Victoria Kickham started her career as a newspaper reporter in the Boston area before moving into B2B journalism. She has covered manufacturing, distribution and supply chain issues for a variety of publications in the industrial and electronics sectors, and now writes about everything from forklift batteries to omnichannel business trends for DC Velocity.
Choosing the best sortation system for your warehouse or distribution center (DC) depends on many factors—and it can be an especially daunting task in light of today’s accelerated e-commerce activity and the growing array of high-tech solutions available from manufacturers and systems integrators. But before making plans to invest in that cool system you saw on YouTube or that cutting-edge solution that was demoed at a recent industry trade show, make sure to analyze your facility’s needs and future demands to ensure you make the best decision.
“The one critical [issue] is always data, data, data,” says Andy Lockhart, director of strategic engagement, warehousing solutions at Vanderlande, a company that supplies automated material handling solutions, including sortation systems, for airports, warehouses, and parcel distribution facilities. “What are you trying to sort? How big are the items? How much are you sorting, that kind of thing. Data [is essential] to designing the right system.”
The right data can determine whether you need a simple sorting solution that’s been around for decades or a more advanced system designed for complex operations—or a combination of different technologies. And in some cases, emerging robotic solutions may be just what you need to get the job done.
MATERIALS AND THROUGHPUT
Sortation is the process of distributing items—by piece, case, tote, or polybag—to specific locations in a facility for packing, shipping, or routing to another destination in a company’s network. The process is common to every warehouse and DC, and at some point, managers will need to evaluate how well their system is working and whether or not it’s time to change or upgrade it.
The first step in that process is to look at what, exactly, is being sorted: What is the size range, the shape of the items, the kind of packaging each item comes in, and the throughput requirement? The answers to those questions will help determine what type of sorter is best for a particular operation, according to Dean Terrell, vice president of engineering at logistics automation and software company Fortna.
For example, paddle and push sorters can be used to sort a wide range of items in rigid or semi-rigid packaging: Paddles swing outward to divert an item onto a particular path, and pushers extend to do the same. These types of sorters have been in use for decades and represent the most basic, and often most affordable, sorting solutions, Terrell says.
At the other end of the spectrum, crossbelt sorters are ideal for handling parcels, polybags, apparel, and fragile items. These conveyor-based systems sort the items using “crossbelts”—small segments of conveyor that move products from one location to another within the system.
Other options include tray-based sorters—often ideal for sorting odd-shaped items—and sliding shoe sorters, which convey items on a surface of aluminum extruded slats, each equipped with a pusher. A series of pushers can be used in succession to move the items off the sorter and divert them onto a particular path.
“If the product is shipped in round cylinders, well that’s a hard item to handle, so a tray sorter is best for that,” Terrell explains. “If there are a lot of polybags, [flat items], and things of that nature, we would look toward a crossbelt sorter.”
Throughput makes a big difference in system selection. Paddle and push sorters are best for low-throughput applications, such as sorting boxes or totes to loading doors for shipping (although they can be used in high-throughput applications as well, according to Terrell). Crossbelt sorters, on the other hand, are best for high-throughput applications—even those involving small or fragile items—as well as in operations that are sorting a wide range of products, such as e-commerce fulfillment. Crossbelt sorters provide the most gentle and accurate method of sortation, even at high speeds, Terrell says. Sliding shoe sorters offer similar benefits for variable and high-speed operations, especially when sorting products of a variety of sizes, shapes, and weights, the experts say. Warehouse managers should also consider the number of destinations they are sorting to, as this increases the complexity of the sorting process and may drive the need for a higher-end solution.
ROBOTICS TO THE RESCUE?
Advances in robotic technology are influencing the sorting process as well. Both Terrell and Lockhart say there is growing interest among warehouse and DC managers in incorporating autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) into the sorting process, much as e-commerce giant Amazon.com has done at some of its sortation centers nationwide. At those sites, workers place packages on top of a shuttle-like AMR equipped with a conveyor belt; the AMR then drives the package to a designated location and uses the conveyor belt to propel the package into a chute, which funnels the item to its next destination.
“You’ve effectively got picked goods, each one placed onto a single AMR,” Lockhart explains. “[The AMR] will then take that product to the right exit point. It’s like a shoe on a traditional sorter, dropping [the item] where it needs to go for shipping.”
Amazon’s accomplishments and the “cool factor” are driving much of the interest in AMR sorting, but there’s a long way to go before the process sees much uptake at even the largest, busiest DCs. Terrell says customers are beginning to test AMR solutions and that the future looks bright for large-scale adoption—but only if the customer can justify the investment compared to other automated sorting solutions. He gives an example: Some initial attempts at AMR sortation have involved the construction of expensive mezzanines on which fleets of mobile robots sort items into chutes that funnel the packages into containers below. The concept is sound, Terrell says, but the size and cost of the mezzanine structure can be prohibitive. Proper planning and design is essential to making it work.
“I don’t think suppliers or end-users have figured out the best way to apply AMRs for large-scale sortation just yet, but I do see applications for that in the future,” Terrell says, explaining that the technology is best suited for low- to medium-throughput operations that have a high number of sort destinations. “As the technology continues to improve and the cost continues to come down, robotic sortation will become feasible for more and more applications.”
In the end, it comes down to applying the right technology where it makes sense in your facility—and Lockhart reiterates the importance of planning and preparation in figuring that out.
“How much growth are you planning for? Hopefully, you have more than just next year’s time horizon in your plan,” he says. “I’ve talked to people who are mapping out a 20-year time horizon. It’s important that you size things right or that you build [a system] so you have expansion capabilities down the line. You have to understand your business, your process, and your data so you can design the right solution.”
The Port of Oakland has been awarded $50 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) to modernize wharves and terminal infrastructure at its Outer Harbor facility, the port said today.
Those upgrades would enable the Outer Harbor to accommodate Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCVs), which are now a regular part of the shipping fleet calling on West Coast ports. Each of these ships has a handling capacity of up to 24,000 TEUs (20-foot containers) but are currently restricted at portions of Oakland’s Outer Harbor by aging wharves which were originally designed for smaller ships.
According to the port, those changes will let it handle newer, larger vessels, which are more efficient, cost effective, and environmentally cleaner to operate than older ships. Specific investments for the project will include: wharf strengthening, structural repairs, replacing container crane rails, adding support piles, strengthening support beams, and replacing electrical bus bar system to accommodate larger ship-to-shore cranes.
Commercial fleet operators are steadily increasing their use of GPS fleet tracking, in-cab video solutions, and predictive analytics, driven by rising costs, evolving regulations, and competitive pressures, according to an industry report from Verizon Connect.
Those conclusions come from the company’s fifth annual “Fleet Technology Trends Report,” conducted in partnership with Bobit Business Media, and based on responses from 543 fleet management professionals.
The study showed that for five consecutive years, at least four out of five respondents have reported using at least one form of fleet technology, said Atlanta-based Verizon Connect, which provides fleet and mobile workforce management software platforms, embedded OEM hardware, and a connected vehicle device called Hum by Verizon.
The most commonly used of those technologies is GPS fleet tracking, with 69% of fleets across industries reporting its use, the survey showed. Of those users, 72% find it extremely or very beneficial, citing improved efficiency (62%) and a reduction in harsh driving/speeding events (49%).
Respondents also reported a focus on safety, with 57% of respondents citing improved driver safety as a key benefit of GPS fleet tracking. And 68% of users said in-cab video solutions are extremely or very beneficial. Together, those technologies help reduce distracted driving incidents, improve coaching sessions, and help reduce accident and insurance costs, Verizon Connect said.
Looking at the future, fleet management software is evolving to meet emerging challenges, including sustainability and electrification, the company said. "The findings from this year's Fleet Technology Trends Report highlight a strong commitment across industries to embracing fleet technology, with GPS tracking and in-cab video solutions consistently delivering measurable results,” Peter Mitchell, General Manager, Verizon Connect, said in a release. “As fleets face rising costs and increased regulatory pressures, these technologies are proving to be indispensable in helping organizations optimize their operations, reduce expenses, and navigate the path toward a more sustainable future.”
Businesses engaged in international trade face three major supply chain hurdles as they head into 2025: the disruptions caused by Chinese New Year (CNY), the looming threat of potential tariffs on foreign-made products that could be imposed by the incoming Trump Administration, and the unresolved contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), according to an analysis from trucking and logistics provider Averitt.
Each of those factors could lead to significant shipping delays, production slowdowns, and increased costs, Averitt said.
First, Chinese New Year 2025 begins on January 29, prompting factories across China and other regions to shut down for weeks, typically causing production to halt and freight demand to skyrocket. The ripple effects can range from increased shipping costs to extended lead times, disrupting even the most well-planned operations. To prepare for that event, shippers should place orders early, build inventory buffers, secure freight space in advance, diversify shipping modes, and communicate with logistics providers, Averitt said.
Second, new or increased tariffs on foreign-made goods could drive up the cost of imports, disrupt established supply chains, and create uncertainty in the marketplace. In turn, shippers may face freight rate volatility and capacity constraints as businesses rush to stockpile inventory ahead of tariff deadlines. To navigate these challenges, shippers should prepare advance shipments and inventory stockpiling, diversity sourcing, negotiate supplier agreements, explore domestic production, and leverage financial strategies.
Third, unresolved contract negotiations between the ILA and the USMX will come to a head by January 15, when the current contract expires. Labor action or strikes could cause severe disruptions at East and Gulf Coast ports, triggering widespread delays and bottlenecks across the supply chain. To prepare for the worst, shippers should adopt a similar strategy to the other potential January threats: collaborate early, secure freight, diversify supply chains, and monitor policy changes.
According to Averitt, companies can cushion the impact of all three challenges by deploying a seamless, end-to-end solution covering the entire path from customs clearance to final-mile delivery. That strategy can help businesses to store inventory closer to their customers, mitigate delays, and reduce costs associated with supply chain disruptions. And combined with proactive communication and real-time visibility tools, the approach allows companies to maintain control and keep their supply chains resilient in the face of global uncertainties, Averitt said.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.