AAPA Port Operations/Safety and Information Technology Seminar 4/24/-27, 2007 Jacksonville, FL Innovation in Port Efficiency: Processes, Simulations and Modeling for better Terminal Operations, Planning & Congestion Mitigation Udo Mehlberg Port of Tacoma
Terminal Operations and Capacity Simulations
Port of Tacoma 2006
Port of Tacoma 2015
Simulation Projects 1994 First simulation project Intermodal Yard NIM & SIM throughput Capacity Port Intermodal Infrastructure Planning Used consultant for project 2004 Acquired simulation software from ISL (ISL = Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics) SCUSY Simulation of Container Unit Handling systems CAPS Capacity Planning System 2005 Joint development with ISL IYCAPS Intermodal Yard Capacity Planning System
Yard Space Utilization
Berthing Times Crane Requirements Utilization
Intermodal Yard Capacity Planning System IYCAPS
IYCAPS Problem: Given a demand forecast and a conceptual IY layout, what are the efficiencies and bottlenecks for the proposed facility?
No Programming is required in order to run a Simulation and achieve Results
IYCAPS Data Requirements REU Types Train Types Processes Tracks Track Connections Productivity Options Measurement (meter/feet) Input Distributions annual, monthly, daily, hourly throughput, train types
Train Length - Determination Unknown types of cars per Train Three types of cars with varying length of each car Train length determined by adding up car length on per train basis at time of load planning While number of TEUs per train may be constant, train length varies greatly
Number of Configurations by Car Type Type of Car Flat Car P Spine Car Q Stack Car S Number of Cars 11,841 13,189 50,940 Number of Types handled in 2006 16 6 38 Number of Car Configurations 21 13 43
Train Length - Determination Create new unit which allows train length determination based on the number of TEU shipped: R E U Rail Equivalent Unit
Train Length - Determination Establish total number of cars by type Establish total length of cars by type Establish total number of wells by type Establish average number of wells per car by type Establish average length of well per car by type Establish number of TEU per well by type of car Name this unit REU
Train Length - Determination Determine distribution of car types arriving/departing from intermodal yard Apply number of TEU shipped per train and let the system determine the train length
REU Determination Type of Car * No Cars % of Total Total length Feet Avg. Car Length Total No of REU Avg. No REU/ Car Avg. REU length No TEU per REU Total No of TEU P 11,067 13.8 1,052,924 95.1 21,232 1.92 46.6 2 42,464 Q 17,283 21.7 3,298,030 190.8 56,116 3.25 58.8 2 112,232 S 51,447 64.5 10,079,286 195.9 146,814 2.85 68,7 4 587,256 Total 79,797 100 14,430,240 224,162 741,952 *Car Type Data and No of Cars from UMLER file of 2/1/2007
Stack Cars single well on one platform Single platform = 1 REU Average REU length = 64.7 Ft Average TEU per REU = 4
Spine Car Spine Car Platform = 1 REU Average REU length = 58.7 Ft Average TEU per REU = 2
Flat Car Types Flatcar from 2 to 4 TEU = 1 REU Average REU Length = 47 Ft Average TEU per REU = 2
IYCAPS Results Reporting Productivity Analysis Equipment type and number Shifts Safety rules for adjacent working tracks
IYCAPS Results Reporting Throughput Evaluation of container moves per train type Train Schedule List of all train arrivals with among others arrival and departure time, train length and container movements. Using the multiple runs function the last train schedule is listed Train schedule Parameters Shows the seasonal arrival distribution and weekly peak times
IYCAPS Results Reporting Train type evaluation Overview of the time stamps a train passes through during its stay in the intermodal yard Track evaluation Overview of the throughput, utilization and performance of operations regarding tracks Track utilization Graphic evaluation of the track utilization over a one year period
Time Stamps of a Train s Stay in the Intermodal Yard
Track Utilization over a one Year Period 110 Utilisation [%] 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Track1 Track2 Track3 Track4 Track5 Track6 Track7 Track8 30 20 10 0 01.Jan 01.Feb 01.Mar 01.Apr 01.May 01.Jun 01.Jul Day 01.Aug 01.Sep 01.Oct 01.Nov 01.Dec
IYCAPS Results Reporting Simultaneous utilization of tracks Track allocation regarding their proportional availability for the trains Connection Point evaluation Information about bottlenecks in regards to track allocation Train Dwell/Delay Graphic evaluation of the length of stay for each train type
Simultaneously used Tacks 110 100 100 99 90 80 68.826 Share of time [%] 70 60 50 40 28.735 38.869 47.707 56.175 30 19.826 20 10 5.064 10.408 0 0 1 2 3 4 Simultaneous used tracks [#] 5 6 7 8
mixed in 90% avg [h] Hours 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Hours 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Trains [#] 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 [%] 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Average Hours in IY
IYCAPS Results Reporting Productivity Analysis Equipment type and number Shifts Safety rules for adjacent working tracks IYCAPS is an evaluation tool. It will not give you the answer if you have no clue what you are doing.
For further information about IYCAPS please contact: Email: IYCAPS@ISL.ORG Phone: 0049 / 471 / 30 98 38 0 Fax: 0049 / 471 / 30 98 38-55 www.isl.org
Thank You May I answer any questions?