OPTIMISATION OF A CROSSDOCKING DISTRIBUTION CENTRE SIMULATION MODEL
Adrian Adewunmi, Uwe Aickelin
School of Computer Science
University of Nottingham
Nottingham
aqa@cs.nott.ac.uk, uwe.aickelin@nottingham.ac.uk
Keywords: Crossdocking,
Common Random Numbers

Simulation

Optimisation,

Abstract
This paper reports on continuing research into the
modelling of an order picking process within a
Crossdocking distribution centre using Simulation
Optimisation. The aim of this project is to optimise a
discrete event simulation model and to understand factors
that affect finding its optimal performance. Our initial
investigation revealed that the precision of the selected
simulation output performance measure and the number of
replications required for the evaluation of the optimisation
objective function through simulation influences the ability
of the optimisation technique. We experimented with
Common Random Numbers, in order to improve the
precision of our simulation output performance measure,
and intended to use the number of replications utilised for
this purpose as the initial number of replications for the
optimisation of our Crossdocking distribution centre
simulation model. Our results demonstrate that we can
improve the precision of our selected simulation output
performance measure value using Common Random
Numbers at various levels of replications. Furthermore, after
optimising our Crossdocking distribution centre simulation
model, we are able to achieve optimal performance using
fewer simulations runs for the simulation model which uses
Common Random Numbers as compared to the simulation
model which does not use Common Random Numbers.
1. INTRODUCTION
On occasions we find complex systems in the real world
which are too complicated to understand. In such situations
it is good practice to strip these systems of some of their
features, to leave us with physical models of the essential
components that make up such systems. This striping will
facilitate an understanding of the system under
consideration and provide an insight into its behaviour.
Simulation, which mimics the behaviour of real systems, is
valuable for the purpose of striping such systems with the
aim of understanding such systems and evaluating their
performance [Morgan 1984]. These evaluations are usually
in response to “what if” questions, which seek values for
certain performance measures. However, solutions to real

life problems take the form of “how to” questions, which
seek optimal expected performance subject to some
constraints [Azadivar 1999].
Our attention centres on studying a methodology, which
focuses on the evaluation of complex systems using discrete
event simulation, and the use optimization to obtain its
optimal performance. Preliminary studies indicate that there
are a number of factors that influence the capability of the
optimisation technique in attaining optimal performance
values for the simulation model of our complex system of
interest. These include the precision of the selected
simulation output performance measure and the number of
replications required for the optimisation process. We
propose to augment our simulation model with a variance
reduction technique, Common Random Numbers, primarily
to speed up the process of Simulation Optimisation. The
potential gains of this extension include an improvement in
the precision of our selected simulation output performance
measure, and the possibility of using the number of
replications utilised for this purpose as the initial number of
replications for the evaluation of the optimisation objective
function.
For simulation models, where the performance of such
models is measured by its precision, confidence interval half
width, for the selected output performance measure, it is
sometimes difficult to achieve a target precision at an
acceptable computational cost because of the variance
associated with the simulation output value. This variance
can be due to the inherent randomness of the complex
model under study or the technique applied in designing and
analysing such models [Wilson 1984]. Furthermore, it is
difficult, to estimate a fixed number of replications over a
single simulation run, which will achieve a target precision
for a selected output performance measure. This implies that
before running the simulation model, one cannot be sure,
how valid and precise the selected performance measure
output values will be or to estimate in advance the number
of replications necessary to yield the desired confidence
interval half width. Consequently, there is a need to reduce
the variance associated with the simulation output value in
order to improve its precision. This can potentially lead to
an estimate of the initial number of replications for our
Simulation Optimisation study.
A variance reduction technique is statistical technique for
improving the precision of a simulation output performance

measure without using more simulation, or, alternatively
achieve a desired precision with less simulation effort
[Kleijnen 1974]. An example of one of such techniques is
the Common Random Numbers which entails dedicating a
different stream of random numbers to each source of model
randomness [Kelton et al 2007]. Common Random
Numbers is useful for comparing two or more systems, and
is commonly used because of its simple and easy to
implement. We are using Common Random Numbers as a
technique for variance reduction in order to improve the
precision of our selected simulation output performance
measure, where the precision improvement is potentially
achieved with less replication, and the number of
replications utilised for this purpose can possibly be used as
the initial number of replications for the evaluation of the
optimisation objective function. This should probably lead
to fewer replications over a fixed number of simulation runs
being utilised for obtaining the optimal performance of our
simulation model.
From a survey of simulation literature the main techniques
for estimating the number of replications for improving the
precision of a selected simulation output performance
measure include the Rule of thumb [Law and McComas
1990], the Graphical method [Robinson 2004], and the
Confidence Interval (with specified precision) Method
[Banks et al. 2005]. For the purpose of our study, we have
chosen to derive an estimate of the initial number of
replications needed for the purpose of optimisation, using
the Confidence Interval (with specified precision) method,
where such an estimate will be reduced to the minimum
with the use of a variance reduction technique which should
adequately deal with the error associated with the estimation
of the simulation models true mean value. The main benefit
of using the Confidence Interval (with specified precision)
Method that is it is based on statistical inference to estimate
the number of replications required to achieve a target
precision for the simulation output performance measure.
Traditionally, warehouses have had the following functions,
for example, receiving, storage, order picking and shipping.
However, logistics companies have found storage and order
picking to be cost intensive and this has lead to a strategy of
keeping zero inventories. This strategy called is
Crossdocking and is based on a Just in Time (JIT)
philosophy which eliminates the storage function in a
warehouse while maintaining the receiving and shipping
activity [Gue 2001]. We are using the order picking process
within a Crossdocking distributions centre as our application
test bed because it provides a good representative of a
complex system that is characterised by randomness, which
can be modelled using discrete event simulation. It also
provides an opportunity to understand the behaviour of the
order picking process within a Crossdocking distribution
centre and identify sources of model randomness.

The Simulation Optimisation experiments are performed
using Arena® simulation software (Version 11) and
OptQuest® for Arena® optimisation software (Version 11).
This paper continues with a background study and details of
the Common Random Numbers experiments and results.
This is followed the Simulation Optimisation experiments
and results, ending with our conclusions and future work.
2. BACKGROUND
Usually at a Crossdocking distribution centre, trucks arrive
with consignment that is sorted, consolidated, and loaded
onto outbound trucks destined for customers. The customer
is usually predetermined before the product arrives and as
such there is no need for storage. The floor area is divided
into a break up area and a build up area, where sorting and
consolidation of consignment takes place, respectively.
Customer order types can vary as well as the techniques for
fulfilling them. The two main techniques for fulfilling
orders are either through manual order picking operatives or
automated order dispensers or on some occasions by both
[Napolitano 2000]. A Crossdocking distribution centre
system can exhibit some unpredictability in its behaviour
which can influence its overall performance. For example,
manual order picking operators can have different skill
levels and familiarity with picking certain types of orders,
while automated order picking machines failure are
sometimes random occurrences. These arbitrary events
amongst others can influence the overall volume of orders
fulfilled through the Crossdocking distribution centre
[Adewunmi et al 2008]. In such a situation, it becomes
important for the achievement of a smooth Crossdocking
operation, to pay particular attention to the order picking
process within the Crossdocking distribution system [Li et
al 2004].
For the modelling and analysis of the order picking function
within the Crossdocking distribution centre, and the
subsequent determination of its optimal performance, a
technique is required which can perform such an evaluation
in spite of the randomness inherent in such a complex
process. Such a methodology is Simulation Optimization,
which is a procedure for finding the best input variable
values from amongst all possibilities without explicitly
estimating each possibility [Fu 2002]. The major issues to
address, regarding this methodology are as follows:
• A logical expression does not exist for the
optimisation objective function and/or the
constraints.
• The optimisation objective function and/or
constraints are stochastic parameters of the
deterministic decision variables.
• Simulation models are stochastic in nature and
their output is not deterministic with respect to the
model parameters.

However, there are advantages in using Simulation
Optimization, for example:
• For discrete stochastic systems, the variance of the
response is controllable by various output analysis
techniques, i.e. variance reduction techniques.
• The complexity of the system being modelled does
not significantly affect the performance of the
optimization process.
• Simulation Optimisation provides the opportunity
to change the optimisation objective function
and/or constraints over a number of replications to
reflect alternative designs for the complex system
under consideration.
Using discrete event simulation to evaluate the performance
for each set of input parameter values of the Crossdocking
distribution centre involves the use of probabilistic
distributions as part of the input parameter estimation which
will result in some variance associated with the output
performance measure value. The greater the level of
variance in the output value, the lower the precision the
simulation output results will contain and by precision we
are referring to a specified confidence interval and a target
half width [Law and Kelton 2000]. Thus there is a need to
apply appropriate statistical techniques to the selected
simulation output performance measure for there to be a
satisfactory level of confidence in the conclusions obtained
through them. These statistical techniques are called
variance reduction techniques.
There are a variety of techniques for reducing variance
associated with an output performance measure, resulting
from the evaluation of the performance of complex systems
when using discrete event simulation which include: The
Common Random Numbers [Kelton et al 2007], Antithetic
Variates and Control Variates [Nelson 1990], Importance
Sampling and Stratified Sampling [Glasserman et al 2000],
and the Sequential Sampling Method [Law and Carson
1979]. For a background treatment to variance reduction
techniques, refer to [Kleijnen 1974], [Law and Kelton
2000]. The variance reduction technique we are considering
is the Common Random Numbers, which is usually used
when comparing two or more alternative systems. It also
entails dedicating a different stream of random numbers,
different from the default set up in most simulation
software, to each source of model randomness. It is based
on the principle that when comparing complex systems, it is
important to do so using the same experimental conditions
and any differences in selected performance measures is
attributable to differences in the simulation models and not
due to random variation in experimental conditions.
3. COMMON RANDOM NUMBERS
The Common Random Numbers was tested for its
efficiency as a method for improving the precision of our
selected simulation output performance measure. We are

particularly interested in finding out its performance in
relation to reducing the half width at a 95% confidence
interval for our output measure, Total Usage Cost, as well as
estimating the number of replications over a single run it
would utilise for this purpose.
3.1 Experiments
We ran the model under two experimental settings,
Model 1-1 and Model 1-2. The objective is to compare the
differences in half width over a number of replication levels
for our selected simulation output performance measure
with or without the use of Common Random Numbers. Here
is a brief description of the two simulation models which
have been used for experimental purposes:
a. Model 1-1: The entity arrival rate uses the
exponential probability distribution, and the manual /
automated order picking process uses the triangular
probability distribution. There are two skilled order
picking operatives and, two unskilled order picking
operatives at each order picking point. There are two
automated order picking dispensers, one at each picking
point. This model uses the default random number
stream generated by the Arena® simulation software.
b. Model 1-2: The entity arrival rate uses the
exponential probability distribution, and the manual /
automated order picking process uses the triangular
probability distribution. There are two skilled order
picking operatives and, two unskilled order picking
operatives at each order picking point. There are two
automated order picking dispensers, one at each picking
point. This model, also implements the Common
Random Numbers technique, i.e. dedicating a different
random number stream to sources of model variance,
different from the default random number stream used
by the random number generator [Kelton et al 2007].
The number of replications used for this experiment range
between 100 to 5000 and as previously mentioned, Run 1
(Model 1-1) uses the default random stream while, Runs 2,
(Model 1-2) uses independent random number stream which
has been defined by the user. The half width has been set at
a 95% confidence interval. This means in 95% of repeated
trials, the average mean value for the selected simulation
output performance measure value would be reported as
within ± the half width.
3.2 Results
From the results shown in Table 5, From the results
shown in Table 5, the sum of differences value (220.5) for
the half width of the simulation model, Model 1-2, which
uses Common Random Numbers, is less than sum of
differences value (241.8) for the half width for Model 1-1,
which does not use Common Random Numbers. This
strengthens our supposition that Common Random Numbers
is a useful technique for improving the precision of our

selected simulation output performance measure. We also
examined the differences in half with between Model 1-1
and Model 1-2 over the experimental range of replications,
100 to 5000, and observed that as the number of replications
increased, the difference in half with reduces at a
proportional rate, until the half with (38.2) of Model 1-1 is
slightly smaller than the half width (38.5) of Model 1-2.
This means that with more replicating, it is possible to
reverse the gains of half with reduction using Common
Random Numbers for our selected output performance
measure, but we cannot determine in advance a reasonable
amount of replications which will be sufficient to achieve
our target precision. In our opinion also, 5000 replications is
not a practical amount of replication for experimentation
purposes. So a decision has to be made which criteria for
improving that precision of our selected simulation output
performance is more important that the other, or
alternatively we can seek to deal precisely with half width
reduction which utilises minimal computational effort. We
have therefore decided to concentrate our efforts on
experimenting with a combination of variance reduction
techniques, including Common Random Numbers, which
have shown a potential to achieve a reduction in half width
using fewer replications, see [Nelson 1990].
IDENTIFIER
Total
Usage Cost
No. of
REPS

100
500
1000
2500
5000
Sum of Diff.
VRT

No
CRN
Model
1-1

CRN
Model
1-2

0.950
C. I.
HALF
WIDTH
280
122
86.4
54.2
38.2
241.8

0.950
C. I.
HALF
WIDTH
259
114
82.8
53.9
38.5
220.5

Sum of
Diff.
REPS
21
8
3.6
0.3
-0.3
32.6

Table 5. An analysis of the reduction of half width over a
range of replications.
4. CROSSDOCKING SIMULATION OPTIMISATION
The following illustrates the optimisation of the
Crossdocking distribution centre simulation model, with and
without the use of the Common Random Numbers. The
main idea is to experiment with the optimisation of the
Crossdocking discrete event simulation model with a view
to determining the efficiency of Common Random Numbers
as a variance reduction technique and to investigate its
influence on the computational effort required for the
Simulation Optimisation process, i.e. the utilised number of
simulation runs while the number of available of
replications is fixed.

4.1 Experiments
Below are the experimental settings for the
Crossdocking distribution centre Simulation Optimisation
procedure:
a. Number of fixed simulation runs for optimisation:
100
b. Number of replications for optimisation: 3, 4, and 5
c. Number of fixed replications for the simulation
model: 500
d. Maximum number of automated dispensers: 4
e. Maximum number of manual operatives: 6
The Crossdocking distribution centre Simulation
Optimisation problem can be formulated, as follow:
Minimise Total Usage Cost
Subject to the following constraints:
Automated dispensers ≤ 6
Manual operatives ≤ 4
We chose to accept the default number of simulation runs
suggested by the OptQuest® for Arena® optimisation
software, 100. The number of replications for the
optimisation runs has been varied between 3, 4 and 5. This
is based on simulation literature which suggests this
quantity of replication i.e. the Rule of Thumb Law and
[McComas 1990]. We have used this as our initial reference
point, but our interest is in using the number of replications
for achieving a target precision for a simulation output
performance measure as the estimated initial number of
replications for the optimisation procedure. The row in table
6, best solution simulation runs, indicates the number of
evaluations of the optimisation objective function through
simulation required to obtain an optimal solution [April et al
2003]. Here is a brief description of the two simulation
models which have been used for experimental purposes:
a. Model 1-1: The entity arrival rate uses the
exponential probability distribution, and the manual /
automated order picking process uses the triangular
probability distribution. There are two skilled order
picking operatives and, two unskilled order picking
operatives at each order picking point. There are two
automated order picking dispensers, one at each picking
point. This model uses the default random number
stream generated by the Arena® simulation software.
b. Model 1-2: The entity arrival rate uses the
exponential probability distribution, and the manual /
automated order picking process uses the triangular
probability distribution. There are two skilled order
picking operatives and, two unskilled order picking
operatives at each order picking point. There are two
automated order picking dispensers, one at each picking
point. This model, also implements the Common
Random Numbers technique, i.e. dedicating a different
random number stream to sources of model variance,

different from the default random number stream used
by the random number generator [Kelton et al 2007].
4.2 Results
Table 6 summarises the results of the optimisation
of the Crossdocking distribution centre simulation model.
After making 3 optimisation runs i.e. Run 1, Run 2 and Run
3 of the two simulation models Model 1-1 (No Common
Random Numbers) and Model 1-2 (With Common Random
Numbers), the difference in solution quality between the
two simulation models Run 1, is £2342, Run 2, is (£1515),
and Run 3, Model 1-1,I s (£563). The difference in Total
Usage Cost value demonstrates that for our experimental
settings, the quality of solution is better with the Model 1-1
as compared with Model 1-2. However, this difference
progressively reduces which indicated that there is a
possibility that by increasing the number of replications for
optimisation, the quality of Model 1-2’s solutions may
improve and become better that currently achieved with a
maximum number of 5 replications. Model 1-2 found its
optimal solution for Run 1 at simulation run 7, Run 2 at
simulation run 1 and Run 3 at simulation run 15. Model 1-2
found its optimal solution for Run 1 at simulation run 42,
Run 2 at simulation run 21 and Run 3 at simulation run 31.
We also discovered that Model 1-2 with the Common
Random Numbers achieves an optimal performance value
using considerably less simulation runs as compared with
Model 1-1, and sometimes with great order of magnitude.
This type of difference is important for solving Simulation
Optimisation problems where the level of complexity with a
single simulation evaluation of the optimisation objective
function can be computationally expensive.
IDENTIFIER
Total Usage Cost

No CRN
Model 1-1
CRN
Model 1-2
Difference in
Best Solution
Best Solution
Simulation Runs
No CRN
Model 1-1
Best Solution
Simulation Runs
CRN
Model 1-2
OPTIMISATION
Simulation Runs
No. of REPS
SIMULATION
No. of REPS

Run 1
BEST
SOLUTION
£

Run 2
BEST
SOLUTION
£

Run 3
BEST
SOLUTION
£

151,646

151,951

152,523

153,988

153,466

153,086

(2342)

(1515)

(563)

42

21

31

7

1

15

100
3

100
4

100
5

500

500

500

5. CONCLUSION
The aim of this research project is to optimise a
Crossdocking distribution centre simulation model and to
understand the factors that affect the location of optimal
solutions. Initial research reveals that there are a number of
factors that influence the ability of the optimisation
technique in finding optimal solutions. These include the
precision of the selected simulation output performance
measure and the numbers of replications required for the
evaluation of the optimisation objective function through
simulation. Our results demonstrate that we can improve the
precision of our selected simulation output performance
measure value using Common Random Numbers but this
requires a large number of replications over a single
simulation run. However, after optimising our Crossdocking
distribution centre simulation model with and without the
use of Common Random Numbers, we are able to achieve
comparable results from both models using less simulation
runs for the simulation model which includes the Common
Random Numbers. Future work will be to experiment with a
combination of variance reduction techniques for the
purpose of dealing with the imprecision in the selected
simulation output performance measure as well as exploring
the potential it provides for speed up this process, i.e.
minimising the initial number of replications required for
the optimisation of the Crossdocking distribution centre
simulation model. We will also like to determine using
rigorous statistical test, an estimate for a recommended
number of simulation runs for a typical Simulation
Optimisation process. Furthermore, we will investigate the
potential of using the number of replications required to
improve the precision of the simulation output performance
measure as the initial number of replications required for the
evaluation of the optimisation objective function through
simulation.
References

Table 7. Crossdocking Simulation Optimisation for various
number of replication levels

Adewunmi A., Aickelin U., and Byrne M. 2008. “An
Investigation of the Sequential Sampling Method for
Crossdocking Simulation Output Variance Reduction”.
Proceedings of the 2008 OR Society Simulation Workshop.
Operational Research Society, Birmingham, UK, pp: 87 96.
April, J., J. Kelly, F. Glover and M. Laguna 2003.
“Simulation-based optimization: practical introduction to
simulation optimization”. Proceedings of the 2003 Winter
Simulation Conference. New Orleans, Louisiana. pp 71 78
Azadivar
F.,
1999.
“Simulation
Optimization
Methodologies”. Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation
Conference. Phoenix, Arizona. pp. 93-100.

Banks, J., J. S. Carson II, B. L. Nelson, and D. M. Nicol.
2005. “Discrete-event system simulation”. 4th ed. Pear-son
Prentice Hall.

Wilson. J.R. 1984. “Variance reduction for digital
simulation”. American Journal of Mathematical and
Management Sciences, Vol.4,No.3-4,pp.277-312.

Fu, M. 2002. “Optimization for Simulation: Theory vs.
Practice” (Feature Article), INFORMS Journal on
Computing, Vol.14, No.3, 192-215, 2002.

Author Biographies

Glasserman, P., Heidelberger, P. and Shahabuddin, S. 2000.
“Variance Reduction Techniques for Estimating Value-atRisk”. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE © 2000INFORMS,
Volume 46, No. 10, Pages 1349 – 1364.

ADRIAN ADEWUNMI is currently a PhD candidate of
Computer Science and a member of the Intelligent
Modelling and Analysis group (IMA), School of Computer
Science, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus,
Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK. URL:
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~aqa/

Gue R. K. 2001. “Cross docking: Just In Time for
Distribution”. Graduate School of Business & Public Policy,
Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, CA 93943.
Kelton, D.W., Sadowski, P.R., and Sturrock, D.T., 2007.
“Simulation with Arena”. 4ed. NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Kleijnen, J.P.C.
Simulation”, Pt.

1974. “Statistical Techniques in
I, Marcel Dekker, New York.

Law, A.M, Carson, J.S. 1979. “A Sequential Procedure for
Determining the Length of a Steady-State Simulation”.
Operations Research, Vol. 27, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1979), pp.
1011-1025.
Law, A. M., and M. G. McComas. 1990. “Secrets of
successful simulation studies”. Industrial Engineering
22:47-48,51-53,72.
Law, A.M, Kelton W.D. 2000. “Simulation modelling and
analysis”.3d ed. New York: McGraw – Hill.
Li Y., Lim A., and Rodrigues B. 2004. “Cross docking - JIT
scheduling with time windows”. Journal of the Operational
Research Society (2004) Vol. 55, pp 1342- 1351.
Morgan, B.J.T. 1984. “Elements of simulation”. London:
Chapman and Hall
Napolitano, M. 2000. “Making the Move to Cross
Docking”. A practical guide to planning, designing, and
implementing a cross dock operation. Warehousing
Education and Research Council, IL.ISBN 1-892663-18-X.
Nelson, B. L. 1990. “Variance Reduction in the Presence of
Initial-Condition Bias”," IIE Transactions Vol 22 pp: 340350.
Robinson S. 2004. Simulation: “The Practice of Model
Development and Use”. Wiley, Chichester, UK

PROF. UWE AICKELIN is a Professor of Computer
Science and the head of the Intelligent Modelling and
Analysis group (IMA), School of Computer Science,
University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road,
Nottingham,
NG8
1BB,
UK.
URL:
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~uxa/

