【正文】 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。畢業(yè)設(shè)計 (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 : 2020 級（ 5）班 學(xué) 生 : 尹 長 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。 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。 this represents waiting for a free transfer point under the quay crane or waiting for correct sequence. Figure 9, the graph with RMG status is not changing much,except the absence of status ?Waiting for vehicle‘ in experiments with liftAGVs. The RMGs have more idle time remaining,hence increased possibilities to do more moves. Step 4: using stateoftheart LiftAGVs In previous step, we used Year2020 AGV technical specs for the LiftAGVs. Now we increase the driving speeds according to latest standards: The new LiftAGVs can drive faster straight, faster in curves,and decelerate faster. This should cause shorter driving times per box, and hence increased QC productivity. The quay crane productivity increases significantly ag ain: with 4 to 5 bx/hr, as shown in Figure 10. The quay crane productivity increase is caused by the huge reduction in LiftAGV driving times per box. They only drive 5 minutes per box now, while this used to be minutes. The LiftAGVs generally arrive at the quay cranes earlier again,just like in Step 3, which causes an increase in waiting time to approach the quay crane transfer area, as shown in Figure 11. Note: average driving speed increased from 7 to km/hr. Step 5A: more opportunity moves The yard couldn‘t handle more moves in the original situation to make it beneficial to handle more than 10% of the containers with twinlift moves at the quay cranes. After Step 4, both the waterside and the landside RMG in the stack modules had 19% idle time. To make use of this spare time, we increased the twinlift percentage at the quay cranes. We assume most 20foot containers could be twinlifted when planned right. Because of this, and given the TEU factor of , the twinlift percentage is increased to 30%. Expected effects: The quay cranes can handle more containers per cycle (per move). If the container supply can be increased the productivity will go up. Maximum expected performance increase equals 18% (130%/110% boxes/cycle). The RMGs need to supply more containers faster. Their idle time will decrease and productivity will increase. Results The quay crane productivity is increased with some 3 bx/hr, or 10%,as shown in Figure 12. 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 shows that each stack module was able to process one additional vessel job per hour: instead of . The increase in productive moves causes the time spent on productive moves to go up from 62% to 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. Step 5B: faster quay cranes (and NO increased twin percentage) The (19902020) dual trolley quay cranes in the original scenario and that have been used up to now, are relatively landside hoist has an average cycle time of 99 seconds. 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. Expected effects: The quay cranes can make more cycles per hour and hence productivity should increase. Waiting times for LiftAGVs at the quay cranes should decrease since the cranes need less time per move, and hence can serve the next LiftAGV sooner. Results The quay crane productivity increases by 5 to 7 bx/hr, or 20%,as shown in Figure 14. Other effects that were observed after this adjustment: ? The quay crane status representing pr