What is the difference between 4 way shuttle and ASRS?

First, most of the 4 way shuttles currently on the market can only reciprocate on a linear track, but the four-way shuttle is different. It is equivalent to an intelligent warehouse robot that can pass wireless networks and warehouse management systems (WMS) connect, and then cooperate with the hoist to go to any position in the warehouse, so that it is a three-dimensional shuttle in the true sense.

For more 4 way speedshuttle systeminformation, please contact us. We will provide professional answers.

Second, the flexibility of the four-way shuttle three-dimensional warehouse is also very high. It can not only change the lanes at will, but also adjust the operating capacity of the system by arbitrarily increasing or decreasing the number of four-way shuttles. In addition, because the four-way shuttle asrs system is modular and standardized, all four-way shuttles can be replaced with each other, and the task of the problematic four-way shuttle can be continued by any other four-way shuttle.

Third, the safety and stability of the four-way shuttle asrs warehouse system is higher than that of the traditional shuttle garage. For example, if a hoist breaks down, the four-way shuttle system can use other hoists to continue to complete the work, and the system's operating capacity is hardly affected.

Fourth, the four-way shuttle asrs warehouse system is also very advantageous in terms of overall cost because the cost of an ordinary multi-layer shuttle or miniload stacker system is closely related to the number of roadways, if the order volume is increased without increasing the inventory, each additional roadway in these systems will increase the corresponding cost. Produced, but if you use a four-way shuttle system, you only need to increase the number of four-way shuttles, so the overall cost will be lower.

In addition, the capacity curves of the multi-layer shuttle system and the miniload stacker system change in a trapezoid shape, that is, when the number of equipment increases, its operating capacity will increase step by step rather than linearly increase, but it is four-way The capacity curve of the shuttle system can be adjusted very smoothly. In other words, the four-way shuttle system is not only suitable for low-traffic, high-density storage scenarios, but also suitable for high-traffic, high-density storage and picking scenarios. The four-way shuttle system can provide the best warehousing solution to meet customer warehousing needs.

When selecting an automated storage method for pallets, two primary options commonly emerge: the ASRS stacker crane and the shuttle-based pallet storage system. While the ASRS is a well-established and proven technology, shuttle-based systems have also matured in recent years. Shuttle-based systems offer multi-deep storage with multiple shuttles and lifts, allowing for very high throughput levels. On the other hand, ASRS compensates for storage density by reaching heights of 40+ meters. However, if the decision must be solely based on storage efficiency, which option should be chosen and why?

Intuitively, one might assume that shuttle-based systems have higher storage efficiency, as they can accommodate depths of 25+ pallets in a lane. But is this truly the case? This article will explore three scenarios using line graphs to ascertain when one storage method becomes more efficient in terms of square meters per pallet (Sqm/Pallet) requirement compared to the other. Before delving into the scenarios, a few assumptions need to be established to prevent endless speculations.

Assumptions:

The company is the world’s best Pallet Racking China factory supplier. We are your one-stop shop for all needs. Our staff are highly-specialized and will help you find the product you need.

1. Pallet dimensions: 1x1.2x1.2 meters (Length x Width x Height)
2. Shuttle systems can accommodate a maximum of 25 pallet positions in depth
3. ASRS does not employ shuttles for achieving multi-depth storage and is limited to a maximum depth of 2 pallets
4. Throughput requirements do not influence the decision-making process
5. Shuttle systems are restricted by lifts, with a maximum height of 25 meters

Understanding the Graphs:

1. X-axis: Lane depth per track (Combining right and left sides of the track)
2. Y-axis: Sqm/Pallet

The graph illustrates a fixed 2-depth configuration for ASRS, comparing it to a shuttle-based storage system with depths ranging from 1 to 25. This approach allows for identifying the point at which the Sqm/Pallet of the shuttle-based system intersects the Sqm/Pallet line of the ASRS. The depth per track (combined right and left sides) at which the shuttle system's Sqm/Pallet becomes lower than that of the ASRS signifies when the shuttle-based system becomes more efficient than the ASRS.

The three scenarios chosen for analysis are those frequently encountered during solution design. However, readers can apply this concept to devise scenarios tailored to their specific requirements.

Scenario 1: Shuttle-based system at 25 meters height and ASRS at 25 meters

In this scenario, the break-even point for the shuttle-based system is at a depth of 5 (achievable through combinations such as 3 and 2 depths). If the depth exceeds 3 on each side of the track, the shuttle-based system becomes more storage-efficient than the ASRS.

Scenario 2: Shuttle-based system at 25 meters height and ASRS at 30 meters

In this scenario, the break-even point for the shuttle-based system is at a depth of 14 (achievable through 7 depths on each side). Although exceeding 7 depths on each side results in higher storage efficiency for the shuttle-based system, the marginal increase in rate of efficiency of shuttle based system with higher depths is lower than in Scenario 1. Overall, the improvement at greater depths is minimal, making either system a viable choice.

Scenario 3: Shuttle-based system at 25 meters height and ASRS at 40 meters

In this scenario, the shuttle-based system never reaches a break-even point with the ASRS. This is due to ASRS's vertical space utilization becoming significantly more advantageous than the depths achievable by the shuttle-based system. Consequently, ASRS is the clear choice in this case.

In reality, designers must consider numerous factors beyond storage efficiency when making decisions, such as equipment specifications, throughput requirements, SKU batches, FIFO and LIFO needs, building limitations, and more. Nonetheless, prioritizing storage efficiency as the initial parameter can serve as a fundamental criterion for selecting the appropriate automated storage mode.

For more information, please visit radio shuttle cart.