【正文】 畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì) (論文 ) 外文翻譯 題 目 : Optimizing automated container terminals to boost productivity 專 業(yè) : 港口航道與海岸工程 班 級(jí) : 2020 級(jí)（ 5）班 學(xué) 生 : 尹 長(zhǎng) 兵 指導(dǎo)教師 : 李 怡 重慶交通大學(xué) 2020 年 Optimizing automated container terminals to boost productivity Dr. Yvo Saanen, Principle Consultant, amp。 Arjen de Waal, Senior Consultant, TBA, The Netherlands Abstract 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 pared 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 to turn around even the biggest vessels in a short period of time. Introduction What makes the myth about nonperforming fully automated (robotized is the better word) so 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 started from one of the current stateof 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 TBA‘s own proven container terminal simulation suite TimeSquare to quantify the effects of each adjustment individually. In this article we describe this stepwise 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 stateoftheart terminal with TwinRMGs and LiftAGVs we show the effect on productivity of the various involved equipment types. Starting scenario: a Year 2020 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 35 stack modules with dual crossover (or nested) RMGs. Crossover 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 perpendicular stack layout. Waterside transport is done by lifton liftoff (LOLO) Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs), which are pooled over all quay cranes. All modeled equipment has technical specifications as is appropriate for 10yearold equipment. The terminal is suitable for a yearly throughput of million TEU (TEU factor )。 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 fourhigh, and the peak yard density equals 85%. We have run an eighthour 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 focus on a situation with five AGVs per QC (on average。 they are pooled over all QCs). We will see how the bx/hr can be improved 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 productivity: Use Twin RMGs instead of crossover 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 ( m/s instead of 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 RMGs drive on the 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. ? Storage capacity 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 acmodate a higher throughput. Although this would also increase the gate volume, we keep the gate volume at 320 bx/hr in this step。 it will be increased later. Results As shown in Figure 2, our simulations show an overall productivity increase in quay crane performance of to bx/hr (+ bx/hr at 5 AGVs per QC, equals +4%). This is the bined result of having more and faster RMGs in the terminal against having less flexibility in job assignment. 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 on the waterside to achieve acceptable performances. This had a negative impact