Deliverable no. D11. Report on result of usability of concepts

Transcription

1 Intelligent MegaSwapBoxes for Advanced Intermodal Freight Transport Deliverable no. D11 concepts Work package no.: 4 Work package name: Lead participant: Nature of Deliverable 1 : Dissemination level 2 : Evaluation Phase ECC R PU Due del. date from Annex I: 20 Actual delivery. date: Version: 01 Status: final 1 R = Report; P = Prototype; O = Other 2 PU = Public; RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium Report on result of usability of concepts _D.11_V01 TelliBox is funded within the Seventh Framework Programme i

2 Overview Author(s): Contact Person(s) Organisation: Address: Tel: + Fax: + Heiko Sennewald, Herbert Motz Heiko Sennewald Organisation: Ewals Cargo Care B.V. Address: Ariensstraat 61-63, NL-5931 HM Tegelen h.sennewald.koe@ewals.de Tel: + 49(0) Fax: + 49(0) Review Version: Reviewed by: 01 ICM 01 Wesob ii

3 Table of Contents 1. Executive summary Introduction Discussion partners Terminal operators Rail companies Wagon lessors / wagon manufacturers Truck manufacturers Truck drivers Beneficiaries/customers Presentation of the concepts to the advisory board Airtech-Box Shoe-Box Fala-EC Box WingEbox Criteria of usability Comparison matrix for usability analysis iii

4 List of Tables: Figure 3-4: Comparison Matrix Figure 3-5: Specification of Demands List of Figures: Figure 2-1: Model of Airtech-Box Figure 2-2: Model of Shoe-Box Figure 2-3: Model of Fala-Box Figure 2-4: Model of EC-Box Figure 2-5: Model of WingEbox Figure 3-1: Usability analysis for AirTech-Box Figure 3-2: Usability analysis for Fala-EC Box Figure 3-3: Usability analysis for ShoeBox (3D-Box) iv

5 1. Executive summary The aim of this deliverable is to investigate the usability of the MegaSwapBox on rail, water and street, including handling at the terminal. To this end, interviews were conducted with various parties involved with the MegaSwapBox along the transport chain, in order to determine the current situation and to present the different concepts to prospective beneficiaries, who are part of the advisory board among others, and to analyze the usability of the solutions based on the given requirements specification as per deliverable D2 dd Following different workshops within the consortium and discussions with different stakeholders of the intermodal chain, we jointly decided to concentrate our further activities on the so-called 3D-Box which is accessible from two sides including the rear with the required liftable roof. In comparison, the Fala-EC Box would be accessible from one side only and from the back with lifted roof. This solution would be acceptable as a second option. The Airtech-Box is considered to be very innovative, but one of its drawbacks is its potential susceptibility to mechanical failures of the lifting device, depending on external energy supply and it would have a considerably high dead weight. 1

6 2. Introduction Discussions were held with following involved parties: 1. Rail companies, like RAILION, CTL and RZD 2. Wagon lessors / wagon manufacturers 3. Truck manufacturers concerning compliance with legal limitations in weight and dimensions 4. Truck drivers involved in international transport, regarding the opening and closing of the MegaSwapBox, etc. 5. Various beneficiaries such as members of the advisory board as well as with other companies (like Indesit in Arcona). The results have been summarized in chapter 3. Chapter 4 shows the results of the first presentation of the different designs of the MegaSwapBox (Airtech-Box, Fala-EC Box, 3D-Box) which were introduced to the members of the advisory board in June For further analysis of the usability and for comparison of the 3 concepts, it was necessary to define the different criteria that the MegaSwapBox should fulfill. This is described in chapter 5 of this document. The comparison of the 3 layouts is illustrated by means of tables in chapter 6 of this report. The result of the usability analysis shall serve as a basis for the decision-making process. In chapter 7, the conclusions of this analysis are summarized. 2

7 3. Discussion partners Besides members of the advisory board, which includes railway, wagon lessors as well as potential clients, we have talked to terminal operators in Cologne, Mannheim, Rotterdam and others as well as to truck drivers of Ewals Cargo Care and the truck manufacturers, present on the market with lowliner trucking units. 3.1 Terminal operators First of all, different terminal operators have been approached, in order to clarify handling matters, in particular related to the handling by cranes. It has been checked, if the cranes can lift the units by top castings or by grappler pockets (bottom). If the use of cranes is not possible by 45' corner-castings from the top, the cranes can always lift the units by the bottom grappler pockets for the handling between road vehicle and rail wagon. For lifting to/from a river barge, it has been found out that not all cranes at inland terminals can position the spreaders at 45' width for technical reasons. Nevertheless, there is a clear tendency that the availability of 45' spreaders is continuously improving. In ferry harbors as well as in deep-sea harbors, the use of cranes via 45 spreaders is already standard. 3.2 Rail companies RAILION, which develops mega containers, too - but only 40' types which are not authorized in accordance with the German StVZO - does not see any restrictions in using the existing low-floor wagons (codification +C30 or lower) for the TelliBox 3

8 (codification C75) on stretches being codifiedc45. This statement is also valid for the CTL. RZD (Russian national rail company) prefers box containers for transport in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in any case. The majority of Russian wagons are 60'. This can be generally applied to most of Eastern Europe. This means that in this area, the wagons loading capacities will be under-utilized by transportation with 45' containers. In comparison to that, the loading capacities can be fully used by combining 40'+ 20'or 30'+30' containers. 3.3 Wagon lessors / wagon manufacturers Low-floor platform wagons with a height of 0.825m, for example type SFFGGMRRSS-ME, are available in a sufficient quantity via the large lessor companies (see AAE) and available quantities can be increased on request. Other low-floor platform wagons, such as those used by Transfesa, have a height of 0.869m and are not suitable to move mega containers with a total height of 3.20 total legally, as this would exceed the codification of C45, C75. In addition to this, the Transfesa wagons could not carry the MegaSwapBox due to their kind of platform construction (platform beams need to dunk into the floor construction of the swap body). 4

9 3.4 Truck manufacturers There have been discussions with different truck manufacturers like SCANIA, MAN and DAF in order to obtain tractors with lowest possible fifth wheel height. As a result, DAF of the University of Aachen has provided a low-liner truck with a fifth wheel height of currently 86 cm as test truck for the TelliBox. The other manufacturers are also currently in the process of developing low-liner tractors with a fifth wheel height below 0.90 m 3.5 Truck drivers The truck drivers have illustrated their requirements in terms of simplest handling of the MegaSwapBox for opening and closing doors and roof. More detailed statements can be given during and after the first trial transports. 3.6 Beneficiaries/customers As the MegaSwapBox will be used in international transport and thus the equipment will be handled and transshipped frequently, all involved parties prefer a technique, which should be as simple and robust as possible, and the repair and maintenance expenses should be as low as possible. Furthermore, they require a low net weight of the conveyance in order to maximize the payload, as for the purpose of balancing traffic, also heavy commodities will have to be moved. 5

10 Most members of the advisory board can agree to the re-location of the grappler pockets positions from 40' to 45'. Castings are required neither at Ford nor at BSH or Opel 40'.. VW is checking if their internal mobile cranes can handle units with corner castings at 45' positions. 6

11 4. Presentation of the concepts to the advisory board The concepts of the Airtech-Box, the Shoe-Box, the Wing-E-Box and the Fala-EC Box were presented to members of the advisory board in June Ford in Cologne, BSH in Munich, Volkswagen in Wolfsburg, GM in Rüsselsheim and CS Cargo in Prague were visited. 4.1 Airtech-Box This concept was regarded as very innovative. On the other hand, it has been considered as being quite susceptible to failure, as well as very demanding in maintenance due to the high level of technology. Figure 2-1: Model of the Airtech-Box 7

12 Ford can only use this design of the MegaSwapBox, if 2 side doors plus the backdoor can be opened. This concept would not be an alternative for BSH if the side wall is kept closed. 4.2 Shoe-Box This solution is very attractive for customers, because both doors can be opened. Stephen Harley from Ford has suggested the use of one fixed post as roof support in the lateral center to achieve better stability and allow for smaller side doors. Mr. Tonke from BSH has also proposed a segmentation of the side folding doors. Figure 2-2: Model of Shoe-Box 8

13 Lifting height of the roof incl. doors of about 0.80m up to 1.00m has been considered as problematical; the weight as well as the associated technique (13.60 m wide folding doors) were viewed as critical. 4.3 Fala-EC Box This design was regarded the easiest and most pragmatic solution by the members of the advisory board. Figure 2-3: Model of Fala-Box 9

14 Figure 2-4: Model of EC-Box For all discussion partners with the exception of Ford one solid and fixed side wall would not be a general logistical problem. As the circumstances at loading/unloading places are always known early enough, the MegaSwapBox can be placed in the required sense onto the chassis so that the conveyance will be accessible from either the left or the right side. For BSH, the front and back doors are advantageous as loading and unloading will take place while standing on the wagon for some extents. In contrast to this, Ford has rejected the concept with one fixed (not accessible) side wall for loading/unloading as not being operationally feasible for their locations. 10

15 4.4 WingEbox This design was considered as very creative by all discussion partners. The doors opening on both sides were seen as an advantage. Figure 2-5: Model of WingEbox Concerns have been raised about the lifting mechanism, because this is considered as susceptible to breakdowns and failures. Moreover, weight problems could arise, as it will probably be operated using a hydraulic mechanism. On the other hand, the total height in opened condition has been described as potentially critical. For example, the shelters at the Ford plants have a max. height of 5m. 11

16 Beyond that, the question concerning the locking (hast to be waterproofed). was raised by BSH. 12

17 5. Criteria of usability After the presentation of the above-mentioned 5 concepts, they were combined into 3 designs: 1) Airtech-Box, 2) Fala-EC Box 3) Shoe-Box (subsequently called 3D-Box). For the final decision process, a number of criteria regarding usability was established as basis for the evaluation of the 3 concepts. These criteria have been defined within the consortium based on the deliverable D2 requirements specification as well as on the several discussions with different stakeholders of the intermodal chain and different workshops within the Ewals Cargo Care group. The most important criteria are: internal lengths of m internal height of 3.00 m internal width of 2.48 m cargo capacity of 100 m³ trimodality - road/railway/waterways safety/lockable door and payload 13

18 Figure 3-1: Usability analysis for AirTech-Box 14

19 Figure 3-2: Usability analysis for Fala-EC Box 15

20 Figure 3-3: Usability analysis for ShoeBox (3D-Box) 16

21 6. Comparison matrix for usability analysis In workshops held 16/ and 21/ the members of the consortium have established a matrix, with which the result of the concepts can be compared. 17

22 18

23 Figure 3-4: Comparison matrix 19

24 In addition, the demands have been compared in a table, in order to work out the K.O criteria of the different concepts of the MegaSwapBox. Specification of Demands K.O. Criteria Air-Tec EC/Fala Box 3D-Box Equivalent air distribution (bottom plate) Reduction of (10.5 t) tare weight Payload increase up to 23 t Roof-lifting mechanism (decrease of needed operation steps) Concept of crossbeam needs to be adapted Decrease of deflection (tare weight reduction) Locking mechanism of doors FEM calculation with the actual parameters of tare weight and payload (23 t) Height compensation of the doors Tare weight reduction (floor refining) Check whether dynamic driving behavior is not affected by asymmetric floor structure General stackability due to asymmetric floor structure has to be checked Precise definition of the side wall to roof connection Precise definition of connection of side wall "packages" FEM calculation of system under torsion FEM calculation of system under torsion with opened side walls Precise definition of the opening mechanism Locking device of side walls Simplicity of usage, reduction of steps for opening top Simplicity of usage Simplicity of usage Cargo safety Torsion of whole system on uneven surface Concept for locking device Safety analysis Different chassis may be needed due to asymmetric floor structure Torsion of whole system on uneven surface Wear reduction of doors (-) Loading and unloading process only possible from one side Torsion of whole system on uneven surface Concept for maintenance Integration of operators in development process Calculated proof of unproblematic opening and closing of side walls in practical operation Check whether sensor systems may be needed (-) 3.03 m loading height (-) Floor material High-tech solution must be accepted by users (-) No gooseneck is disadvantage Wear while tilting on the chassis Air-Tec EC/Fala Box 3D-Box Width increase is too small (up to 2.45 m) Door openable while system under torsion Reliability that side walls don't open 20

25 simultaneously Ergonomic handling (height) Floor stability when lifted Floor section material (-) No gooseneck is disadvantage Maintenance and inspection time intervals Energy consumption Environmental sustainability (in comparison to shipping volume) Maintenance and inspection time intervals Environmental sustainability (in comparison to shipping volume) Slip due to wear Safety of operation Maintenance and inspection time intervals Environmental sustainability (in comparison to shipping volume) Figure 3-4: Specification of Demands Conclusion In a nutshell, we can conclude that the majority of the beneficiaries prefer the 3D-Box as their first choice, second is the Fala-Box and third the Airtech-Box. An essential factor in this decision was that the 3D-Box would be accessible from either side as well as from the rear door including the required liftable roof. In comparison, the Fala-EC Box would be accessible from one side only and from the back with lifted roof. This solution would be acceptable as a second option. The Airtech-Box is considered to be very innovative, but its potential susceptibility to mechanical failures of the lifting device, dependent on external energy supply is a definite disadvantage and it would have a considerably high dead weight. 21