Thadani_Mccarty

8/3/2019 Thadani_Mccarty

1/17

Automated Container TerminalsDesign, Simulation, and

Evaluation of Automated

Container Terminals

Bryan McCarty

Nitin Thadani

2nd July 2002

Reference: IEEE Transaction on Intelligent Transportaion Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1 March 2002

Chin-I. Liu, Hossein Jula, and Petros A. Ioannou, Fellow, IEEE


2/17

Introduction Problem Description & Background

Information

4 types of automated container (material)

handling systems

Criteria for evaluating the container

handling system

Simulated Performance Results & Analysis


3/17


4/17


5/17


6/17

Automated Container Terminal Layout

Container Storage Yard

Quay Crane Buffer

Gate Buffer

Train

Buffer

Ship


7/17

Types of handling systems Automated Guidance Vehicles (AGV)

Linear Motor Conveyance System (LMCS)

Overhead Grid Rail System (GR)

High-Rise Automated Storage and Retrieval

Structure (AS/RS)


8/17

Automated Guidance Vehicles

(AGV) A Driverless industrial

truck

Steerable, wheeled vehicle

driven by storage

batteries.

Follows a predefined path.

Path may be simple or

complex.

There are various types of

systems Laser control,

Wire control,

Electomagnetic, Camera

etc.


9/17

Linear Motor Conveyance System

(LMCS)

Identical to that of the AGV-

ACT system except paths are

pre-built guide ways or

conveyors

AGVs replaced with shuttles

that move on the linear motors

conveyance system.

The shuttles can be

considered as AGVs moving

on a fixed path


10/17

Overhead Grid Rail System (GR)

A fixed grid structure

overhead

Container carriers movealong the rail structure

Similar to automated

overhead cranes

Each GR unit limited to

one operation at a time


11/17

High-Rise Automated Storage and Retrieval

Structure (AS/RS)

An automated high riseshelving system uses a rigidrack structure to form a free

standing unit. Dimensions of the carrier

selected such that they caneasily accommodate

standardized containers. A computer controlled platformmoves the carriersvertically/horizontally in the liftshaft.


12/17

Simulation Assumptions The ACT will service 1 ship capable of 8000

Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEU) every 24

hours loaded to 85% capacity. Containers will arrive 60% by truck & 40% by rail

Export container arrival will be 20% 2 days early,50% 1 day early, and 30% same day

Import container retrieval will be 50% same day,30% next day, and 20% 2 days later

Delivery trucks and trains will operate on 24 hourcycles


13/17

Criteria for Evaluation Throughput

number of moves/hour/quay crane

Throughput per Acre throughput/acre of land

Ship Turnaround Time

hours to unload/load Truck Turnaround Time

hours from gate in/out


14/17

Criteria for Evaluation Gate Utilization

percent of time gate is servicing in/out traffic

Container Dwell Time average hours containers stored onsite

Idle Rate of Equipment

percent of time equipment is idle Average Cost per Container

Location, equipment, and labor costs


15/17

Baseline Data for Comparison Throughput

Average capacity of conventional terminals is

28 moves/hour

Average Cost per Container

ACC in conventional terminals is $140-$200


16/17

Simulated Performance Analysis

AGV LMCS GR AS/AR

Throughput 40.45 40.40 41.68 41.70Throughput per Acre 0.579 0.575 0.652 0.767

Ship Turnaround Time 16.81 16.83 16.47 16.24

Truck Turnaround Time 127.0 127.0 120.0 110.7

Gate Utilization 65.70% 66.03% 65.70% 66.40%

Container Dwell Time19.

1 19.

1 19.

0 18.9Average Cost per Container $77.30 $147.40 $90.10 $102.20


17/17

Conclusions Utilizing an Automated Container Terminal

(ACT) can increase the average throughput by

50% Utilizing an ACT can reduce the average cost per

container by more than 50%

Throughput per terminal acre is highest for the

AS/AR system. This system will become more

attractive as cost of land increases.

Thadani_Mccarty

Documents