planning ahead for automated terminals presentation · pdf fileplanning ahead for automated...

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


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


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


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



Definition of


Conceptual layouts


Assessment of

alternatives under

dynamic conditions

(simulation)


(simulation)

Cost analysis

(OPEX & CAPEX)


trajectory

79m

30.5

m

34m

Hatchcovers

between crane legs

3 interchange

lanes, 2 in gauge, 1

in back reach

161

Conceptual layouts



Definition of


Conceptual layouts


Assessment of

alternatives under

dynamic conditions

(simulation)


(simulation)

Cost analysis

(OPEX & CAPEX)


trajectory

Assessment of

alternatives under

dynamic conditions

(simulation)


Definition of


Conceptual layouts


Assessment of

alternatives under

dynamic conditions

(simulation)


(simulation)

Cost analysis

(OPEX & CAPEX)


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]


(simulation)


Definition of


Conceptual layouts


Assessment of

alternatives under

dynamic conditions

(simulation)


(simulation)

Cost analysis

(OPEX & CAPEX)


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


trajectory


Definition of


Conceptual layouts


Assessment of

alternatives under

dynamic conditions

(simulation)


(simulation)

Cost analysis

(OPEX & CAPEX)


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


33

Results: RMG productivity comparison

RMG Productivity per stack module - Compared to previous vehicle numbers for 40 QC mvs/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


34

Results: vehicle status comparison

Vehicle Order Duration overview - 18 vehicles


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:

[email protected]

510.913.6558 (Oakland, CA)

mailto:[email protected]

planning ahead for automated terminals presentation · pdf fileplanning ahead for automated...

Documents