ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.26552/com.C.2020.2.

107-114 107

Mariusz Kostrzewski - Jozef Gnap - Pavol Varjan - Marek Likos

APPLICATION OF SIMULATION METHODS FOR STUDY

ON AVAILABILITY OF ONE-AISLE MACHINE ORDER PICKING
PROCESS

The main aim of the paper is the analysis of simulation model reflecting selected in-warehouse logistics processes
in the aspect of their availability. For this purpose, one-aisle machine picking problem with use of a stochastic random
simulation is studied, with a special focus on reliability of the system to disturbances and maintenance scheduling.
The methodology in the research consists of classic measures of reliability. The model is designed in order to analyze
availability of selected parameters of randomly generated order picking process. One of key-results of the paper is
answer for question if a mean time to failure can be treated as a value of time when the first failure in the system occurs.
A summary of the contribution includes discussion and the perspectives for further research in the subject matter.
Keywords: availability, MTTR, MTBF, MTTF, failure rate, failure frequency, warehouse

1 Introduction reduction of traveled distance between picking points, as

in [3, 11-12]. Many other authors attempted to reduce OP
The order picking (later: OP) process is deliberated process time, as in: [7, 13-14].
as one of the most important among processes in internal In order to achieve as much as realistic simulation
logistics. It is believed as such because this process is the model as possible, during its building some events, which
most labor consuming one and it determines the level of potentially disrupt a regular material-flow should be
service experienced by the down-stream customers [1]. included. This kind of events can be implemented accurately
Moreover, it engages most of resources of all processes or randomly. Retooling, maintenance times, accidents,
realized in logistics facilities (that aspect is connected to machine failures and many other kinds of disturbances can
labor consuming), which is confirmed in [2]. In addition, be included in simulation to make it firstly more realistic,
this process is considered to be the most time consuming more adequate to real logistics facility, and secondly
[3-4]. All these aspects aim to find out that it is highly to execute what-if analyses in order to be ready for
cost-consuming process. Authors of [5] estimated OP cost unpredicted failures or “catastrophes”, which might took
- they stated that the cost incurred during OP processes is place in a logistics facility implemented into simulation
from 55% to 75% of total cost for all logistics processes in model. In many simulation software there are at least two
warehouses (it is also mentioned e.g. in [6-7]). OP process options for failures modeling [15]. The first one is using
consists of roughly three phases. The first one is travel to statistical distribution and the second one is application
the predefined storage location which is non-value-adding of certain areas based on reliability theory. In the model
according to [1], the second one is search of the exact used for this study second option was implemented. By
location wanted. This phase can be significant while picking the way, paraphrasing of “failure” meaning given in [16],
of small parts, and it is considered also as non-value-adding it is understood in the paper as a unit/machine/mean of
phase. The third phase is connected to three actions: reach, transport/device which has not met user/customer/operator
take, and deliver to the appropriate in/out spot. This is requirements in some way during its functioning.
a value-added and the most resistant to automation activity. Taking into consideration all the above statements,
As it was mentioned in many references, the scope of a model for OP analyses in one aisle in OP area was
scientific elaborations on OP processes is very broad. The developed (this one aisle is operated by one automated
authors deal with e.g.: strategies used to achieve efficient machine: an automated storage and retrieval system AS/RS).
OP process (e.g.: [8-10]), cost estimation based on highly The main objective of this model is to obtain a sequence
detailed and hierarchical analytical or numerical models, of any number (by default, one hundred) of durations of
and reduction of processes duration (or indirectly, by OP process taking place within OP area in a hypothetical

Mariusz Kostrzewski1,*, Jozef Gnap2, Pavol Varjan3, Marek Likos4

1
Division of Construction Fundamentals of Transport Equipment, Faculty of Transport, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
2
Department of Road and Urban Transport, Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications, University of Zilina,
Slovakia
3
Office of the Presov Self-governing Region, Presov, Slovakia
4
Faculty of Transport, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
*E-mail of corresponding author: mariusz.kostrzewski@pw.edu.pl

I S S N 1335-4205 (Print), ISSN 2585-7878 (Online) / © 2 0 2 0 U N I V E R S I T Y O F Z I L I N A C O M M U N I C A T I O N S 2 2 ( 2 ) 107-114

108 KOSTRZEWSKI et al.

warehouse. This paper is connected to the simulation Research results on this subject in the context of
model presented in [17] (briefly described in third section logistics (and especially intralogistics) are published much
of the paper, the one connected to methodology). For less frequently. Authors of [21] used chosen KPIs in order to
this paper, the model would be analyzed in the context of analyze the system composed of a machine, a warehouse,
the accessibility of machine contributing to OP process a vehicle and customers. Authors realized it in order to
operation and in the context of other concepts related choose a suitable vehicle type according to different costs
to mentioned accessibility. Therefore, it can be assumed of this system taking into consideration MTTR and MTBF.
that the following parameters are analyzed with use of Authors of [22] prepared a multicriteria rating of the batch
the model: availability, mean time to failure, mean time process method, including four KPIs as technological
between failures, mean downtime, mean time to diagnose, aspects evaluation in this method. KPIs were also used in
mean time to recovery, failure rate, etc. One of the aims of [23] in order to reduce intralogistics costs of spare parts and
the article is to answer the following research question. Can semi-finished products while implementation of digitization
the simulated times up to the first failure of the means of in maintenance. Authors of [24] used chosen KPIs in order
transport and the times obtained on the basis of calculated to analyze buffers next to assembly lines system with
statistical values for selected accessibility characteristics material handling. However, several publications touched
be treated identically? In other words, can the mean time devices availability analyses for internal logistics, these
to failure, calculated from the generalized mean time to were hardly connected to treat it as the main subject matter.
failure equation, be treated as the value of time when the
first failure in the model occurs? It seems to be important
question, especially that a wide range of innovative concepts 3 Methodology, research conditions
make transport systems (and equipment) more efficient and and assumptions
competitive [18], therefore these systems and equipment
need to be analyzed adequately. The methodology consists of several parts. At first,
it involves data compilation and pre-processing (despite
the model consists of hypothetical data, these must meet
2 Literature review requirements related to the real-world facilities). Secondly,
it involves data exploration (mostly, statistics exploration).
Several equations for assessing availability of agents Third part includes developing and experimenting with the
(e.g. means of transport) taking part in a process can be simulation model, while the last part entails evaluation and
found in literature. These equations are based on available interpretation of results of the experiments.
data on damage to components over time. These data In modeling theory, the category of models, which
are used in order to create an availability model, which selected parameters can be described by random variables,
is designed to reproduce as faithfully as possible an distinguishes deterministic and stochastic models.
operating process of a machine/vehicle, etc. However, when In a deterministic model none of random variables are
hypothetical facilities are analyzed, no historical data is implemented. Stochastic model contains at least one
connected to any failures in the process. For this reason, variable of random kind [17, 25-26]. The model considered
a simulation modeling may be implemented for analyses. in this paper is stochastic one.
Simplifications are adopted for such models, which are The main assumptions of this simulation model are
described in methodology section. connected to the fact that it realizes a sequence of randomly
The origin of using mean time between failures matched picking lists. The particular picking list is described
(MTBF), mean time to recovery (MTTR) was in computer by two parameters. The first one is the number of lines in
science and information technology and later in operational each picking list that correspond to assortment of products
management. At first, it was used in order to determine to be picked during certain order realization. The second
the durability of hard drives. Author of [14] described core parameter is the quantities of items of a certain product to
principles of reliability in software engineering. pick from a certain shelf in OP area. The number of lines in
As Authors of [19] mentioned, most of companies each picking list (of a j-th element in the sample for k-th
implement lean management for their operational experiment) reaches the scope of w(j,k) = {1,…,10}, and the
realization. One of the methods, which is connected to lean quantities of i items to pick (per line in a k-th experiment)
management is Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). MTBF, are within the scope of p(i,j,k) = {1,…,10}. Picking lists are
MTTF, MTTR and OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness) generated as a result of initiation of adequate procedure
are some of many key performance indicators (KPIs) with pseudorandom number generator (PRGN) included
allowing to analyze disturbances and failure rates of in the simulation model, and this PRGN is defined and
production processes. In the mentioned paper, it is used constructed by first author based on the logistics map. It
for windscreen wipers production, assembly process and starts from random numbers uniformly distributed between
internal transport analyses. Meanwhile, Authors of [20] 0 and 1, generated by a suitable standard random number
use the term of mean time between overhaul furthermore generator (p*(1,1,k) in Equation (1)), and obtains the sizes
- since this parameter is used mostly for engines, it is not of items to be picked using bifurcation of the logistics map
considered here. (value 4 in Equation (1) ensures that the data structure is

COMMUNICATIONS 2/2020 VOLUME 22

APPLICATION OF SIMULATION METHODS FOR STUDY ON AVAILABILITY OF ONE-AISLE MACHINE... 109

chaotic), inspired by [27] (in order to obtain integer values [min] divided by the numbers of malfunctions nout (unitless
of p(i,j,k), a multiplier by 10 is entered). A picking list in parameter) given according to Equation (3).
the model is a series of orders not known in advance that
have to be served one after another. More details and PRGN MTTR = Tout /n out (3)
verification are given in [28].
MTBF is mean time between failures or disruptions
p ^ i, j, k h = 610 $ 4 $ ^ 1 - ^ p * ^ i - 1, j - 1, k - 1 hhh $ in the operation of a product, process, procedure, design,
$ p * ^ i - 1, j - 1, k - 1 h@ (1) machine, unit, mean of transport. Mean time between
p * ^ 1, 1, k h ! ^ 0; 1 failures assumes that a product - or any other mentioned
entity - can be repaired, and a product can then resume its
In order to generate picking lists, logistic differential normal operations [30]. According to [29], the mean time
equation is used in the model. It ensures gaining PRGN between failures MTBF is given according to Equation (4)
values which are more random than in the case of using in [min].
simply probability distribution. Empirical research with use
of simulation model proved that in the case of using chosen MTBF = ^ T - Tout h /n out (4)
probability distribution results were repeatable in the case
of 80% of experiments [17]. In order to exclude repetition, And based on Equations (2)-(4), the availability can be
logistic differential equation was introduced. expressed by MTTR and MTBF parameters, as in Equation
The simulation model allows to study several (5) - as such is exposed also in [15].
parameters connected to reliability and availability of
means of transport used in examined logistics facility. h T = MTBF/ ^ MTBF + MTTR h (5)
Mentioned parameters are directly connected to reliability
or having an impact on it (indirect impact). These MTTF (Mean Time To Failure) determines the average
parameters are: processing time, recovery time, cycle operating time of a device from the beginning of its
time, capacity, mean time to repair, availability. Moreover, operation or from its last repair to the first failure [31]. This
the group of parameters can be broadened by another parameter is particularly important for systems in which
ones, which might be useful in a study of reliability and single operations last a long time - small values of MTTF
availability of machines and means of transport that are significantly reduces a probability of correct completion
not unambiguously defined in the software and require of a single operation. In a lot of design, components and
to be redefined in simulation model. These parameters, devices, a value of MTTF is especially near to a value of
not exclusively, are mean time to failure (MTTF), mean MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures). Typically, MTBF
time between failures (MTBF), estimated percentage of is slightly longer than MTTF [31]. MTTF should be used
simulation time during which a mean of transport failure for non-repairable items, however it has been studied
may occur (f(k); this is parameter similar to unavailability here in order to examine the interdependence of different
- the difference is that f(k) is stochastic parameter, which parameters of this type.
value is drawn on the basis of PRGN built into the software In the paper [32] and book [33], the availability is given
and its value in relation to availability h T is characterized as Equation (6).
by the relation f ^ k h 1 1 - h T , whereas unavailability Q
hT
is characterized by the following relation Q hT = 1 - hT . h T = MTTF/ ^ MTTF + MTTR h = MTTF/MTBF (6)
The simulation model has been satisfactory verified
before and verification proved that the difference between Equation (5) is used in the case, when it is dealing with
the results of the simulation model and the analytical model impact of a repairable element on availability of a system
is at acceptable level of 3.5%. The model was not validated, (refurbishing/remanufacture is not understood as repair,
since it is hypothetical warehouse. but rather replacement). And the Equation (6) is used when
According to [29], the availability is equal to the it is dealing with impact of a one-off/non-repairable element
probability of a unit/machine/mean of transport when it on availability of a system, in which it operates (an element
is operated correctly and without any malfunctions. It is could be refurbished/remanufactured) [30]. The simulation
determined by Equation (2), where: h T is parameter of model is assumed to deal with a situation, where replace
availability (unitless parameter), T is total operating time parts in equipment subject to failure is possible - therefore
[min] and Tout is a sum of individual periods of downtime Equation (5) is used.
[min]. Failure rate [min-1] is the total number of detected
defects divided by the total number of samples observed,
h T = ^ T - Tout h /T (2) and according to [32] is as given in Equation (7).

According to [29], mean time to repair (known also n = 1/MTBF (7)

as mean time to restore, mean time to recovery as in [12]
or mean downtime, [min]) MTTR is total downtime Tout Failure frequency (unitless parameter), according to
[32], is given as in Equation (8).

VOLUME 22 COMMUNICATIONS 2/2020

110 KOSTRZEWSKI et al.

Table 1 Summary of the parameters for assessing the availability of AS/RS

n^ k h x^ k h
Operating
f(k) MTTR(k) hT MTTF(k) MTBF(k)
k time Failed [%]
[%] [min] [-] [min] [min] [min-1] [-]
[min]
1 10 1 90 1683.94 8.10 9 0.11111 10.04 169.0675760
2 10 3 90 1737.26 24.30 27 0.03704 10.19 59.0089313
3 10 9 90 1801.22 72.90 81 0.01235 9.20 18.4124711
4 10 27 90 1808.93 218.70 243 0.00412 9.28 6.2173594
5 10 81 90 1682.32 656.10 729 0.00137 8.75 1.8173210
6 10 243 90 1666.35 1968.30 2187 0.00046 14.78 1.0135246
7 20 1 80 1750.16 3.20 4 0.25000 20.17 353.0072720
8 20 3 80 1793.90 9.60 12 0.08333 20.23 120.9686567
9 20 9 80 1914.29 28.80 36 0.02778 21.06 44.7943860
10 20 27 80 1972.89 86.40 108 0.00926 18.70 13.6640900
11 20 81 80 1929.83 259.20 324 0.00309 18.06 4.3028061
12 20 243 80 1666.35 777.60 972 0.00103 20.85 1.4297694
13 30 1 70 1865.32 1.63 2.3 0.42857 30.23 563.8862360
14 30 3 70 1892.27 4.90 7 0.14286 30.87 194.7145830
15 30 9 70 2027.49 14.70 21 0.04762 31.09 70.0385157
16 30 27 70 2054.09 44.10 63 0.01587 26.63 20.2594136
17 30 81 70 2214.97 132.30 189 0.00529 25.92 7.0879040
18 30 243 70 1860.62 396.90 567 0.00176 23.19 1.7756287

x = Tout /MTTR (8) calibrating test equipment; dispatching personnel; reviewing

technical manuals; complying with supply procedures; and
Literature distinguishes three types of availability: awaiting transportation [37]. Operation availability (unitless
inherent, operational and achieved. parameter) may be calculated according to Equation (10)
Inherent availability ^ h TI h is understood as availability [38].
of a system with respect only to operating time and
corrective maintenance. Parameter h TI is equal to h T , h TO = MTBM/ ^ MTBM + MTT + MLDT h (10)
given as Equation (5). It does not include standby and delay
times and mean logistics delay time (MLDT) [34]. The entire simulation model is predefined, verified
Achieved availability ^ h TA h is understood as and realistic thanks to usage of PRGN of two kinds: the
availability of a system with respect to operating time predefined in simulation software and the one prepared
and both corrective and preventive maintenance (unitless by paper’s first author - specifications of them are given
parameter). It ignores mean logistics delay time (MLDT) in the paper. The software predefined PRGN includes
and may be calculated according to Equation (9) in [min], MLDT (it was assumed that MLDT is a result of PRGN
where MTBM [31] is mean time between maintenance implementation), therefore instead of computing operation
in [min] and MMT is mean maintenance time in [min] availability, in this paper inherent availability is computed.
[35]. MMT is a measure of maintainability duration -
preventive and corrective maintenance are taken into
account. It is calculated by adding the preventive and 4 Results discussion
corrective maintenance time and dividing it by the number
of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance operations Results of k experiments on the model are gathered in
during a stated period [36]. Table 1 and Table 2. Experiments allowed to obtain several
facts connected to availability, based on values given in
h TA = MTBM/ ^ MTBM + MTT h (9) Table 1:
• with the increase of MTTR(k) ( h T = const) values of
Operational availability ^ h TO h is differentiated from operating time oscillate similarly as mean values of OP
achieved availability by the fact it includes mean logistics times given in Figures 1-3;
delay time (MLDT). MLDT is the indicator of an average time • with the increase of MTTR(k) ( h T = const), MTTF(k)
a system is awaiting maintenance and generally includes and MTBF(k) increase exponentially (Figures 4-6)
time for locating parts and tools; locating, setting up or

COMMUNICATIONS 2/2020 VOLUME 22

APPLICATION OF SIMULATION METHODS FOR STUDY ON AVAILABILITY OF ONE-AISLE MACHINE... 111

Table 2 Usage of AS/RS, where: mean value of OP process time t ^ k, PS h , standard deviation, s t^ k, PS h and mean squared
error of the mean value s t^ k, PS h
Operational Operational
k Working Waiting
Failed t ^ k, PS h s t^ k, PS h s t^ k, PS h k Working Waiting
Failed t ^ k, PS h s t^ k, PS h s t^ k, PS h
[%] [min] [min] [min] [%] [min] [min] [min]
[%] [%] [%] [%]
1 77.54 12.42 10.04 16.84 0.94 0.09 10 63.28 18.02 18.70 19.73 1.16 0.12
2 78.75 11.06 10.19 17.37 1.07 0.11 11 65.00 16.94 18.06 19.30 1.73 0.17
3 80.19 10.61 9.20 18.01 1.01 0.10 12 58.13 21.02 20.85 16.66 0.98 0.10
4 76.25 14.47 9.28 18.09 0.77 0.08 13 47.12 22.65 30.23 18.65 0.53 0.05
5 81.96 9.29 8.75 16.82 0.95 0.10 14 46.33 22.80 30.87 18.92 1.47 0.15
6 67.74 17.48 14.78 16.66 0.98 0.10 15 45.63 23.28 31.09 20.27 2.15 0.22
7 62.38 17.45 20.17 17.50 0.79 0.08 16 51.07 22.30 26.63 20.54 1.80 0.18
8 60.51 19.26 20.23 17.93 0.77 0.08 17 52.40 21.68 25.92 22.15 2.48 0.25
9 60.60 18.34 21.06 19.14 1.57 0.16 18 55.40 21.41 23.19 18.61 2.49 0.25

Table 3 Comparison of MTTF and FTOF (in relation to operating time)

MTTF(k) FTOF(k) MTTF(k) FTOF(k) MTTF(k) FTOF(k)

k k k
[min] [min] [min] [min] [min] [min]

1 8.10 14.90 7 3.20 138.33 13 1.63 4.25

2 24.30 42.20 8 9.60 41.50 14 4.90 24.90
3 72.90 179.10 9 28.80 220.40 15 14.70 47.56
4 218.70 413.80 10 86.40 379.10 16 44.10 95.10
5 656.10 1180.90 11 259.20 1283.43 17 132.30 275.00
6 1968.30 * 12 777.60 * 18 396.90 1205.70

Figure 1 Mean value of OP process time that accrue Figure 2 Mean value of OP process time that accrue on the
on the experiments k = {1,…,6} experiments k = {7,…,12}

which confirms the theory and confirms that the c.a. MTTR(k) (MTBF can be understood as a sum of
simulation model was verified accordingly; MTTF and MTTR);
• 10% reduction in availability results in a halving of • the Figures 1-3 show the duration of OP process
MTTF(k) and MTBF(k) values (Figures 4-6); obtained for 18 simulation experiments - the values
• with the increase of MTTR(k) ( h T = const), failure of OP process time are given as average values from
rate n ^ k h and failure frequency x ^ k h decrease 100-elements samples (100 runs of the simulation
exponentially, proportional to values of MTTF(k) and model). Figures 1-3 show that the duration of OP
MTBF(k), Figures 7-8; process does not increase while MTTR increasing,
• failure rate n ^ k h and failure frequency x ^ k h decrease however changes of durations for consecutive
with reduction of availability h T ; experiments can be described by second-degree
• as it was mentioned before, MTBF is a little bit longer polynomial functions with determination coefficient,
than MTTF - this research proved the theory; and the each given in consecutive figure, for every next
difference between MTBF(k) and MTTF(k) is equal to experiment. Nevertheless, increasing of f(k) parameter
and decreasing of availability h T make OP process

VOLUME 22 COMMUNICATIONS 2/2020

112 KOSTRZEWSKI et al.

Figure 6 Comparison of MTTF and MTBF that accrue

on the experiments k = {13,…,18}
Figure 3 Mean value of OP process time that accrue
on the experiments k = {13,…,18}

Figure 4 Comparison of MTTF and MTBF that accrue Figure 7 Changes of failure frequency x ^ k h that accrue
on the experiments k = {1,…,6} on the experiments k = {1,…,18}

Figure 5 Comparison of MTTF and MTBF that accrue Figure 8 Changes of failure rate n ^ k h that accrue
on the experiments k = {7,…,12} on the experiments k = {1,…,18}

times longer what was expected. In all three cases 5 Conclusion

of f(k), the best approximation turns out to be the
polynomial of the second degree. All trend diagrams are Availability analysis allows to determine when
plotted within the limits range of the standard deviation a machine should be replaced or when a machine should
accompanying the bars of the average duration of be passed for technical inspection. In such cases, each
OP processes for the individual experiments with component of a machine would have to be treated separately
consecutive numbers of k; and not as a whole. For key machines the following principle
• MTBF should be as short as possible and it is an overall is generally adopted: preventive replacement of parts every
indicator of reliability and effectiveness/efficiency, 85% MTBF [39]. This can be understood that a device should
therefore MTTR should be as short as possible. be inspected after this time. At current stage of the model,
it can only be concluded that some unspecified failures may
Comparison of MTTF and first time of failure FTOF is occur. It is worth noting that in the model, it is not so much
given in Table 3. In the case of records with asterisks, the the device’s interference analysis that is important, but the
failure did not occur during the experiment; after two days process of internal transport and OP technologies. With this
of operation time the simulations were interrupted. assumption, the model is fully functional, and the analyses
are satisfactory.

COMMUNICATIONS 2/2020 VOLUME 22

APPLICATION OF SIMULATION METHODS FOR STUDY ON AVAILABILITY OF ONE-AISLE MACHINE... 113

In the introduction section of the paper research is 0.88, therefore the correlation is strong and positive
question was given: can the mean time to failure, calculated (two pairs of values were excluded, k = {6, 12} - in their
from the generalized mean time to failure equation, be case any failure did not occur during the experiment; after
treated as the value of time when the first failure in 2 days of operation time the simulations were stopped).
the model occurs? Based on the data obtained during The FTOF values for each k were obtained from individual
computation with the model, the answer is “no”, because experiments - in future studies further experiments will be
of difference in pair of values MTTF(k) and FTOF(k) given conducted in order to enrich verification of the research
in Table 3. However, after computing Pearson correlation question.
coefficient for MTTF and FTOF, the value of the coefficient

References

[1] BARTHOLDI, J. J., HACKMAN, S. T. Warehouse & distribution science. Authors own release 0.97. Atlanta, US: Georgia
Institute of Technology, 2016 [online]. [Vieved 2018-06-17]. Available from: www.warehouse-science.com
[2] ULBRICH, A., GALKA, S., GUNTHNER, W. A. Simulation of multi-level order picking systems within rough planning
for decision making. In: SCSC ‘09 Proceedings of the 2009 Summer Computer Simulation Conference: proceedings.
Istanbul, Turkey: Society for Modeling and Simulation International, 2009. p. 322-327.
[3] LU, W., MCFARLANE, D., GIANNIKAS, V., ZHANG, Q. An algorithm for dynamic order picking in warehouse operations.
European Journal of Operational Research [online]. 2016, 248(1), p. 107-122 [accessed 2019-07-17]. ISSN 0377-2217.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.074
[4] ROODBERGEN, K. J., KOSTER, R. DE. Routing order pickers in a warehouse with a middle aisle. European Journal
of Operational Research [online]. 2001, 133(1), p. 32-43 [accessed 2019-07-87]. ISSN 0377-2217. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00177-6
[5] CHIANG, D. M.-H., LIN, C.-P., CHEN, M.-C. The adaptive approach for storage assignment by mining data of warehouse
management system for distribution centres. Enterprise Information Systems [online]. 2011, 5(2), p. 219-234
[accessed 2019-07-17]. ISSN 1751-7583. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2010.537784
[6] DRURY, J. Towards more efficient order picking. 2. ed. IMM Monograph No. 1, Report. Cranfield, U. K.: The Institute
of Materials Management, 1988. ISBN 9781870214063.
[7] KOSTRZEWSKI, M. Mathematical models of time computing in two-dimensional order picking process in high-
bay warehouses. In: Quantitative Methods in Logistics Management. Krakow, Poland: AGH Press, 2014, p. 55-69.
ISBN 978-83-7464-713-7
[8] GALAZKA, M., JAKUBIAK, M. Simulation as a method of choosing the order picking concept. Logistics and Transport
[online]. 2010, 2(11), 2010, p. 81-88 [accessed 2019-07-17]. ISSN 1734-2015. Available from: https://bit.ly/2Z11j44
[9] KRAJCOVIC, M., GABAJOVA, G., MICIETA, B. Order picking using augmented reality. Communications -
Scientific Letters of the University of Zilina [online].2014, 16(3A), 106-111 [accessed 2019-07-17]. ISSN 1338-9777,
eISSN 2585-7878. Available from: http://komunikacie.uniza.sk/index.php/communications/article/view/552/517
[10] QUADER, S., CASTILLO-VILLAR, K. K. Design of an enhanced multi-aisle order picking system considering storage
assignments and routing heuristics. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing [online]. 2018, 50, p. 1-17
[accessed 2019-07-18]. ISSN 0736-5845. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2015.12.009
[11] PAN, J. CH.-H., SHIH, P.-H., WU, M.-H. Storage assignment problem with travel distance and blocking considerations
for a picker-to-part order picking system. Computers and Industrial Engineering [online]. 2012, 62(2), p. 527-535
[accessed 2019-07-18]. ISSN 0360-8352. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2011.11.001
[12] VENKITASUBRAMONY, R., ADIL, G. K. Design of an order picking warehouse factoring vertical travel and space
sharing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology [online]. 2017, 91(5-8), p. 1921-1934
[accessed 2019-07-18]. ISSN 1433-3015. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9879-3
[13] DAVARZANI, H., NORRMAN, A. Toward a relevant agenda for warehousing research: literature review and practitioners’
input. Logistics Research [online]. 2015, 8(1), p. 1-18 [accessed 2019-07-17]. ISSN 1865-035X. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12159-014-0120-1
[14] TAYLOR-SAKYI, K. Reliability testing strategy. reliability in software engineering [online]. 2016, p. 1-11 [accessed 2019-
07-22]. Available from: https://bit.ly/2MWVBOw
[15] BANGSOW, S. Manufacturing Simulation with Plant Simulation and SimTalk. Usage and Programming with
Examples and Solutions. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2010. ISBN 9783642050732.
[16] MUSA, J. D. Software reliability engineering: more reliable software faster and cheaper. 2. ed. Bloomington, Indiana:
AuthorHouse, 2004. ISBN 9781418493882.
[17] KOSTRZEWSKI, M. Modelowanie i badanie wybranych elementow i obiektow logistycznych z wykorzystaniem metod
symulacyjnych / Modeling and research on selected elements and full logistics facilities with the use of simulation
methods (in Polish). Warsaw, Poland: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej, 2018. ISBN 9788378147503

VOLUME 22 COMMUNICATIONS 2/2020

114 KOSTRZEWSKI et al.

[18] SEMENOV, I. N., FILINA-DAWIDOWICZ, L. Topology-based approach to the modernization of transport and logistics
systems with hybrid architecture. Part 1. Proof-of-concept study. Archives of Transport [online]. 2017, 43(3), p. 105-124
[accessed 2019-08-12]. ISSN 0866-9546. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0010.4229
[19] MICHLOWICZ, E., KARWAT, B. Implementation of total productive maintenance - TPM in an enterprise. Scientific
Journals Maritime University of Szczecin [online]. 2010, 24(96), p. 41-47 [accessed 2019-07-18]. ISSN 1733-8670.
Available from: https://bit.ly/2KKUpeb
[20] WAKIRU, J. et al. Maintenance optimization: application of remanufacturing and repair strategies. Procedia CIRP
[online]. 2018, 69, p. 899-904, ISSN 2212-8271. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.008
[21] SADOK, T., NIDHAL, R. Study of a manufacturing system with transport activities in urban area. IFAC-
PapersOnLine [online]. 2016, 49(3), p. 419-423 [accessed 2019-07-24]. ISSN 2405-8963. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.070
[22] KUKULKA, A., WIRKUS, M. Issues of measuring the course of batch production processes. Procedia
Engineering [online]. 2017, 182, p. 387-395 [accessed 2019-07-24]. ISSN 1877-7058. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.119
[23] FUSKO, M., RAKYTA, M., MANLIG, F. Reducing of intralogistics costs of spare parts and material of implementation
digitization in maintenance. Procedia Engineering [online]. 2017, 192, p. 213-218 [accessed 2019-07-24].
ISSN 1877-7058. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.037
[24] YAN, CH.-B., ZHAO, Q., HUANG, N., XIAO, G., LI, J. Line-side buffer assignment in general assembly line systems
with material handling. IFAC Proceedings Volumes [online]. 2009, 42(4), p. 1256-1261 [accessed 2019-07-24].
ISSN 1474-6670. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3182/20090603-3-RU-2001.0310
[25] BUKOWSKI, L. A. Zapewnienie ciaglosci dostaw w zmiennym i niepewnym otoczeniu / Ensuring continuity of
supplies in a changing and uncertain environment (in Polish). Dabrowa Gornicza: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wyzsza
Szkola Biznesu w Dabrowie Gorniczej, 2016. ISBN 9788364927508.
[26] LESZCZYNSKI, J. Modelowanie systemow i procesow transportowych / Modeling of transport systems and processes
(in Polish). Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej, 1999. ISBN 8386569093.
[27] GUTENBAUM, J. Modelowanie matematyczne systemow / Mathematical modelling of systems (in Polish). 3. ed.
Warsaw, Poland: Akademicka Oficyna Wydawnicza EXIT, 2003. ISBN 8387674532.
[28] KOSTRZEWSKI, M. Comparison of the order picking processes duration based on data obtained from the use of
pseudorandom number generator. Transportation Research Procedia. 2019, 40, p. 317-324 [accessed 2019-08-12].
ISSN 2352-1465. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.07.047
[29] FEDERATION EUROPEENNE DE LA MANUTENTION. Performance data of S/R-machines. Reliability. Availability.
1. ed. FEM 9.221. Frankfort: Germany, 2001.
[30] TRIVEDI, K. BOBBIO, A. Reliability and availability engineering: modeling, analysis and applications. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2017. ISBN 9781316163047.
[31] STANLEY, S. MTBF, MTTR, MTTF and FIT explanation of terms [online]. [Viewed 2019-07-22]. Available from:
https://bit.ly/2rBavBz
[32] RHEE, S. J., ISHII, K. Using cost based FMEA to enhance reliability and serviceability. Advanced Engineering
Informatics [online]. 2003, 17(3-4), p. 179-188 [accessed 2019-07-17]. ISSN 1474-0346. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2004.07.002
[33] BIROLINI, A. Reliability Engineering [online]. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2017. ISBN 978-3-662-54208-8.
[34] Inherent availability - Glossary of Defense Acquisition [online]. [Viewed 2019-07-23]. Available from:
https://bit.ly/31wvr9p
[35] Achieved availability - Glossary of Defense Acquisition [online]. [Viewed 2019-07-23]. Available from:
https://bit.ly/33mH0l8
[36] MMT - Glossary of Defense Acquisition [online]. [Viewed 2019-07-22]. Available from: https://bit.ly/2Me1Xte
[37] MLDT - Glossary of Defense Acquisition [online]. [Viewed 2019-07-23]. Available from: https://bit.ly/2YZLH0X
[38] Operation availability - Glossary of Defense Acquisition [online]. [Viewed 2019-07-23]. Available from:
https://bit.ly/2KIrgk4
[39] MISIUREK, B. MTBF, MTTR i MTTF - jak i po co stosowac te wskazniki? / MTBF, MTTR and MTTF - how and why use
these indicators? (in Polish). Sluzby Utrzymania Ruchu. 2017, 1. ISSN 1896-0677.

COMMUNICATIONS 2/2020 VOLUME 22