港航外文翻譯--優(yōu)化自動(dòng)化集裝箱終端來(lái)提高生產(chǎn)力

1、<p>　　2800單詞，1.4萬(wàn)英文字符，5700漢字</p><p>　　出處：Saanen Y A, Waal A D. Optimizing automated container terminals to boost productivity[J]. Port Technology International, 2011, 51: 55-65.</p><p><

2、b>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)(論文)</b></p><p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p>　　題 目: Optimizing automated container</p><p>　　terminals to boost productivity </p><p>　　專 業(yè):

3、 港口航道與海岸工程 </p><p>　　班 級(jí): </p><p>　　學(xué) 生: </p><p>　　指導(dǎo)教師: </p><p>　　Optimizing automated contai

4、ner terminals to boost productivity</p><p>　　Dr. Yvo Saanen, Principle Consultant, & Arjen de Waal, Senior Consultant, TBA, The Netherlands</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p>&l

5、t;p>　　The next generation of robotized terminals will benefit from the latest solutions and technology. What are these solutions that will beef up the productivity of these terminals? In a simulation supported analysi

6、s, the small, but all feasible steps are compared on their impact to ship productivity. The analysis shows that with the right measures, a fully robotized terminal can live up to today’s requirements from shipping lines

7、to turn around even the biggest vessels in a short period of time.</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　What makes the myth about non-performing fully automated (robotized is the better word) so stron

8、g? How can it be that in the simulated world, the planned – and as such to be built –automated terminals perform well (above 35gmph under peak circumstances), and not in real life? This question we have asked ourselves,

9、also to critically review our simulation models. </p><p>　　In order to do so, we started from one of the current state-of the art fully automated facilities, and added latest improvements to the model to see

10、 whether we could increase the performance to levels that we do not experience in practice (yet). We used TBA’s own proven container terminal simulation suite TimeSquare to quantify the effects of each adjustment individ

11、ually.</p><p>　　In this article we describe this step-wise improvement approach from an imaginary existing terminal with Dual RMGs and AGVs, as would have been constructed in the 1990s. For each step towards

12、 a state-of-the-art terminal with Twin-RMGs and Lift-AGVs we show the effect on productivity of the various involved equipment types.</p><p>　　Starting scenario: a Year 2000 automated terminal</p><

13、;p>　　Our starting terminal is a fictitious terminal with 16 double trolley quay cranes (backreach interchange, with platform between the legs) on a 1,500m quay. The yard consists of 35 stack modules with dual cross-ov

14、er (or nested) RMGs. Cross-over RMGs are stacking cranes that can pass each other (one is smaller and can pass the larger one underneath). Because of the passing ability, both RMGs are able to serve both the waterside an

15、d the landside transfer area in the perpendicular stack layout. Wate</p><p>　　transport is done by lift-on lift-off (LOLO) Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs), which are pooled over all quay cranes. All modeled

16、 equipment has technical specifications as is appropriate for 10-year-old equipment.</p><p>　　The terminal is suitable for a yearly throughput of 2.2 million TEU (TEU factor 1.65); there is less than 5% tran

17、sshipment. In peaks all 16 quay cranes will be deployed, and the peak gate volume equals 320 containers per hour. The yard can be stacked to four-high, and the peak yard density equals 85%. </p><p>　　We have

18、 run an eight-hour peak period with the simulation model to get the reference quay crane productivities of the starting scenario. The results are shown in Figure 1. In the remainder of the study we will specifically focu

19、s on a situation with five AGVs per QC (on average; they are pooled over all QCs). We will see how the 25.5 bx/hr can be improved by implementing several changes. </p><p>　　Step 1 – improvement 1: replacing

20、dual RMGs by Twin RMGs</p><p>　　The first step in which dual RMGs are replaced by Twin RMGs consists of a couple of related adjustments as well. We summarize the different adjustments and describe their expe

21、cted influence on the terminal productivity: </p><p>　　Use Twin RMGs instead of cross-over RMGs: twin RMGs are identical RMGs that cannot pass each other. As a result they can only serve one side of the stac

22、k (under typical yard layouts, either landside or waterside). This reduces flexibility and can have a negative impact on productivity. On the other hand, those RMGs are slightly faster than the ones in the standard scena

23、rio (4.0 m/s instead of 3.5 m/s gantry speed).</p><p>　　The yard layout is adjusted:</p><p>　　? There is no need for two pairs of rail to support a large and a small RMG; both RMGs drive on the

24、same rail. On the same space we can fit 41 modules instead of 35 modules. This means that more RMGs will be deployed: 82 instead of 70. This can cause an increase in performance.</p><p>　　? Storage capacity

25、is increased by 19% because of the layout adjustment. In the model we will keep the yard density at 85%, which means the terminal can accommodate a higher throughput. Although this would also increase the gate volume, we

26、 keep the gate volume at 320 bx/hr in this step; it will be increased later.</p><p><b>　　Results </b></p><p>　　As shown in Figure 2, our simulations show an overall productivity incr

27、ease in quay crane performance of 0.5 to 1.5 bx/hr (+0.9 bx/hr at 5 AGVs per QC, equals +4%). This is the combined result of having more and faster RMGs in the terminal against having less flexibility in job assignment.&

28、lt;/p><p>　　The highest impact can be seen on the landside. With dual RMGs we had a two RMGs per stack module that could work on the waterside, but because of their limited speed, both actually needed to work o

29、n the waterside to achieve acceptable performances. This had a negative impact on the landside with long service times: over 10 minutes service time, meaning trucks had to wait at the RMG transfer zone for more than 10 m

30、inutes before their container was processed, on average!</p><p>　　The truck service times drastically decrease when we use twin-RMGs, with one RMG dedicated to the landside. Trucks are processed six minutes

31、faster in the ‘Improvement 1’ scenario with twin RMGs, as shown in Figure 3. </p><p>　　Step 2: increasing terminal throughput</p><p>　　In Step 1 we mentioned a 19% increase in storage capacity b

32、ecause of the fact that more stackmodules with twin-RMGs fit in the same space as stackmodules with dual-RMGs.</p><p>　　In this step we also increase maximum stacking height from four to five. The dual-RMG l

33、ayout cannot cope with a higher stack because the RMGs were already performing at their maximum capacity (consider the long truck service times caused</p><p>　　by vessel productivity demand requiring both RM

34、Gs for vessel jobs from time to time). The twin-RMGs should be able to process a larger volume because they are faster (4 m/s instead of 3.5 m/s) and there are more cranes (82 instead of 70).</p><p>　　The ov

35、erall throughput increase equals 119% * 125% = 48%.This means the yearly throughput can be 3.2 million TEU. The gate volume increases to 470 boxes per hour. If the 16 quay cranes should be able to achieve 48% higher peak

36、 throughput as well, the</p><p>　　cranes must perform 40 to 42 bx/hr.</p><p>　　Note: We consider linear increases in throughput and peak volumes.Of course these numbers are dependent on other fa

37、ctors too (such as berth capacity), but we ignore those factors in this study.</p><p>　　The increased volume causes a larger demand on landside peak handling and a higher stack leads to more unproductive mov

38、es too (shuffles), so the demand on the RMGs is significantly increased.We will find out how badly this influences the performance.</p><p><b>　　Results</b></p><p>　　The impact on qua

39、y crane performance is negligible. With an increasing amount of AGVs the performance drops with 1%, as shown in Figure 4. </p><p>　　The landside performance shows a bigger impact. Although the RMGs can handl

40、e the increased volume, the service times increase. Trucks delivering a container to the yard need to wait a minute extra on average; trucks picking up a container at the yard wait an additional two minutes (Figure 5). &

41、lt;/p><p>　　Figure 6 shows the status distribution of the RMGs, divided in RMGs processing the waterside (WS RMG) and RMGs processing the landside (LS RMG). Although they are dedicated to do productive moves of

42、 their corresponding side, they can do</p><p>　　unproductive moves for either side. This is why the WS RMGs show a large increase in ‘shuffle move’ status when they execute shuffles for the gate moves. This

43、takes the stress off landside RMGs that need to handle more trucks. </p><p>　　In future steps we will see whether the waterside volume can be increased as well.</p><p>　　Step 3: replacing AGVs b

44、y Lift-AGVs</p><p>　　LOLO AGVs require a ‘hand-shake’ interchange with RMGs at the yard. This causes waiting times for both RMGs and AGVs,because for almost every move one of them has to wait for the other t

45、o arrive. This hand-shake can be excluded from the process by using Lift-AGVs instead of AGVs. Lift-AGVs are able to place and take containers from a platform located in front of the stack modules by using a lift mechani

46、sm. RMGs place and take containers from the platform as well.</p><p>　　In this step we use Lift-AGVs with – besides the lifting ability –the same specs as the 10-year-old AGVs.</p><p>　　Changes

47、and expected effects: </p><p>　　Unlinked interchange between Lift-AGV and RMG reduces waiting time for both equipments. This should increase overall terminal productivity.</p><p>　　Lift-AGVs nee

48、d to make an additional stop in front of the container rack to lower or hoist their platform. This is an extra move in their routing process and costs additional time (15 – 25seconds per stack visit). This decreases prod

49、uctivity.</p><p>　　The container racks require more space than interchange positions for AGVs. Therefore only four racks fit in each stack module interchange zone instead of five parking slots for AGVs.This

50、reduces flexibility and has a negative effect on performance.</p><p><b>　　Results</b></p><p>　　The quay crane performance increases with 3 to 3.5 bx/hr for any number of vehicles per

51、 crane. The reduced waiting times largely outweigh the longer drive times and fewer transfer points,as shown in Figure 7. </p><p>　　Figure 8 shows the move duration per box of the AGVs and lift-AGVs. In the

52、left column for AGVs you can see a large portion of the time is consumed by ‘Interchanging at RMG TP’,2.6 minutes per box, which represents the waiting time for the hand-shake with an RMG.</p><p>　　The right

53、 column for Lift-AGVs shows a slight increase in dr iving times (because dr iving requires an additional action: lifting in front of rack), but also a huge reduction in ‘Interchanging at RMG TP’: only 0.3 minutes (20 sec

54、onds).Lift-AGVs are approaching quay cranes generally a bit earlier now, which causes ‘Waiting for QC approach’ to increase; this represents waiting for a free transfer point under the quay crane or waiting for correct s

55、equence.</p><p>　　Figure 9, the graph with RMG status is not changing much,except the absence of status ‘Waiting for vehicle’ in experiments with lift-AGVs. The RMGs have more idle time remaining,hence incre

56、ased possibilities to do more moves. </p><p>　　Step 4: using state-of-the-art Lift-AGVs</p><p>　　In previous step, we used Year-2000 AGV technical specs for the Lift-AGVs. Now we increase the d

57、riving speeds according to latest standards: </p><p>　　The new Lift-AGVs can drive faster straight, faster in curves,and decelerate faster. This should cause shorter driving times per box, and hence increase

58、d QC productivity.</p><p>　　The quay crane productivity increases significantly ag ain: with 4 to 5 bx/hr, as shown in Figure 10.</p><p>　　The quay crane productivity increase is caused by the h

59、uge reduction in Lift-AGV driving times per box. They only drive 5 minutes per box now, while this used to be 6.5 minutes. The Lift-AGVs generally arrive at the quay cranes earlier again,just like in Step 3, which causes

60、 an increase in waiting time to approach the quay crane transfer area, as shown in Figure 11. </p><p>　　Note: average driving speed increased from 7 to 9.5 km/hr.</p><p>　　Step 5A: more opportun

61、ity moves</p><p>　　The yard couldn’t handle more moves in the original situation to make it beneficial to handle more than 10% of the containers with twin-lift moves at the quay cranes. After Step 4, both th

62、e waterside and the landside RMG in the stack modules had 19% idle time. To make use of this spare time, we increased the twin-lift percentage at the quay cranes. We assume most 20-foot containers could be twin-lifted wh

63、en planned right. Because of this, and given the TEU factor of 1.65, the twin-lift percentag</p><p>　　Expected effects:</p><p>　　The quay cranes can handle more containers per cycle (per move).

64、If the container supply can be increased the productivity will go up. Maximum expected performance increase equals 18% (130%/110% boxes/cycle).</p><p>　　The RMGs need to supply more containers faster. Their

65、idle time will decrease and productivity will increase.</p><p><b>　　Results</b></p><p>　　The quay crane productivity is increased with some 3 bx/hr, or 10%,as shown in Figure 12. <

66、;/p><p>　　The quay crane performance increase is only possible because the RMGs were able to supply more containers to the interchange racks (and take more containers from them). The top graph in Figure 13 show

67、s that each stack module was able to process one additional vessel job per hour: 14.3 instead of 13.1. </p><p>　　The increase in productive moves causes the time spent on productive moves to go up from 62% t

68、o 66%, as shown in the bottom graph, Figure 13. Idle percentage decreased from 19% to 16%. The remaining idle time shows there is still room for improvement.</p><p>　　Step 5B: faster quay cranes (and NO incr

69、eased twin percentage)</p><p>　　The (1990-2000) dual trolley quay cranes in the original scenario and that have been used up to now, are relatively slow.The landside hoist has an average cycle time of 99 sec

70、onds. With modern cranes cycle times of 63 seconds should be possible. The kinematics of the cranes in the model have been adjusted in Step 5B to be able to make cycles of 63 seconds.</p><p>　　Expected effec

71、ts:</p><p>　　The quay cranes can make more cycles per hour and hence productivity should increase. Waiting times for Lift-AGVs at the quay cranes should decrease since the cranes need less time per move, and

72、 hence can serve the next Lift-AGV sooner.</p><p><b>　　Results</b></p><p>　　The quay crane productivity increases by 5 to 7 bx/hr, or 20%,as shown in Figure 14. Other effects that we

73、re observed after this adjustment:</p><p>　　? The quay crane status representing productive activity decreased from 90% to 65%. </p><p>　　? The lift-AGV waiting and interchange times at quay cra

74、nes decreased from 220 to 100 seconds per box processed.</p><p>　　?The idle percentage of waterside RMGs decreased from 19% to 11%, and productivity increased from 62% to 73% (note: the differences do not ev

75、en out because the landside RMG took over more unproductive work when the waterside productivity was increased)</p><p>　　Step 6: all adjustments combined </p><p>　　The final step is a comparison

76、 between the start scenario and all adjustments described in the previous steps. We will see the overall impact on performance levels. Quay crane productivity has increased with 17.2 bx/hr in the experiments with five ve

77、hicles per QC – or 68%! Remember that in Step 2, with the increased throughput, we already stated that QC productivity needed to go up to between 40 and 42 bx/hr and this goal has been achieved.</p><p>　　The

78、 increased quay crane productivity is only possible with more efficient Lift-AGVs and RMGs. Figure 16 shows that the Lift-AGVs in the final scenario only need 7 minutes to complete one container move, while originally th

79、e AGVs needed 11 minutes.</p><p>　　With the increased waterside productivities the stress on the yard has increased as well. The terminal throughput and according gate volume cause additional moves in the ya

80、rd. The gate report shows that the RMGs are able to cope with this increased demand, because 460 truck moves have been handled and the truck service times are still acceptable, as shown in Figure 17. </p><p>

81、;　　The increased demand on the yard is represented in the graph with RMG moves per stack module. In Step 6, the two RMGs in each stack module executed 17.6 vessel boxes and 11.7 gate boxes per hour, about 50% more than t

82、he original scenario. </p><p>　　Meanwhile the number of housekeeping moves has been heavily reduced, as shown in Figure 18. This is not because there is less time, but because there is less need to d

83、o those moves. In the original scenario with dual RMGs, the RMGs often had to drop stack-in containers as fast as possible to cope with local peak demands. Those containers needed to be transferred further away from the

84、interchange areas later to make that space available again for use during new peaks. The twin-RMGs didn’t have th</p><p>　　The status chart of RMGs shows that the RMGs in both the standard and the final scen

85、ario are approaching their limits of activity, as shown in Figure 19. With less than 10% idle time there is too little flexibility to cope with local peaks in the yard.</p><p>　　Conclusions</p><p&

86、gt;　　In this paper we described a step-by-step approach to improve existing largely automated terminals to state-of-the-art terminals and what each step can bring. Besides faster truck and vessel handling the described a

87、djustments lead to a throughput increase of almost 50%.</p><p>　　Actually adjusting existing terminals with the described changes is a costly and time-consuming operation; this may be a bridge too far. Howev

88、er, this study shows how important it can be to build new terminals according to the latest technology, because the performance is highly dependent on this.</p><p>　　Furthermore, the study proves that althou

89、gh the results of simulations seem to be too high compared to current experience, the steps from today’s state-of-the-art – which can be validly represented in the same type of simulation model –to the future’s state-of-

90、the-art are concise and largely doable. This provides a solid and prosperous outlook for tomorrow’s fully automated terminals!</p><p>　　ABOUT THE AUTHORS</p><p>　　Arjen de Waal (MSc) is a senior

91、 consultant at TBA,specializing in terminal optimization. He joined TBA in 2001, and has carried out many large simulation studies focusing on conventional and automated terminals. He has been part of TBA’s team working

92、on Euromax, Antwerp Gateway, APMT Virginia,London Gateway, and APMT Maasvlakte 2.</p><p>　　Dr. Yvo Saanen (PhD, MSc) is principle consultant at TBA, managing TBA’s port-related projects.He founded TBA in 199

93、6. Today he oversees all projects, and is still actively involved in designing and optimizing terminals.</p><p>　　ABOUT THE COMPANY</p><p>　　TBA is a leading international provider of consultanc

94、y and software. Its product and service portfolio concentrates on marine terminals and container terminals. TBA’s current clients include all major terminal operators worldwide, many local port operators, airports, and m

95、anufacturers. TBA provides expert consulting on planning for equipment requirements and performance characteristics.TBA provides modeling of environmental impacts of equipment and terminals in conjunction with specialist

96、 enviro</p><p><b>　　ENQUIRIES</b></p><p>　　TBA Netherlands Karrepad 2a, 2613 AP Delft The Netherlands </p><p>　　Tel: +31 (0)15 380 5775</p><p>　　Email: info

97、@tba.nl</p><p>　　Web: www.tba.nl</p><p>　　ABOUT THE authors about the company Enqui</p><p>　　優(yōu)化自動(dòng)化集裝箱終端來(lái)提高生產(chǎn)力</p><p>　　伊沃·薩能博士（首席顧問(wèn)），德瓦爾（高級(jí)顧問(wèn)）發(fā)表，荷蘭</p><

98、p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　下一代自動(dòng)化終端系統(tǒng)將從最新的解決方案和技術(shù)中獲益。這些加強(qiáng)終端生產(chǎn)力的解決方案是什么呢？在一個(gè)與此匹配的小型模擬分析中，對(duì)所有可能影響船舶生產(chǎn)能力的因素進(jìn)行比較。分析表明，一個(gè)完全智能的終端至今不被淘汰，要求船舶正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)時(shí)能在很短的時(shí)間內(nèi)從航行線上轉(zhuǎn)向，即使是最大的船只。</p><p><b>　　

99、引言</b></p><p>　　是什么使這個(gè)半個(gè)自動(dòng)化的神話如此強(qiáng)大呢？在模擬的世界里，它又是怎么實(shí)現(xiàn)的？關(guān)鍵是要建立運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)良好的自動(dòng)終端，這個(gè)實(shí)際上又是不存在的。這個(gè)問(wèn)題我們不僅要從實(shí)際出發(fā)，也要客觀的評(píng)價(jià)我們的仿真模型。</p><p>　　為了實(shí)現(xiàn)它，我們以一個(gè)已有的完全自動(dòng)化的系統(tǒng)設(shè)備為基礎(chǔ)，再增加最新的技術(shù)改進(jìn)，對(duì)于沒有實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)的我們，我們不知道該模型能否增加性能等級(jí)

100、。我們使仿真模型集裝箱碼頭處于特定的環(huán)境條件下，以此來(lái)衡量每次調(diào)整對(duì)它的單獨(dú)影響。</p><p>　　在本文中，我們從1990年代已建成的，一個(gè)虛擬存在的雙軌道式門機(jī)和自動(dòng)導(dǎo)引車系統(tǒng)的終端出發(fā)，逐步描述了它的改進(jìn)方法。對(duì)于一個(gè)配有兩臺(tái)雙軌道式門機(jī)和自動(dòng)升降機(jī)的先進(jìn)中轉(zhuǎn)站，我們一步一步地展示了不同設(shè)備類型對(duì)生產(chǎn)力的影響。</p><p>　　啟動(dòng)場(chǎng)景： 2000年的自動(dòng)化終端</p&