外文翻译--优化自动化集装箱终端来提高生产力

《外文翻译--优化自动化集装箱终端来提高生产力》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译--优化自动化集装箱终端来提高生产力（22页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、毕业设计 (论文 ) 外文翻译 题 目 :Optimizing automated container terminals to boost productivity 专 业 :港口航道与海岸工程 班 级 : 学 生 : 指导教师 : 重 庆 交 通 大 学 2012 年 Optimizing automated container terminalsto boost productivity Dr. YvoSaanen, Principle Consultant, &Arjen de Waal, Senior Consultant, TBA, The Netherlands Abstract

2、 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 analysis, the small, but all feasible steps are compared on their impact to ship productivity.

3、The analysis shows that with the right measures, a fully robotized terminal can live up to todays requirements from shipping lines to turn around even the biggest vessels in a short period of time. Introduction What makes the myth about non-performing fully automated (robotized is the better word) s

4、o strong? 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, also to critically review our simulation models. In order to do so, we start

5、ed from one of the current state-of the art fully automated facilities, and added latest improvements to the model to see whether we could increase the performance to levels that we do not experience in practice (yet). We used TBAs own proven container terminal simulation suite TimeSquare to quantif

6、y the effects of each adjustment individually. 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 a state-of-the-art terminal with Twin-RMGs and Lift-AGVs we s

7、how the effect on productivity of the various involved equipment types. Starting scenario: a Year 2000 automated terminal 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 3

8、5 stack modules with dual cross-over (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 and the landside transfer area in the perpendicu

9、lar stack layout. Waterside transport is done by lift-on lift-off (LOLO) Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs), which are pooled over all quay cranes. All modeled equipment has technical specifications as is appropriate for 10-year-old equipment. The terminal is suitable for a yearly throughput of 2.2 mi

10、llion TEU (TEU factor 1.65)； there is less than 5% transshipment. 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%. We have run an eight-hour peak period with the simulati

11、on 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 focus 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 improve

12、d by implementing several changes. Step 1 improvement 1: replacing dual RMGs by Twin RMGs 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 expected influence on the terminal prod

13、uctivity: 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 stack (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 scenario (4.0 m/s instead of 3.5 m/s gantry speed). The yard layout is adjusted: There is no need for two pairs of rail to support a large and a small RMG； both