## 4 Results
### Automated Guided Vehicle--Capacity Detection  
Furthermore, as part of the evaluation, we measured the real capacity of individual stations for each automated guided vehicle starting with the following:  
* A forked automated guided vehicle, the width of which is 0.937 m, but the dimensions of the boxes are 1 m. So, within the marshalling, if one automated guided vehicle was to be scrapped, the free marshalling would be 3.275 m, i.e., within the automated guided vehicle alone this would work out as the following:
* A total of 3.275/0.937 = 3.49, respectively, three automated guided trolleys within the width;
* Within the length, if the length of the habitat area is 5.371 and the length of the trolley is 2.386, then we have obtained two trolleys per length by the ratio;
* For a total of six forklifts for the entire area, towable automated guided vehicle, the width of which is 0.67 m.
* In the case of a red station:
* With a width of 6.157 m, this would result in 6.157/0.67 = 9 automated guided vehicles;
* A length of 8122 m would result in 8122/117 = 6 automated guided vehicle trolleys;
* This would add up to a total of 54 automated guided vehicle trolleys for the whole area. * In the case of yellow station:
* With a width of 7.89 m, this would result in 7.89/0.67 = 11 automated guided vehicles;
* With a length of 1.179 m, this would be 1.179/1.17 = 1 automated guided trolley;
* A total of 11 automated guided trolleys for the whole area. * In the case of the towing trolley on the coatings, we considered that the stationing would be from the same place to save space provided:
* That if the width of the area is 3.93 m, this would work out to 3.93/0.67 = 5 automated guided trolleys; \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1 st Variant (If the Foam Trolleys Were at**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2 nd Variant (If the Foam Trolleys Were**} \\  & **the Back—Red Variant)** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Opposite—Dark Yellow Variant)**} \\ \hline
**Step** & **Distance (m)** & **Time (s)** & **Distance (m)** & **Time (s)** \\ \hline Forklift from sequencing with empty & & & & \\ trolleys from the back line & 76.77 & 38.38 & 76.77 & 38.38 \\ From foam FB lower & 68.71 & 52.85 & 18.47 & 14.21 \\ From foam RB lower & 65.83 & 50.64 & 17.03 & 13.10 \\ From foam FR upper & 62.68 & 48.22 & 15.59 & 11.99 \\ From foam RR upper & 60.85 & 46.81 & 14.54 & 11.19 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 19: _Cont._ \begin{tabular}{l l} \(\circ\) & If the length of the area is 3.275 m, this would be 3.275/1.17 = 2 automated guided trolleys; \\ \(\circ\) & A total of 10 automated guided vehicles for the whole area. \\ \end{tabular}   
Knowing the capacities of the applied trolleys within a station, we determined what the optimal number of trolleys at each station would be. The optimal quantities of trolleys will be shown in the Table 20.  
Based on Table 20, we have considered the complete number of automated guided vehicles in the company as eight units. We have colour coded the different units/workplaces within the application of automated guided vehicles by referring to the previous chapters. The reasons for the final number of units will be illustrated as follows. In the context of the towing trolleys at the foam workplace, we have considered four units in both cases, due to the reason that each workplace or preparing employee has its own automated guided vehicle trolley. In the case of applying and comparing the turnaround times, the application of automated guided vehicles in both cases would result in a slight slowdown compared to if the turnaround was performed by a human.