00 678,600.00

C 16mm Ditto 2356 Kg 3,900.00 9,188,400.00

D
Sawn formwork to:

Vertical or battering sides of columns 151 m2 35,122.00 5,303,422.00

E
Sides and soffits of horizontal beams 173 m2 8,681.25 1,501,856.25

ELEMENT NR.2: FRAME - TOTAL CARRIED TO SUMMARY 21,512,278.25

OF BILL NR. 2

Item Descriptions Qty Unit Rate Amount (TZS)

AB ELEMENT NR. 3: WALLS Blockwork;
Solid concrete blocks to B.S. 2028 type 'A' bedded and
jointed in cement mortar (1:4)

230mm Wall 716 m2 33,200.00 23,771,200.00

150mm Louvre block Wall 18 m2 22,193.92 399,490.56

ELEMENT NR. 3 - WALLS TOTAL CARRIED TO 24,170,690.56

SUMMARY OF BILL NR. 2
Item Descriptions Qty Unit Rate Amount (TZS)
ELEMENT NR. 4 - ROOFING ROOF COVERINGS
Troughed roofing sheets IT 5; 28 gauge; colour
coated Coverings; fixing to steel purlinsat
1200mm general spaciengwith Galvlanised steel hook
bolts, nuts, neoprene washers and caps; one and a
half trohgty side laps; 150mm end
laps Slopng not exceeding 45 degrees form horizontal;

Roof coverings sloping not exceeding 45 degrees from horizontal

528 28,373.28 14,981,091.84

Ridge capping, valley, hip 780mm girth 27 9,900.00 267,300.00

A m2
ROOF STRUCTURE
Softwood pressure impregnated with preservative 591 7,793.37 4,605,881.67
150 x 50mm Rafters

Page 2 / 6
 Bill Nr.2 - Godowns
B m
150 x 50mm Tie beams 671 7,793.37 5,229,351.27
100 x 50mm Struts 844 6,450.00 5,443,800.00

C 75 x 50mm Purlins 802 m 5,570.00 4,467,140.00

100 x 50mm Wall Plate 79 6,450.00 509,550.00

Wrought Hardwood
D m
225 x 25mm Thick fascia board 127 9,570.00 1,215,390.00
E Mild steel grade 43A 312 m 2,500.00 780,000.00
12mm Diameter mild steel anchor bolt, 400mm long
one end cast in concrete and another end threaded
F m

230 x 300 x 4mm thick steel plate 78 9,000.00 702,000.00

G m
800 x 150 x 4mm thick mild steel gusset plate 104 14,300.00 1,487,200.00
Mild steel black bolts; or the like 832 4,500.00 3,744,000.00
12mm Ø x 63mm long mild steel bolt
H m

J Nr

K Nr

L Nr

M Nr

ELEMENT NR. 4 - ROOFING CARRIED TO SUMMARY OF 43,432,704.78

BILL NR. 2

Page 2 / 6
 Bill Nr.2 - Godowns
Item Descriptions Qty Unit Rate Amount (TZS)
ELEMENT NR. 5 - DOORS

Metal Works

Fabricate and fix in position metal grilles slidding gate

to Architect's approved patterns adequately secured
to concrete or block walls overall sizes;

A 2000 x 2700mm high 3 Nr 486,000.00 1,458,000.00

Hardwood doors

B 900 x 2500mm high 4 Nr 350,000.00 1,400,000.00

Wrot Hardwood (approved Mninga)

CD 125 x 40mm Frame, plugged 30 m 18,000.00 540,000.00

50 x 15mm Architrave 30 m 12,000.00 360,000.00

IRONMONGERY

Supplying and fixing ironmongery; 'Genuine UNION;

ASSA ABLOY'; or other equal and approved to metal,
softwood, hardwood or the like; fixing with matching
EF screws

100mm Brass butt hinges 24 Nr 12,000.00 288,000.00

G
Mortice lockset, three lever complete with furniture and handle 4 Nr 85,000.00 340,000.00

Ditto, with indicator bolt 4 Nr 5,000.00 20,000.00

ELEMENT NR. 5 - DOORS TOTAL CARRIED TO SUMMARY OF BILL NR. 2 4,406,000.00

Item Descriptions Qty Unit Rate Amount (TZS)

ELEMENT NR: 6 - WINDOWS

Metal Works;

Anodized aluminium casement window frames 1.5mm thick

sections complete with and including 6mm thick clear sheet
ordinary quality glass (Refer windows schedule drawing Nr.)

A 1500 x 1500mm High with two side sliding panels and two fixed top light 6 Nr 300,000.00 1,800,000.00
panels; window type W1

Metal Works
 Bill Nr.2 - Godowns
Fabricate and fix in Position metal grilles of
approved patterns comprising of 38 x 38 H.S.S for main frameworks,
infilled with 38 x 38 x 3mm flat bars at 150mm centers, adequately
secured to block walls overall sizes;

1500 x 1500mm high 6 Nr 190,000.00 1,140,000.00

B

ELEMENT NR. 6 - WINDOWS TOTAL SUMMARY OF 2,940,000.00

CARRIED TO BILL NR. 2

Item Descriptions Qty Unit Rate Amount (TZS)

ELEMENT NR: 7 - FINISHINGS

INTERNAL WORK

Insitu Finishing;
internal plastering in two coats with smooth steel
trowelled; first coat of cement sand12mm cement and
sand (1:4); second coat of cement and lime putty (1:5)
steel trowelled

AB Block walls and concrete works 1029 m2 4,500.00 4,630,500.00

Columns 33 m2 5,500.00 181,500.00

40mm thick cement sand and chipping in 1:1.5:3 mix

CD applied in one coat generally to;

Floors 397 m2 11,500.00 4,565,500.00

Ramp 17 m2 11,500.00 195,500.00

TILES, SLAB AND BLOCK FINISHINGS

EF Porcelain floor tiles Ex - China or any other equal and
approved type fixed to screeded bed and pointing
joints with grout

G 300 x 300 x 8mm Thick to floors and pavings 71 m2 56,000.00 3,976,000.00

100mm High x 6mm thick skirting 68 m 5,500.00 374,000.00

H
BEDS AND BACKINGS

12mm cement and Sand (1:4) bed to receive floor tiles 71 m2 7,500.00 532,500.00

12mm cement and Sand (1:4) backings to skirting 68 m 1,500.00 102,000.00

To collection 14,557,500.00
Bill Nr.2 - Godowns