Conceptual Design Study for the Electric Cargo … Design...Conceptual Design Study for the Electric Cargo Conveyor (ECCO) System Final Review Meeting. 2 ... Interference with several

1

Presented to

The Port of Los Angeles

June 15, 2006

Conceptual Design Study for the Electric Cargo Conveyor (ECCO) System

Final Review Meeting

2

Agenda – June 15, 2006

• Arrive at GA and check in 9:30 AM

• Tour GA maglev test track 9:45-10:30 AM

• Welcome (Mike Reed, GA VP) 10:45 AM

• Introductory comments (Port of LA) 10:50 AM

• Project overview (Sam Gurol, GA) 11:00-11:10 AM

• System requirements (Bob Baldi, GA) 11:10-11:30 AM

• System architecture (Ken James, CSULB) 11:30-11:50 AM

• Buffet lunch served (working) 11:50 AM

• Planned alignment (Tom Riester, Mackin) 12:00-12:30 PM

• Maglev components (Phil Jeter, GA) 12:30-12:50 PM

• Comm. & signaling (Denny Pascoe, US&S) 12:50-1:15 PM

• Budgetary cost estimates (Daryl Bever, GA) 1:15-1:40 PM

• Next steps (Sam Gurol, GA) 1:40-1:50 PM

• Concluding remarks (Port of LA) 1:50-2:00 PM

• Adjourn 2:00 PM

3

Project Overview

Sam Gurol

Director, Maglev Systems

General Atomics

4

The General Atomics ECCO Study Team

Civil EngineeringSystem Architecture

Communications & SignalingMagnetics Analysis

Prime Contractor and

Maglev Systems

5

Design Study Schedule

Mar

• Kick-off Meeting / Site Visit

• Preliminary Requirements Document

•Conceptual System Design

•Cost and Schedule Development

• Final Report

•Milestones

•Requirements Document Published

•Final Report Published

•Presentation of Results

Apr May June

2006

6

Maglev Engineers Walking the Alignment – 4/20/06

7

• Container trips per day: 5,000 (2,500 per direction)

• Container size: Up to 40’

• Container weight: 30,482 Kg (67,200 lbs)

• Operation hours: 24 hours

• Alignment length: 7.5 km (4.7 miles)*

* (Terminal Island to SCIG)

Port of LA Study Guidelines

8

Study Conclusions

• Maglev technology is feasible – proven components

• It can be built at the port – alignment feasible

• The complete 4.7 mile system will cost ~ $ 575M

• Costs include channel/highway crossings, vehicles, power systems, switches, and system ends (w/o cargo handling equipment).

• Design and construction will take 4 years, assuming full funding, and no environmental delays.

• Annual O&M costs will be ~ $ 13M

• Lifetime: > 75 years for civil structures

9

System Requirements& Preliminary Technical Selections

Bob Baldi

Senior Program Manager

General Atomics

10

• Magnetic levitation, guidance, propulsion (extrapolated from Urban Maglev Program)

• Regenerative braking

• Central control room operation (driverless vehicles)

• All weather operation

• Grade Capability: 10%

• Grade separated guideway

• Single chassis, no consist

• Single stack containers

Preliminary Technical Selections

11

• Magnetic levitation height: 2.5 cm (1.0 inch)

• Length of levitation array: 13.6 m (45 feet)

• Minimum turn radius: 100m (328 feet)

• High speed turn radius: 800m (2,624 feet)

• Propulsion Energy Supply: Dual source

Preliminary Technical Selections (cont.)

12

Preliminary Technical Selections (cont.)

• Maximum Speed: 145 kmph (90 mph)

• Acceleration: 1.6 m/s2

• Trip time (high-speed section): 3.5 min.

• Average speed: ~122 kmph (~80 mph)

• Headway: 20 seconds

• Maximum g loading:� Longitudinal, vertical, lateral (nominal): 0.16 g (1.6 m/s2)

� Longitudinal (emergency): 0.36 g (3.6 m/s2)

• External Noise Limit: 72 dBA

• Availability: > 99%

13

Vehicles in High Speed Section

SwitchSwitch

Loading AreaLoading Area

Loading Area

Overall System Architecture

• 2,500 containers/direction/day

• Double track system

• 36 vehicles per track (72 total)

• 18 vehicles being loaded/unloaded

• Three regimes:

� Low speed (loading/unloading)

� Acceleration/deceleration

� High speed cruise (90 mph, 20 sec. headway)

14

System Architecture

Ken James

Professor, Electrical Engineering

Professor, Computer Science

California State University Long Beach

15

• Conveyor Technology Infers Two Designs

• A Continuous Loop

• A Bidirectional Conveyor

• Bidirectional Approach Selected

•Minimized Required Terminal Space

•Facilitated Unload/Load Process

•Requires Bifurcated Ends to Effectively Use Single, High-Speed Guideway

• Operating Scenario Based on Bidirectional Approach

•Timing Flow Analysis Performed by General Atomics

•Included Technology, Safety, and Switching Considerations

LA Port ECCO System Architecture

16

•Two Parallel, Bidirectional Systems, Each with 36 Carriages are Required to Meet Throughput Requirements

•Systems Travel between Port and SCIG Terminals 180º out of Phase

• Two 18 Carriage Sections on Switched Spurs at Terminals

• Evens Unload/Load Labor and Equipment Requirements


17


18

System Architecture (container flow timing)

Key

Acceleration

High Speed Mode - South

High Speed Mode - North

Load/Unload - South End

Load/Unload - North End

Wait

Container Carriages 1 through 36 for Each of the Two Parallel Conveyor Systems

Container Carriages Round-Trip Cycle of 32+ Minutes

19

• Railed Straddle Cranes Considered Most Effective at Both Terminals

• Unload/Load Process on Spur Coupled with a Container Storage Magazine

ECCO Unload/Load Process

• Would Provide “Slack” between the Somewhat Random Truck Arrival to the Steady Conveyor Operation

• Avoids Truck Queues at the ECCO Port Terminal

20

• Analysis of the selected ECCO design shows a 6.7 minute unload/load process at the front of each spur, and an 18 minute unload/load time at the back of the spur

• Suggests nonlinear crane usage

• Four straddle cranes (one for the first 3 carriages, one for thenext 4, one for the next 5, and one for the last 6) are in-line rail-mounted to simultaneously unload/load the 18 ECCO carriages on the spur

• While present straddle crane/work crew operational data indicates that this ECCO system unload/load process will produce the required 5,000 container moves per day, automation of the cranes and enhancements to the proposed

system architecture will likely improve system throughput


21


22

Conclusion

The system architecture meets the projected throughput requirements

23

Planned Alignment

Thomas E. Riester, P.E.

Vice President – Transportation Services

Mackin Engineering Company

24

•Studied Terminal Island Transfer Facility to ICTF Transfer Facility

•Total Distance 5.73 miles (SCIG is 4.7 miles)

•Two Alternative Alignments

•Red

•Green

ECCO System Alignment

25

• Length 5.73 miles to ICTF (4.7 miles to SCIG)

• Parallels north side of Seaside Avenue / Ocean Boulevard, then follows Port of LA Study Alignment

• Minimum provided horizontal radius

�400 Feet over Terminal Island Freeway

�500 Feet Over Seaside Avenue

�10 Additional horizontal curves from 1400’ to 11,500’

• Minimum allowable horizontal radius 328’

Red Alignment

26

Figure 1a – ECCO System Alignment

Green Alignment

Red Alignment

27

Figure 1b – ECCO System Alignment

28

Figure 1c – ECCO System Alignment

29

Figure 1d – ECCO System Alignment

30

Red Alignment

• Alignment located on North Side of Route 47 (Seaside Avenue/Ocean Boulevard)

• The “Red” Alignment eliminates:

� Interference with several buildings

� Interference with future Pier T secondary gate facilities

� 240’ to 300’ span bridge over Ocean Boulevard/Terminal Island Freeway

� Higher vertical alignment/steeper grades

31

Green Alternate Alignment

• Length 5.60 miles (to ICTF)

� 700 feet less than “Red Alignment”

• Parallels RR yard adjacent to New Dock Street

� Increases 400’ and 500’ radii of Red Alignment to 2500’ & 1500’

� Minimum radius is 1400’

• Provides for greater average speed

32

Figure 1a – ECCO System Alignment

Green Alignment

Red Alignment

33

Figure 1b – ECCO System Alignment

34

Vertical Alignment (Red & Green Alternative)

• 30’ nominal height above existing ground

• Increased where necessary to achieve grade change, or clearance over RR tracks

• Vertical clearances

� 16.5’ over local streets and Caltrans

� 24.5’ over RR

� 58’ over Cerritos Channel – Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)

• Minimum allowable radius 3281’

• Minimum provided radius 6000’

35

Vertical Alignment – Average, Maximum Grades

• Alignment is level at stations

• Grades generally vary – .4% to +.4%

• Maximum grades at Anaheim Street Crossing

� +2.28%, - 1.64%

• Anaheim Street is the controlling feature

• Maximum grades at the Cerritos Channel

� +1.17%, -1.06%

• Maximum allowable grade 10%

36

Guideway

• Elevated Guideway – Provides clearance over all facilities and obstacles

• Guideway Structure

� Hybrid Concrete Girder – High-strength concrete and steel fibers

� Precast Construction or precast and segmental construction (Long spans)

� Precast Construction – quick construction, minimal disruptions

37

Guideway (Continued)

• Average Span Length – 80’ to 120’

• Maximum Spans 155’ to 240’ (over Cerritos Channel) and expressway ramps

• 4720’ of Guideway requires spans greater than 120’ (16% of the Red Alignment)

38

Typical Hybrid Girder Cross-Section

39

Guideway Piers

• T-Piers are the typical pier

• L-Piers used in areas of tight clearance

• Top T or L Section supported by circular pier shafts and singular circular caisson foundations.

• Singular caisson foundations�Fast Construction

�Minimal space

�Minimal vibration

• Cast-In-Place or Pre-Cast Concrete Construction

40

Guideway Piers – Typical Cross-Section

41

Right of Way Issues

• The Alignment will be located within right of way owned by -

� Port of LA

� Port of Long Beach

� Caltrans – Route 47

o Ocean Boulevard

o Terminal Island Freeway

� Railroads – Owned by Ports

o 1500’ North & South of Anaheim Street

� Private Property ?

42

Right of Way Issues (Continued)

• Agreement (permanent easement) required to occupy Port of Long Beach, Caltrans

• Private properties may require purchase of right of way

• Minimal, if any, building / facility impacts

43

Conclusion

The alignment is feasible and can be constructed with conventional methods

44

Presented by

Phil Jeter

Chief Engineer

General Atomics

Maglev Components

45

Transitioning from Test Track to Deployment

ECCOSystem

46

ECCO – Maglev Components

g1

g3

Track

Levitation double Halbach array

Linear synchronous motor

Top plate

Winding

Laminations

Permanent magnet Halbach arrays

Test track magnet configuration was scaled to accommodate the loads of a cargo system.

47

Magnet Modules

• Magnet blocks

– Neodymium-Iron-Boron (NdFeB)

– Subdivided into sub-assemblies

– Loaded into the magnet modules

• Chassis Assembly

– Magnet modules are then mounted to the chassis supports

Chassis Assembly

Magnet Modules

48

Guideway Modules

• Guideway Modules– Hybrid Guideway Girder

• Steel Fiber Reinforce Concrete (SFRC)

– Linear Synchronous Motor– Levitation Track– High Speed Turns (144 km/hr, 90 mph)

• 800 meter min. turn radius• 11.50 Cant Angle

LevitationTrack

Structural Embedment Typical

1200 (47.3”)

2000 (78.7”)

900 (35.4”)

LSM

Girder

49

Concrete Mix Was Developed by GA/SDSU

• Conventional Reinforced Concrete– Rebar design

• Cost = $152/m ($46.30/ft)• Flexural Allowable = 34.5 MPa

(5,000 psi) • Modulus = 28,275 MPa (4.1x106

psi)• Weight = 1396 kg/m (938 lbs/ft)

• SFRC Design– Smaller, lighter, stiffer and less

expensive– Simple construction for complex

geometry– Tested per American Standards

Institute (ACI) standards • Cost = $115/m ($35/ft)• Flexural Allowable = 83 MPa

(12,035 psi)• Modulus = 49,655 MPa (7.2x106

psi) • Weight = 770 kg/m (517 lbs/ft)

BrakeEmbedment

Litz TrackSupport Embedment

LSM MotorSupport Embedment

Litz Track ClampInterface Embedment

Litz TrackSupport Embedment

LSM MotorSupport Embedment

Litz Track ClampInterface Embedment

Fibers in the SFRC Concrete

50

Container Carrier Vehicle

• Characteristics:– Payload

• 33 tons

– Levitation propulsion• 10 tons

– Chassis structure:• 9 tons

– Total• 52 tons ~(115,000lb)

• Vehicle Dimensions:– Length

• 12.18 m (40ft)

– Width• 2.44 m (8 ft)

– Height• 2.90 m (9.5 ft)

7 Chassis Halves

51

Control System

Inverter Cabinet Interior View

Vehicle Control Computer

Central Control Unit

Pulse-Width-Modulation Card

Speed and Location Sensor

52

Conclusion

Cargo maglev can be readily extrapolated from proven GA Urban Maglev test track components.

53

Presented by

Denny Pascoe,

Vice President - Union Switch and Signal

Communication and Signaling

Union Switch & Signal

54Union Switch & Signal

� Cargo Vehicle Carborne Equipment,

� Signaling, and

� Communications

� CCTV

Union Switch & Signal’s Participation in the LA Port Project

55

18 Cargo Vehicleson each storage track

Two Independent Transportation Systems


Each Independent Transportation systems willhave its own Communications and

Train Control Center

56

Cargo Vehicles

LSM winding segments

(( ))(( ))(( ))(( ))

Operating Rule:

One LSM segment must be ‘clear’ of a vehicle for system to continue operating

Simple Operating Rule


57

Control of each Transportation Systems


Transportation system:

� A Digital Communication System (DCS) which communicates between each cargo vehicle and the CAD system,

� Cargo vehicle equipment that determines its location on the Guideway,

� Cargo vehicle equipment that determines its speed on the Guideway,

� A CAD system that determines via the position of each cargo vehicle if the operating rule is true, and

� Logic that determines if the operating rule is not true, and commands are sent to each inverter through the GA network inverter control to shut down and each cargo vehicle to apply emergency braking.

58Union Switch & Signal

Components:

� Wayside

� Central Office

� Vehicle

� Communications

� CCTV

Control System Components

59

Ethernet dual ring

GA Remote controlled cameras

Cargo Vehicle

SwitchI/O

SwitchI/O

Local Operator Workstation

Remote Terminal


Central Office

Wayside Equipment


� Fiber switch

� Object controller forGuideway switch

� Pan, Tilt, Zoom cameras

ObjectController

60

Ethernet dual ring

GA

Operator 1Workstation



Central Control Office

Central Control Remote Terminal

CAD

DCS

CCTV + Voice

CommunicationTower for 100%

coverage

GA INVController

Remote controlled cameras

Cargo Vehicle

SwitchI/O

SwitchI/O

Central Control Equipment


61

Central Control Functionality


Central Control

� Initiate request for vehicle movements

� Block storage tracks

� Select switch positions

� Support display of

� vehicle location

� switch position

� vehicle load/unload status

� web-based viewing

� event logging

� replay of events

62

Cargo Vehicles

LSM winding segments

(( ))(( ))(( ))(( ))

Operating Rule:

One LSM segmentmust be ‘clear’ ofa vehicle for systemto continue operating

ComputerAided

Dispatch

DCS

(( ))

Enforcement System

Vehicle – Central Communication


63

Cargo Vehicle

GPSSatellite

GA

On-Board Computer

(( ))

relay

DC input

EmergencyBrakes

RFModem

DGPSReceiver

PICCPU

DC/DCPS

Data: Vehicle to CentralLocation (lon/lad)SpeedBrake status

Central to VehicleBrake request

BrakeIndication


Vehicle Equipment

PIC CPU

RF ModemM12+

DGPS

64

Inverter2

Inverter1

DCS/CADRF Modem

RS-232

GA Software

controller

RS-232OBC

RFModem

RS-232OBC

RFModem

InverterN

RS-232OBC

RFModem

InverterController

InverterController

InverterController


Vehicle – Central Communication Equipment

65

Ethernet dual ring

GA Remote controlled cameras

Cargo Vehicle

CCTV

Central Control

CCTV Equipment


Surveillance of Guideway� Cargo Vehicle� Intruders

Using ‘Video-Motion’ technology

66

Ethernet dual ring

GA




Central Control Office

Central Control Remote Terminal

CAD

DCS

CCTV + Voice

CommunicationTower for 100%

coverage

GA INVController

Remote controlled cameras

Cargo Vehicle

SwitchI/O

SwitchI/O

On-Board Computer

(( ))

relay

DC input

EmergencyBrakes

RFModem

DGPSReceiver

PICCPU

DC/DCPS

BrakeIndication

GPSSatellite

Control System Block Diagram


67

Conclusion

The communication and signaling system uses proven, safety-certified components

68

Presented by

Daryl Bever,

Chief Maglev Manufacturing Engineer

General Atomics

Budgetary Cost Estimates

69

Study Task 3 & 4 Objectives

• Create Work Breakdown Structure

• Create Engineering, Construction, and Commissioning Schedule

• Prepare Budgetary Capital Cost Estimate

• Consistent & Traceable to WBS / Schedule / DBS

• Prepare Budgetary O & M Cost Estimate

70

Cost & Schedule Assumptions

• Budgetary cost estimate for planning purposes.

• Constant year 2006 dollars.

• Commercial factors for contingency, warranty, facility, capital cost of

money, and fee are included.

• Right-of-way and environment impacts costs are not included.

• Channel and freeway crossings are included.

• Design concept is a close derivative of current passenger maglev concept.

• Site-specific engineering is a 1.5 year activity.

• Construction is a 3 year activity.

• Commissioning occurs 3 months after completion of construction.

• Throughput – 2500 40’ containers per direction / per year.

• Operation – 24/7.

• Length of project – 4.7 miles.

• Cargo handling equipment not included.

• Driverless operation.

• Single container maglev chassis (no consist).

71

Preliminary Schedule

� Distinct Phases

– Project Site-Specific / Detail Engineering

– Project Construction

– Commissioning

– Operation

Task Name

Site Specific / Detail Engineering

Construction

Commissioning

Operation

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

72

Preliminary WBS Level 3

ECCO-System Project

10000

Site-Specific/Detail Engineering

30000

Test & Evaluation

31000

Safety Planning

32000

FMEA

33000

Test Planning

34000

Component Acceptance Test

40000

Operation

41000

Management

42000

SystemOperation

43000

44000

SystemMaintenance

45000

Training

46000

Energy

Spare Parts

20000

Construction

21000

Vehicle

22000

Girder/Levitation/Prop Systems

23000

MaintenanceYard/Equipment

24000

Energy SupplySystem

25000

Ops/Cmd/CntlSystems

26000

Guideway

27000

Civil Structures

28000

Right-of-Way /Corridor

11000

Vehicle

12000


13000


14000

Energy SupplySystem

15000

Ops/Cmd/CntlSystems

16000

Guideway

17000

Civil Structures

18000


35000

System Acceptance Test

36000

Training

37000

Energy

29000

Project Integration

19000

Project Integration

38000

Project Integration

ECCO-System Project

10000

Site-Specific/Detail Engineering

30000

Test & Evaluation

31000

Safety Planning

32000

FMEA

33000

Test Planning

34000

Component Acceptance Test

40000

Operation

41000

Management

42000

SystemOperation

43000

44000

SystemMaintenance

45000

Training

46000

Energy

Spare Parts

20000

Construction

21000

Vehicle

22000


23000


24000

Energy SupplySystem

25000

Ops/Cmd/CntlSystems

26000

Guideway

27000

Civil Structures

28000


11000

Vehicle

12000


13000


14000

Energy SupplySystem

15000

Ops/Cmd/CntlSystems

16000

Guideway

17000

Civil Structures

18000


35000

System Acceptance Test

36000

Training

37000

Energy

29000

Project Integration

19000

Project Integration

38000

Project Integration

73

Preliminary GA Organization (Construction)

ECCO System

Site Manager

Technical

Support

Liaison

Engineering

Finance

Administration

Legal

Reliability/

Safety/

QAAgency

Mgmt Support

Contracts/Purchasing

- Non-conformance Evaluation- Configuration Management- Interface Management

-Government Affairs-Public Relations-Regulatory Interface

-Project Administration-Property Management-Cost Account Mgmt-Scheduling-Estimating Support

Maglev Projects

Program Manager

Subcontractor/

Construction

Coordination

- Design- Analysis

Human Resources

Systems

Engineering

74

Project Costs

Commissioning

4%

Construction

89%

Site-Specif ic /

Detail Engineering

7%

Site-Specific / Detail Engineering 40,359,000$

Construction 510,149,000$

Total Engineering & Construction 550,508,000$

Commissioning 24,070,000$

Total 574,578,000$

75

Breakdown of Project Construction Cost

Project Integration

6%Civil Structures

2%

Guidew ay

16%

Operation /

Command /

Control Sys

2%

Maintenance

Yard / Equipment

2%

Energy Supply

Systems

20%

Liaisson

Engineering

2%

Vehicles

11%

Hybrid

Girder/Levitation/

Propulsion

Modules

39%

Liaisson Engineering 12,500,000$

Vehicles 55,505,000$

Hybrid Girder/Levitation/Propulsion Modules 194,074,000$

Maintenance Yard / Equipment 11,234,000$

Energy Supply Systems 103,326,000$

Operation / Command / Control Sys 10,721,000$

Guideway 79,875,000$

Civil Structures 10,375,000$

Right-of-Way / Corridor -$

Project Integration 32,539,000$

Total 510,149,000$

76

Budgetary Cash Flow

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

Site-Specific / Detail Engineering 28,251,300$ 12,107,700$ 40,359,000$

Construction 153,044,700$ 255,074,500$ 102,029,800$ 510,149,000$

Total Engineering & Construction 28,251,300$ 165,152,400$ 255,074,500$ 102,029,800$ 550,508,000$

Commissioning 24,070,000$ 24,070,000$

Total 28,251,300$ 165,152,400$ 255,074,500$ 126,099,800$ 574,578,000$

77

Annual O & M Costs

Total Annual O&M Cost is $12.7M

Annual Operations Costs Personnel Salary & Benefits Cost

Labor

Control Center Operator 10 60,000$ 600,000$

Security 5 40,000$ 200,000$

Total Labor 800,000$

Non-Labor

Enengy 8,212,500$

Management & Administration 200,000$

Total Annual Operations Costs 9,212,500$

Annual Maintenance Costs Personnel Salary & Benefits Cost

Labor

Vehicles 6 90,000$ 540,000$

Electrical Systems 8 90,000$ 720,000$

Guideway Inspection and Maintenance 5 90,000$ 450,000$

Total Labor 1,710,000$

Non-Labor

Spare Parts 1,800,000$

Total Annual Operations Costs 3,510,000$

78

Key Cost Elements

• Construction Cost per dual track mile (excluding vehicles)

• Vehicle Cost (each)

• Annual O & M Cost

~ $97M

~ $0.8M

~ $13M

79

Concluding Remarks

80

Benefits of Maglev Cargo

• Greatly improves infrastructure of LA Port which is a very high volume trade corridor of National significance for freight movement.

• Improves efficiency to accommodate the movement of freight in and out of the Port.

• Enhances the capacity of the Port.

• All electric operation substantially reduces pollutant emissions.

81

Next Steps

• Perform detail site-specific engineering

• Develop procurement, manufacturing plan to meet schedule

• Initiate environmental and ROW planning in parallel

82

Conclusions

� Our studies indicate that the Electric Cargo COnveyer (ECCO) System is a viable option to move freight efficiently and in an environmentally friendly manner.

� We look forward to working with the Port on the next steps to implement this exciting 21st century technology.

Conceptual Design Study for the Electric Cargo … Design...Conceptual Design Study for the Electric Cargo Conveyor (ECCO) System Final Review Meeting. 2 ... Interference with several

Documents