Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Planning Ahead for Automated TerminalsPresentation to AAPA Facilities Engineering Conference
Dan Johnson, P.E. – November 18, 2009
Agenda:
1. Introduction to TBA2. Critical Background: History and Continuous Change3. Planning approach used in Portsmouth for APMT (and elsewhere)4. Example Focus study: Waterside transport
Headquartered in Delft (Rotterdam)
World’s largest dedicated simulation firm
75 engineers working full – time
8 out of top 10 Global Terminal Operators
are customers.
Active in more than 25 countries
Completed over 100 terminal projects
TBA supports port and terminal operators
during all stages from concept to
realization and thereafter in operations.
TBA: Focused on Core Competencies
Study:
Simulate capacity, strategy, CAPEX
studies, e.g. vessel deployments:
TRAFALQUAR
Full-terminal simulation, peak shift and
multi-day (e.g. handling strategy tests):
TIMESQUARE
Test, Train, Tune:
Full system emulation: Simulation plus
direct connection to TOS and
equipment systems: CONTROLS
Operate:
Optimization modules for real-time
control in conventional and automated
container facilities: POSCH
Automated transport control software
(e.g. AGV system operation): TEAMS
TBA applies Proven Decision, Test and Control Tools for Automation
Selected portfolio for support of container terminal conceptual design (2003-2009):
DPW:
Antwerp Gateway
London Gateway
Fisherman’s Island
Jebel Ali CT 2, CT3 & CT4
Rotterdam World Gateway
Southampton extension
HPH:
ECT barge terminal, Rotterdam
Tercat - Barcelona Muelle Prat
Euromax Rotterdam
Thamesport extension
APMT:
Maasvlakte II terminal
Portsmouth, VA
Algeciras extension
Tanjung Pelepas extension
HHLA:
Burchardkai extension
Tollerort extension
TBA Supports the World’s Leading Operators5
PSA: Voltri Terminal Europe extension
Transnet: Nquga & Durban extensions
Others: (many are secret)
Northport, Malaysia extension
Port of Gothenburg extension
Packer Avenue, Philadelphia
Optimization of existing facilities (layout, TOS, operations):
• DPWorld Port Botany, West Swanson (2006 - 2008)• HHLA – Container terminal Altenwerder (2007 – 2008)• Durban Container Terminal (2007)• DPWorld Caucedo, Chennai, Mumbai (2007 - 2009)• APMT Rotterdam (2007 – 2008)• TSI Vancouver (2008)• Ocupa Manzanillo (2008)
Performance assessment of equipment specifications
• NTB (2004, 2006)• Euromax (2005)• APMT-PTP (2006)
TOS Optimization (CONTROLS):
• DPWorld Pusan Newport (2006)• APMT Portsmouth, Rotterdam, Algeciras (2006 - 2008)• Eurogate Hamburg (2007)
MSC Home Terminal (2007 – 2009)• DPWorld Antwerp Gateway (2008 - 2009)• Gothenborg Havn (2009)
Delivery Automated Equipment Control Systems (TEAMS)
• CTA (Hamburg, 2002)• Euromax (Rotterdam, 2008)• Antwerp Gateway (2007)
Summary Project Portfolio
Terminal Automation is…
Complex
Expensive
Time-consuming to implement
Unique, each time
Environmentally friendly?
Leveraged?
Cost-effective?
“Inflexible”?
Typical Questions:
Is it right for my facility? When?
What mode?
What are implications for me if a nearby
terminal automates?
Context: Terminal Automation is…
Growth of Terminal Automation by Type
% Ea. type typically requires all items above it at same terminal
% Adoption by Large Container Terminals vs. Time
What is the Relative Popularity of Automated Yard Cranes?
va
End-loaded stacking cranes are most popular more now for primarily
import export terminals.
The Drivers for Terminal Automation are Compelling
Cost control
Reduction of labor dependency
Logistic control – centralized control & optimization
Reliability and predictability of operations
Safety
Reduction of environmental impact (noise, light, emission)
Reduction of maintenance
The History: Recent Terminals to Go Live
Terminal Simulation HPH - Euromax (2003 2009) Terminal design APMT - Portsmouth (2003 2009)
Terminal design DPW - Antwerp (2005 2009)
Four Terminals have Yard and Transport Automation
4 sites in Operation: Automated Automated
Yard Crane Transport
• ECT, Rotterdam ASC AGV
• Altenwerder, Hamburg ASC AGV
• Patrick, Brisbane N/A Automated Strads
• Euromax, Rotterdam ASC AGV
ECT, Rotterdam - 1993
Reduce labor dependencies – labor costs
Notes: Original Automated
Terminal, ONE ASC PER RUN,
strads used for valet gate service,
low ship productivity.
Altenwerder, Hamburg - 2002
Reduce labor dependencies – labor costs
Notes: Successful but sub-par ship productivity.
ASC + AGV; 2 asc per run, 1 over 4 ASC; second
QC hoist is automated.
Patrick, Brisbane - 2003
Reduce labor dependencies – labor costs
Note: sub-par ship productivity, unable to sell
second site on concept, low density. However,
exceeding design throughput capacity is part of
what hurts ship productivity.
Euromax, Rotterdam - 2008
Reduce labor dependencies – labor costs
Eight Terminals have Yard Crane Automation
8 Sites Operating: Automated Manual
Yard Crane Transport
• DPW Antwerp ASC Strad
• APMT, Virginia ASC Strad
• Thamesport, UK ASC (side & end) Truck
• Pasir-Panjang, Singapore Bridge Crane Truck
• Wan-Hai, Tokyo C-RMG Truck
• Evergreen, Kaohsiung C-RMG Truck
• DPW – Antwerp ASC Strad
• Tobishima, Japan RTG Truck
DPW Antwerp Gateway - 2004
Densify the operation – transition SC – ASC – Labor costs
Successful concept: ASC + manual shuttles like
APMT VA; Just went live, RMG stacks still
under-utilized.
APMT Portsmouth, Virginia – 2007
Labor costs
Successful in concept: ASC + manual shuttles RMG stacks still under-utilized, good ship
productivity; aggressive financing required a more fully-utilized terminal, APMT now negotiating with
VIT to share use. Ship: 40 Moves/hr, ASC gantry speed 300 m/min; 6 QC, 30 ARMG
Thamesport, UK - 2000
Densify the operation – labor cost
fairly successful, side and end loading; Navis
SPARCS ship planning
Layout and Equipment Selection is just a Small Part of the Work
Design of terminal
• Equipment Requirements
• Layout definition in detail - E.g. reefer facilities, transfer zones
Design control rules for TOS
• Automated grounding decisions
• Automated ASC dispatching rules
• Control mechanisms and collision control rules for ASCs
Testing and tuning TOS control rules with Emulation is ongoing
• .
Example: APMT – Portsmouth, Virginia:
What is Simulation?
ValidationExperiments
Simulation model(future) Reality
Virtual terminalReal terminal
New approaches, equipment, operating logic, site size, etc..
Obtain non-intuitive results: E.g. Is a buffer required for Automated shuttle
Board members need convincing argument to spend $$$
Accurate ROI, OPEX, CAPEX calculations
Accurate engine hours/emissions estimates
Decide on waterside transport
When to Simulate?
Typical project approach:The steps in designing a terminal meeting the targets
Definition of
operational scenarios
Conceptual layouts
Capacity calculation
Assessment of
alternatives under
dynamic conditions
(simulation)
Sensitivity analysis
(simulation)
Cost analysis
(OPEX & CAPEX)
Design of transition
trajectory
EQUIPMENT
No of QCs:
32
No of ASCs:
124
EQUIPMENT
No of QCs:
32
No of ASCs:
124
GATE/RAIL
LS Peak load:
388
GATE/RAIL
LS Peak load:
388
DESIG
N
DEC
SIS
ION
QC concept:
Conventional
Stack orientation:
Parallel
DESIG
N
DEC
SIS
ION
QC concept:
Conventional
Stack orientation:
Parallel
YARD
No. of modules:
90
Dimension (L x W):
35 x 8 TEU
Stack height:
5
Land use:
~66%
Throughput:
107,000 TEU/ha
YARD
No. of modules:
90
Dimension (L x W):
35 x 8 TEU
Stack height:
5
Land use:
~66%
Throughput:
107,000 TEU/ha
QUAY
Volume:
8.6 M TEU
WS peak load:
1,057 bx/h
Throughput:
2,700 TEU/m
RESU
LTS
QUAY
Volume:
8.6 M TEU
WS peak load:
1,057 bx/h
Throughput:
2,700 TEU/m
QUAY
Volume:
8.6 M TEU
WS peak load:
1,057 bx/h
Throughput:
2,700 TEU/m
RESU
LTS
Throughput per quay:
2,500 TEU/m quay
Throughput per area:
35,000 TEU/ha
QC productivity:
50 mph (gross)
160,000 lifts/yr
TA
RG
ETS
Vessel productivity:
300 mph
DS waiting > 8h:
<1%
Throughput per quay:
2,500 TEU/m quay
Throughput per area:
35,000 TEU/ha
QC productivity:
50 mph (gross)
160,000 lifts/yr
TA
RG
ETS
Vessel productivity:
300 mph
DS waiting > 8h:
<1%
T/S = 67%
(DS, feeder &
barge)
Gate / Rail:
20%/day & 7%/hr
15%/day & 5%/hr
Terminal dimension:
Quay length 3,200m
Apron depth 600m
CO
NSTR
AIN
T/
ASSU
MPTIO
N
ASC capacity:
16 bx/h (WS)
14 bx/h (LS)
Overall peak:
1.15
Filling rate:
85%
Dwell time:
5.3 days
QC work hrs:
5,000
T/S = 67%
(DS, feeder &
barge)
Gate / Rail:
20%/day & 7%/hr
15%/day & 5%/hr
Terminal dimension:
Quay length 3,200m
Apron depth 600m
CO
NSTR
AIN
T/
ASSU
MPTIO
N
ASC capacity:
16 bx/h (WS)
14 bx/h (LS)
Overall peak:
1.15
Filling rate:
85%
Dwell time:
5.3 days
QC work hrs:
5,000
Definition of
operational scenarios
Typical project approach:The steps in designing a terminal meeting the targets
Definition of
operational scenarios
Conceptual layouts
Capacity calculation
Assessment of
alternatives under
dynamic conditions
(simulation)
Sensitivity analysis
(simulation)
Cost analysis
(OPEX & CAPEX)
Design of transition
trajectory
79m
30.5
m
34m
Hatchcovers
between crane legs
3 interchange
lanes, 2 in gauge, 1
in back reach
161
Conceptual layouts
Capacity calculation
Typical project approach:The steps in designing a terminal meeting the targets
Definition of
operational scenarios
Conceptual layouts
Capacity calculation
Assessment of
alternatives under
dynamic conditions
(simulation)
Sensitivity analysis
(simulation)
Cost analysis
(OPEX & CAPEX)
Design of transition
trajectory
Assessment of
alternatives under
dynamic conditions
(simulation)
Typical project approach:The steps in designing a terminal meeting the targets
Definition of
operational scenarios
Conceptual layouts
Capacity calculation
Assessment of
alternatives under
dynamic conditions
(simulation)
Sensitivity analysis
(simulation)
Cost analysis
(OPEX & CAPEX)
Design of transition
trajectory
RF QC Performance - RF handling Twin Carry ShC - Hoist Speed 60/30 - 25 Reefer Modules - Dedicated Assignment - 18 QCs @ 40 ccph -
Gantry Speed @ 4.5 m/s - Gantry Acc. @ 0.3 m/s2 - Spreader Acc. @ 0.3 m/s
2 - Trolley Acc. @ 0.3 m/s
2 -
408 landside bx/h
37.8 37.434.7
32.2
27.1
41.038.9
45.644.845.8
42.7 42.1 41.8
35.7
33.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25 13 8 6 3
Number of Reefer Stacks
Pro
du
cti
ve
QC
Pe
rfo
rma
nc
e [
bx
/hr]
RF Loading QC Performance (bx/hr) RF Unloading QC Performance [bx/hr] Average RF QC Performance [bx/hr]
Sensitivity analysis
(simulation)
Typical project approach:The steps in designing a terminal meeting the targets
Definition of
operational scenarios
Conceptual layouts
Capacity calculation
Assessment of
alternatives under
dynamic conditions
(simulation)
Sensitivity analysis
(simulation)
Cost analysis
(OPEX & CAPEX)
Design of transition
trajectory
Fergusson volume development vs. stacking capacity - SC + ASC 8 wide
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
1,300,000
1,400,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Year
Co
nta
iners
/ y
ear
SC throughput capacity ASC throughput capacity
MT throughput capacity Projected volume
First 4 ASC stacks
in operation
Construction period
1st phase
Second 4 ASC stacks
in operation
1 st Reclamation
ready: 448 TGS
560 TGS added
Construction period
3rd phase
2nd Reclamation
ready: 184 TGS
560 TGS added
Construction period
4th phase
Construction period
2nd phase
Design of transition
trajectory
Typical project approach:The steps in designing a terminal meeting the targets
Definition of
operational scenarios
Conceptual layouts
Capacity calculation
Assessment of
alternatives under
dynamic conditions
(simulation)
Sensitivity analysis
(simulation)
Cost analysis
(OPEX & CAPEX)
Design of transition
trajectory
Cost development Fergusson
ASC 8 wide + Straddle carriers (1 over 2)
NZD 0
NZD 10
NZD 20
NZD 30
NZD 40
NZD 50
NZD 60
NZD 70
NZD 80
NZD 90
NZD 100
NZD 110
NZD 120
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
Depreciation cost / container
Capital cost per container
Maintenance cost per container
Energy / fuel cost per container
Labour cost / container
Cost analysis
(OPEX & CAPEX)
Interesting Test Case: Automated Waterside Transport Options
Shuttle Carrier
(ShC)
Cassette AGV
(C-AGV)
Automated
Shuttle
(ALV)
Lift AGV
(AGV_L)
Vehicle/RMG Comparison results (rev1.1)
32
Results: net QC productivity (Average operation)
QC productivity - Vehicle Comparison
[10 QCs @ 40 ccph, 25 TwinRMG modules, 350 landside bx/h]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Total number of vehicles available
Pro
du
cti
vit
y (
bx
/hr)
AGV ShC AGV_Lift ALV C-AGV
Vehicle/RMG Comparison results (rev1.1)
33
Results: RMG productivity comparison
RMG Productivity per stack module - Compared to previous vehicle numbers for 40 QC mvs/h
[6 QCs @ 40 ccph, 25 TwinRMG modules, 350 landside bx/h]
7.2 8.37.0 6.8 6.9 7.3 7.1 6.9 7.0 7.0
7.2
8.4
6.9 6.9 6.8 7.2 7.1 6.8 7.0 7.1
0.6
0.6
0.5 0.9 0.70.9 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.5
10.84.8 9.6
4.7
10.4
5.2
10.9
6.99.4
5.7
5.3
5.2
4.8
4.6
4.8
4.2
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.1
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.8
5.1
6.0
4.8
4.2
4.6
4.9
1.2
0.8
1.9
1.8
2.3
1.3
2.5
2.1
2.5
2.5
0.9 9.31.0
5.9
1.0
7.1
1.2
4.4
1.3
4.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
prev. new prev. new prev. new prev. new prev. new
18 ShC 18 AGV-L 18 ALV 24 C_AGV 36 AGV
Transportation system
Nu
mb
er
of
mo
ve
s
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Net
QC
pro
du
cti
vit
y (
bx/h
) WS RMG grouping
WS RMG shuffles
WS RMG preposition moves
WS discharging moves
WS Loading moves
LS RMG grouping
LS RMG shuffles
LS RMG preposition moves
LS discharging moves
LS Loading moves
Net QC Productivity
Vehicle/RMG Comparison results (rev1.1)
34
Results: vehicle status comparison
Vehicle Order Duration overview - 18 vehicles
[6 QCs @ 40 ccph, 25 TwinRMG modules, 350 landside bx/h]
76 7590
5672
87
88 9397
39
86
3765 4740
44
15
13 11
3
12013 43 12
32
35
14
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
ShC AGV-L ALV C_AGV AGV
Transportation system
Du
rati
on
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
QC
Ne
t. P
rod
ucti
vit
y
Time at QC
Time at RMG
Waiting for
Sequence
(De)coupling
cassette
Driving laden
Driving with
Cassette empty
Driving Empty
QC Net.
Productivity
Questions?
For Further Questions:
510.913.6558 (Oakland, CA)