Automated Container Terminals

Design, 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

Introduction
Problem Description & Background Information 4 types of automated container (material) handling systems Criteria for evaluating the container handling system Simulated Performance Results & Analysis

Automated Container Terminal Layout

Gate Buffer Container Storage Yard Train Buffer

Quay Crane Buffer Ship

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)

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.

Linear Motor Conveyance System (LMCS)

Identical to that of the AGVACT 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

Overhead Grid Rail System (GR)

A fixed grid structure overhead Container carriers move along the rail structure Similar to automated overhead cranes Each GR unit limited to one operation at a time

High-Rise Automated Storage and Retrieval Structure (AS/RS)

An automated high rise shelving system uses a rigid rack structure to form a free standing unit. Dimensions of the carrier selected such that they can easily accommodate standardized containers. A computer controlled platform moves the carriers vertically/horizontally in the lift shaft.

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 hour cycles

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

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

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

Simulated Performance Analysis

AGV 40.45 0.579 16.81 127.0 65.70% 19.1 $77.30 LMCS 40.40 0.575 16.83 127.0 66.03% 19.1 $147.40 GR 41.68 0.652 16.47 120.0 65.70% 19.0 $90.10 AS/AR 41.70 0.767 16.24 110.7 66.40% 18.9 $102.20

Throughput Throughput per Acre Ship Turnaround Time Truck Turnaround Time Gate Utilization Container Dwell Time Average Cost per Container

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.