Automated Container Terminals

1
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
2
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
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6

• Automated Container Terminal Layout

Gate Buffer
Train Buffer
Container Storage Yard
Quay Crane Buffer
Ship
7
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
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
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
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

11
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.

12
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

13
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
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
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
Simulated Performance Analysis
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.