A Study of A Transportation System For Bulk/Heavy Materials: Department of Mechanical Engineering

A STUDY OF A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR BULK/HEAVY MATERIALS 1
A STUDY OF A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR

BULK/HEAVY MATERIALS

ANG DUN JIE
A0073172L

Department of Mechanical Engineering

In partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Engineering
National University of Singapore

Session 2013/2014
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper would not have been possible without the following people:
My supervisor Professor Marcelo H. Ang Jr., whose expertise and knowledge are an
inspiration to me, and whose patience and guidance have accommodated problems and
challenges that I met.
Professor Chan Weng Tat, my co-supervisor who have helped introduce and intermediate
authorities from JTC, and who have lent his opinions to steer my project in the correct
direction.
Mr. Aloysius Handono, Chief Urban Design Manager and Ms. Estelle Chan, Senior Planner
from JTC, for providing essential information and helped answer my many questions.
Mr. David Chan from Advent2 Labs Singapore, and Roger Hullinger from FlexSim, for kind
sponsorship of FlexSim simulation license which have been an integral part of my project.
5 of us, Kuanhui, Ben, Brenda, Munwee who have been there since 2006
Music and travel companion, Eunice and Ivan, looking forward to New Zealand
graduation trip in June
And Ying Xiang, who made my journey more enjoyable and fruitful.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Problem ................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Rationale ................................................................................................................................................. 8
1.4 2West Plan, Typology & Layout ..................................................................................................... 9
1.5 Estate-wide Goods Mover System (EGMS) ............................................................................. 11
1.6 Objectives & Given Tasks ............................................................................................................. 12
1.7 Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 13
2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 13
1.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.3 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.1 Performance Factors ............................................................................................................... 14
2.3.2 Other Factors .............................................................................................................................. 15
2.4 Modelling & Simulation .................................................................................................................. 16
3. LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.2 Aboveground Transportation System ...................................................................................... 17
3.2.1 Vehicular Transportation System ...................................................................................... 17
3.2.2 Conveyor System ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.3 Rail Guided Vehicles (RGVs) ................................................................................................. 20
3.2.4 Automatic Guided Vehicles (AGVs) ................................................................................... 20
3.3 Underground Transportation Freight System ...................................................................... 21
3.3.1 Pneumatic Capsule Pipeline (PCP) .................................................................................... 21
3.3.2 Rail Bound Capsule System .................................................................................................. 23
3.3.3 Rail Bound Vehicle ................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.4 Underground Conveyors ....................................................................................................... 25
3.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 4. BRAINSTORMING ............................................................................................................ 26
4.1 Requirements for EGMS ................................................................................................................. 26
4.2 Brainstorming .................................................................................................................................... 26
4.3 Specifications ..................................................................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 5. SIMULATIONS ................................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Simulation Overview ....................................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Simulation for Conveyor ................................................................................................................ 31
5.2.1 Conveyor Model ........................................................................................................................ 31
4.2.2 Conveyor Simulation Parameters ...................................................................................... 33
4.2.3 Conveyor Quantitative Result ............................................................................................ 23
4.2.4 Conveyor Qualitative Result ............................................................................................... 36
5.3 Simulation for AGV ........................................................................................................................... 37
5.3.1 AGV Model ................................................................................................................................... 37
5.3.2 AGV Simulation Parameters ................................................................................................. 38
5.3.3 AGV Quantitative Result ....................................................................................................... 40
5.3.4 AGV Qualitative Result .......................................................................................................... 43
5.4 Simulation for RGV ........................................................................................................................... 44
5.4.1 RGV Model ................................................................................................................................... 44
5.4.2 RGV Simulation Parameters ................................................................................................ 45
5.4.3 RGV Quantitative Result ....................................................................................................... 47
5.4.4 RGV Qualitative Result .......................................................................................................... 50
5.5 Simulation for Capsule .................................................................................................................. 51
5.4.1 Capsule Model............................................................................................................................ 51
5.4.2 Capsule Simulation Parameters.......................................................................................... 52
5.4.3 Capsule Quantitative Result ................................................................................................ 54
5.4.4 Capsule Qualitative Result ................................................................................................... 57
5.6 Comparison Tables .......................................................................................................................... 59
5.7 Comparison Study and Design Considerations ..................................................................... 61
5.8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER 6. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................ 64
6.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 64
6.2 Suggested Design for Conveyor .................................................................................................. 64
6.3 Suggested Design for AGV ............................................................................................................ 65
6.4 Suggested Design for RGV ............................................................................................................. 67
6.5 Suggested Design for Capsule ..................................................................................................... 68
CHAPTER 7. FUTURE RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 72
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 73

LIST OF ABBRIEVIATIONS
EGMS Estate-wide Goods Mover System
JTC Jurong Town Corporation
R&D Research and Development
CAD Computer-Aided-Design
EDB Economic Development Board
UFTS Underground Freight Transportation System
PCP Pneumatic Capsule Pipeline
AGV Automatic Guided Vehicle
RGV Rail Guided Vehicle

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
2West: A liveable and sustainable town of the future
Belonging to a development project of the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC), 2West is a
proposed industrial area spanning 700 hectares in development to house high-value
industry and to establish Research & Development institutions. The concept is a long
term, multiagency effort that seeks to leverage on R&D to provide sustained capacity and
options for the future generations. [1]
As part of JTC seeking new and unique industrial infrastructure solutions and
differentiating Singapore as an investment location, the 2West project is exploring the
creation of usable space for an expanded range Estate-wide Goods Mover System
(EGMS). The EGMS is a creative underground idea that involves an underground
warehousing and logistic solution to expand industrial space and optimise use of surface
land. [1] This project aims to develop ideas for the EGMS.

Figure 1. Concept for 2West Development

1.2 Problem
Currently, the typical industrial developments have individual warehouses and
loading/unloading zones dedicated to each industrialists needs. In addition, the
industrial estate would have been planned with wide public roads of minimum 21.4m
width, and each of these industrial developments would have wide internal driveways to
cater to the movement of 20 and 40-footer trailers. [2, 3]
By outsourcing each individual industrial developments goods storage, loading and
unloading processes to a third-party logistics solution provider, it is potentially possible
to reduce the land taken up by these industrial roads, internal driveways, warehouses
and loading/unloading zones in order to intensify industrial land use. The system
intended for development and usage is the aforementioned underground Estate-wide
Goods Mover System (EGMS) in 2West.
1.3 Rationale
The land is a finite and a precious resource especially in Singapore, and only expanding
via extensive land reclamation along the coasts of Singapore. Since 1960s, Singapore land
area has increased from 581.5km
2
to 707.1km
2
[4] in the present; a small increase
overshadowed by a massive population growth from 1.6 million to 5.4million in 2013 [5].
As such, to overcome the increasing constraints of limited land space, land development
agencies in Singapore need to refocus internally to promote saving of land space by
ensuring that the land usage are efficient. This is especially critical in the land usage for
industrial development in Singapore, where the industrial estates takes a large portion of
the land. [3]
Furthermore, this ties in with Singapore Economy Development Board (EDB) goal of
being at the forefront of logistics and supply chain management. With a geographically
prime location, Singapore should aim to be the leading logistic hub with world class
infrastructure enhanced with specialised logistic capabilities, and hence, implement the
EGMS system. [6]
1.4 2West Plan, Typology & Layout

Figure 2. 2West Map
Above is the estate plan for the layout of 2West project. The upper left area shaded dark
yellow is the CDC Logistic Hub which is the central warehouse used for storage and
distribution. The EGMS underground tunnel is the highlighted boxed area in red, not to
be confused with the green shaded area which represents ground level roads. The purple
area are plotted lands intended for parcelized factories. Parcelized factory layout is
shown on the next page in figure 3.
However instead of the given layout shown on the map, for this paper, a general
rectangular layout will be used as shown in Figure 4 on the next page. This is because
actual parcel layout have not been finalised. For quantitative purposes in the later part of
the study, individual parcels will be numbered as well. Furthermore, dimensions are
added to obtain more meaningful results.

Figure 3. 2West Typology

Figure 4. Factory Layout
1.5 Estate-wide Goods Mover System (EGMS)
The EGMS is an underground transportation system for goods from the CDC Logistic
Warehouse to the EGMS receiving area of the individual industrial parcels. The system is
required to fit within a dedicated 6m wide rectangular EGMS corridor tunnel that will be
laid underground from the CDC Logistic Hub to the industrial parcels.
Referring to the figure 3 on the previous page, the EGMS will travel along a straight linear
underground tunnel from the CDC warehouse demarcated by the orange arrow. This
tunnel will be referred to as the Main Trunk EGMS. From the main trunk EGMS, it will
further branch into the side trunks to reach other parcels as shown by the green arrow.
The side tunnels will be referred to as Side Trunk EGMS
The EGMS system will be a uni-modal system designed to suit for transportation of
palletised goods. Pallets used in consideration will be the ISO standard 1000 x 1200mm
pallets that have a safe average capacity of 1 ton. Finally, the system is required to be fully
automated due to non-ideal underground environment.
1.6 Objectives & Given Tasks
i. Development modelling, simulation and feasibility study of suggestions, including
interface between companies and central warehouse.
ii. Study of typical processing time taken under estate-wide goods mover systems
iii. Study on mitigation of potential security risks and safety concerns that might arise
from such system.
iv. Propose conceptual design on how goods mover corridor can be integrated with
common services/utilities tunnel or pedestrian paths.
1.7 Scope
The primary scope of this paper discusses several different solutions for the EGMS
system. Simulations will be run for each solution with pre-defined parameters to access
and compared. Major features of each design will be explained and redundancy will be
planned for.
This paper also includes case study of current freight methods, both aboveground and
underground freight transport, and lastly suggests designs for methods whilst tackle all
safety and security risks. It only concerns with all transportation systems within the
estate, and does not concern with long distance delivery of goods in and out of the estate.
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the methods of research and collection of information. Also, it
explains the criterion and evaluations of the various aspect of a freight transportation
system.
2.1 Overview
Figure 5. Goods Supply Chain Overview
Logistics describes the entire process of materials and products moving into, and out of
firm. [7] The fundamental goods supply chain involves goods travelling from an origin,
through a transportation system, to a destination. Equipment used to assist in transport
operations reduce labour and cost, increase throughput, and maintain quality of
products/operation [8]
A more thorough transportation system includes production/manufacturing, storage,
transportation, retail sale, plant, warehousing services, material handling and sorting. [9]
However, this is beyond our scope as we are only looking into transportation between
CDC and individual parcels.

2.2 Literature Review
Background research on secondary sources will be conducted to find current
information, development on underground freight transport, understand problems to
formulate a more comprehensive and effective proposed design. Information will be
obtained from reliable website on major freight transportation systems, research papers
on development of underground freight systems, case studies on various transportation
systems, brochures & fact sheets on current existing transportation equipment.
2.3 Evaluation Criterion
Here, various factors that are key aspects of a goods transportation system are explained.
Designs will be tested with such criterion to obtain a meaningful result.
2.3.1 Performance Factors
i. Flow Time
Flow time refers to the time of transportation from origin to destination. This may refer
to the time it takes for the good to travel from the central warehouse to individual
warehouse and vice-versa.
ii. Throughput
Throughput is one of the most important performance factor relevant to the purpose of a
transportation system; which is the most amount of goods in the shortest amount of time.
This measures the amount of goods per unit time.

iii. Automation
Automation reduces human labour and also reduces human error. Furthermore in the
transportation of heavy goods, it is also safer. A fully automated system may save time
and money in the long term.
iv. Capacity Utilisation
Capacity utilisation measures the ratio of current capacity to its maximum capacity. This
allow us to gauge how well the resource usage efficiency is at the current output.
2.3.2 Other Factors
i. Cost
A main concern for developers and owners. However there is often a trade-off between
cost and performance. To achieve high performance, more advanced technology and
more expensive better materials are required. As such, it is difficult to balance
performance and cost.
ii. Complexity
This refer to how complex the transportation system is. If the system is too complex, it
may require highly skilled operators. Furthermore, it may be time consuming and costly
to repair if a fault occurs. Ideally, a system should have high capability yet remain as
simple as possible.

iii. Safety
Safety is an important consideration in all aspects of an industry. Minimally, the system
should be safe both in operations, and human interface. In this design, BCA safety
recommendations will be also considered and such include fire and building safety.
2.4 Modelling & Simulation
Simulations and calculations will then be conducted for above evaluation criteria.
Simulations will be conducted using software FlexSim, a powerful and visual simulator
for warehouse and logistics simulations.

Figure 6. FlexSim Simulation

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Overview
There are many variations in the equipment and systems currently used in supply chains
and processes in Singapore. Firstly we will take a look at aboveground freight
transportation systems employed both in Singapore and overseas. Then we will explore
worldwide Underground Freight Transportation Systems (UTFS) to help in generation of
ideas for the EGMS. All these will be discussed in detail below as part of the literature
review.
3.2 Aboveground Transportation Systems
3.2.1 Vehicular Transportation System

Figure 7. Vehicular Transportation System
Vehicular transportation system employs one or more modes of transportation from
point to point. Various vehicles such as forklifts, trucks, cranes fall under this category.
Vehicular system usually offers flexibility as such transportation equipment can be
activated easily to ad-hoc calling. [10]
However, such system is labour intensive as it requires manpower throughout the entire
transportation phase from retrieval of goods, loading, unloading, and transportation
drivers. This system is usually used when logistic flow is not continuous or it is difficult
to automate such transportation network. Although specialised vehicles and precise
overhead cranes are capable of full automation, they are extremely expensive and
inflexible.
3.2.2 Conveyor Systems

Fig. 8 Conveyor Belt (Left) & Rollers (Right)
Conveyor systems are localised systems that move items from one end of its medium to
another. There are many different types of conveyors, the two most common universal
types are belt and roller conveyors. Conveyor systems can perform a vast amount of
functions such as sorting and packaging, and it is usually integrated into the
manufacturing or logistic process. As such, they are used in a wide spectrum of industries
including mining, manufacturing, construction, automotive, food. [11]
Conveyor systems are ideal for continuous flow of goods and logistic processes that are
fixed from point to point terminals. Conveyors are also easily customisable with a wide
variety of mechanics such as flipping, stacking, pushing, rotating, lifting etc. [12] Although
the longest conveyor system in the world stretches many kilometres, they are generally
used only for short distances at the most several hundred metres. Indoor conveyor
systems are able to carry a high load and usually operate at lower speeds of 0.5 to 2m/s.
Most Conveyor systems supports automation, and are able to work in conjunction with
many other systems to provide full automation from start of a logistic process to its end.
As they travel in a fixed path, they are also very safe in operation. [13]
3.2.3 Rail Guided Vehicles (RGVs)
RGVs are electronic driverless vehicles designed with off the shelves technology guided
on rails to travel along the rail pass. [14] This transportation methods have high
reliability and safe for operation. As such, they are a widely used when it comes to short
distances freight transportations of heavy goods. [15] Also it offers limited flexibility by
how the rails are installed. Furthermore, each RGV can be customised to suit various
automations and different type goods.

Figure 9. Rail Guided Vehicles (RGVs)
A typical RGV can hold up to 10 tons, and travelling speed varies from 24m/min to up to
265m/min [16,17]. It has increased throughput and allows for greater capacity just by
adding the number of vehicles. It can be controlled via Programmable Logic Circuitry
(PLC) and remotely by radio frequency (RF). Also, operation is simple and it is easily
maintainable. Finally, such systems eliminate single-point failure, meaning that the
system is able to continue to function even though a vehicle fails. [18]

3.2.4 Automatic Guided Vehicles (AGVs)
AGVs are one of the most dynamic and efficient systems for materials handling today.
They are similar to the RGVs except that they are not guided by rail. The AGVs are usually
mounted on rubber wheels and steering is guided by one of various types of guiding
methods. Early guiding methods includes wire guided, magnetic field sensing. Today new
technologies include transponder reading, laser triangulation, and vision recognition
sensors with digital cameras [19] AGVs are however often slower than RGVs, at around
1-3m/s.

Figure 10. Automatic Guided Vehicles (AGVs)
The most prominent large scale AGV system currently in place is the widely researched
Ondergronds Logistiek Systeem (OLS) in Netherlands since the 1990s. Unfortunately, it
had been an innovation failure but evaluations offered much hind-sight success and
future prospects. [20] Yet within an estate, there have been reliable and proven
continuous operations in many industries such as manufacturing, warehousing, and even
hospitals. There are also an array of automated task for AGV from towing, to forking, to
loading and unloading.

3.3 Underground Transportation Systems
As early as the 1950s, due to the global effect of land shortage, many countries have
undertook development and implementation of Underground Freight Transportation
Systems (UFTS). [21] Currently, with the exception of underground pipelining for
common utilities, there are no other UFTS systems in Singapore, especially for heavy and
bulk cargo. As such, literature review will be conducted to research on such existing
and/or developing UFTS systems, then adapting and improving the system to fit the
requirements for EGMS.
3.3.1 Pneumatic Capsule Pipeline (PCP)
Pneumatic Capsule Pipeline (PCP) has been used to transport telegrams and telegraph
messages since the 1850s. Throughout the years, new technology allows the system to be
developed further and optimised. Today, PCP provides an alternative to existing roads
and rail-based transformation. [22] There have been some variations such as the
hydraulic capsule pipelines and electro-magnetic propulsion systems. However the only
difference is the powering mechanism and will not be discussed here.
PCP is defined as a class of transportation system in which close fitting capsules or trains
of capsules move through tubes between fixed terminals. [23] Such capsules are driven
by air to force it through the pipe. Currently, there are two main types of PCP, wheeless
and wheeled PCP. [24] Wheeless PCP are usually used for carrying small capsules of
lightweight parcel. These are used in several industries, the prominent one including
drive-in banks for transporting cash and documents, and postal services in hospital [25]

Figure 8. Wheeless PCP Application
Wheeled PCP allows for large capsules carrying heavier cargo in larger pipes as large as
several meters due to wheels support. It is said that large-diameter PCP is especially
suitable and sustainable for transport of freight as a general cargo carrier. Currently, such
PCP is used in industrial freight, such as the Ippon Steel Corporation and Daifuku
Machinery Work Ltd in a system called AIRAPID [21] Also, modern PCP designs are
current being developed by TubeXpress in the USA for larger and heavier general goods.
[26]

Figure 9. Wheeled PCP application
There are numerous benefits of the PCP. Firstly it ease traffic congestions by directing
freight transportation off the road. Also there is less air and noise pollution. Modern PCP
systems have very safe operations, and offer high reliability of over 98%. Furthermore,
they use less energy compared to other freight transportation and have shorter
transportation time. Normal operating speed of wheeless PCP are 1 to 6m/s, while larger
wheeled PCP can go up to 10m/s. [27]
3.3.2 Rail-Bound Capsule System (CargoCap)
Modern technology has allowed capsule systems to accommodate larger cargo at greater
efficiency and reliability. Compared to the PCP, these systems are usually driven by
electric power. Today, the two most prominent concepts are the UFT by TTI, USA and the
CargoCap in Germany, all are wheeled and rail-bounded in-tube systems. [20]

Figure 10. CargoCap System
For this project, the more developed CargoCap system will be discussed. Developed by
Ruhr University Bochum in Germany, CargoCap is a small capsule that runs on a track and
is driven electrically by a wheel. It is able to fit in a 2m diameter tunnel and is able to
contain up to 2 euro-pallets. Also, the capsule is aerodynamically designed, allowing more
efficient energy consumption and less wear and tear. The CargoCap can reach speeds up
to 40km/hr with a minimum spacing of 2 meters between vehicles. [28]
Furthermore, this system is designed to be a fully automated one. Capsules are computer-
controlled and driverless. Precision controls and automated loading and unloading are
able to be obtained. [29] Also, the CargoCap system have many inbuilt safety features
such as an independent electric service breaking device and collision units.
3.3.3 Rail Bound Vehicles
The most well-known rail bounded vehicles underground are train systems used all over
the world. In Singapore, the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) is an automated metro system
used to transport people island-wide. Since the 1930s, an automated rail system has been
used by London Mailrail, which is a postal system underground but have been
discontinued. [20]

Figure 11. London Mail Rail
Such rail trains can reach extremely high speed and efficient when used for large
distances. Also automated metro systems have been proved to be very reliable and
accurate. However, such system requires an extensive infrastructure, and requires a
larger space to install. Safety issue is also another major concern for rail-guided vehicles
due to the fast speed.

3.3.4 Underground Conveyor Systems
Underground Conveyor systems are similar to those aboveground. Currently its most
prominent use is transportation of bulk materials in the mining industry.

Figure 12. Underground Conveyor Systems for Mining
Many countries are also developing the use of underground conveyor systems to divert
traffic from roads above ground level. In Belgium, the Underground Container Mover
project consist of a conveyor belt of 21km is planned to transport containers at 22 to 28m
below ground level. [26]
3.4 Summary
Various freight transportation methods above are useful for various situations. However
as this paper targets a small scale system within an estate, we will eliminate the usage of
PCP systems due to its high cost and complexity and also rail bound vehicles due its great
infrastructure requirement. Also, vehicular transportation methods will not be
considered as it requires human operations. As such, we will consider the following: 1)
RGVs, 2) AGVs, 3) Rail Bound Capsules, and finally 4) Conveyors.
CHAPTER 4: BRAINSTORMING
4.1 Requirements for EGMS
The proposed EGMS must,
i. Fit within the underground goods corridor of 6m x 6m rectangular tunnel.
ii. Technology should be available for application within a relatively short period of
time.
iii. System should be customised for palletised goods.
iv. System should be fully automated with little human interface.
v. System should have high throughput, efficiency and reliability.
vi. System should be safe in operation and human interface.
vii. System should encompass great sorting and pathing capabilities.
4.2 Brainstorming
From the literature review, the several methods listed below are shortlisted. Then
simulations will be conducted for the several ideas, and the idea with the best results will
be chosen and developed.
1) Conveyors
2) AGVs
3) RGVs
4) Rail Bound Capsule System

i) Conveyors
Conveyors provide a continuous flow of goods and is well suited to supply chains of
continuous goods. They have branching capabilities and is especially useful to sort goods
to its different individual parcel corridor. However it succumbs to single point failure. If
a part of the conveyor fails, the entire transportation system will be unable to continue.
ii) AGVs
AGVs will be useful if logistic flows are in batches. AGVs can be automatically switched off
when not in used and as such, also more energy efficient. AGVs are also useful as they
possess great pathing capability. With guiding methods, AGVs are able to preset its
destination and transportation can be ad-hoc. Also, AGVs will prevent single point failure.
However, they require higher safety distance and its capacity is lower than that of
conveyors or RGVs.
iii) RGVs
RGVs are similar to AGVs apart from its path capabilities. Its flexibility is restricted to its
rails. Also, RGVs are able to carry a greater load and have a slightly higher operating
speed.
iv) Rail Bound Capsule System
To suit the need in this EGMS, we need not use such a powerful and fast capsule system
such as the CargoCap concept. However a scaled down capsule system from the CargoCap
concept is definitely still feasible due to its high reliability and efficiency. Also it allows
for high throughput and high load capacity.

4.3 Specifications
Conveyor AGVs RGVs Capsule
Operating Speed
(m/s)
0.5 2 4 10
Capacity
(pallets)
- 20 40 100
Capacity (kg) - 5000 10000 25000
Loading &
Unloading Time
(sec per pallet)
- 10 10 5
Table 1. Specifications for Transportation Methods
CHAPTER 5: SIMULATIONS
5.1 Simulation Overview
As mentioned in the methodology, Simulation will be conducted via software FlexSim.
Firstly, models will be created for each method described in the previous chapter. Then
four simulations will be conducted for each method:
1) Single Package to each Parcel (SP),
This simulation measures the each individual flow time to each parcel, which is, the time
taken for the pallet to be transported from the terminal to the parcel.
2) Continuous Package at Average Load (CP),
This simulation allow us to measure the throughput to each parcel over time and thus
calculate average throughput to each parcel and total throughput of the entire system. A
source input of inter-arrival rate that follows an exponential distribution of 5 seconds is
used. (I.e. 5 seconds between each pallet)
3) Maximum Capacity Test (MC)
Excessively high load is used to allow us to measure the maximum capacity of the system.
More importantly, this simulation will allow us to spot bottlenecks in the design. A source
input of inter-arrival rate that follows an exponential distribution of 1 second is used. (I.e.
1 second between each pallet)
To obtain these result, parameters will be varied to accordingly and the results will be
discussed in later sections. Furthermore, simulations will run for 86400 units of time,
which corresponds to 86,400seconds - 24 hour period. Finally, pallet load will be set at
250kg per pallet, due to safety considerations and provision for safety factor. We will then
present quantitative results and qualitative results below.
This simulation will start from the EGMS terminal at the CDC Logistic Hub. Below is a
visual representation of the EGMS Terminal. Several loading/unloading stations used to
load/unload palletised goods onto a mean of transportation via robots. In this example,
conveyors are used. Furthermore, there will be a return path.

Figure 13. Model of Warehouse Terminal
In the following sections, different simulation models will be discussed and presented.
Models shown will be a scaled down model of the system for depiction. However, the
actual simulation is conducted with actual dimensions based on the rectangular layout as
shown in the introduction Figure. 3 on page 9. Relevant calculations will be done for each
methods and a quantitative comparison table will be shown at the end as part of the
summary.

5.2 Simulation for Conveyor
5.2.1 Conveyor Model
One directional conveyors are laid across the tunnel in a loop as shown by the model
Figure 15 on page 32. The flow of goods are shown by the black arrows. As palletised
goods travel along the conveyors, they are sorted into individual parcels accordingly onto
a queue for each parcel via sorting equipment readily available.
As the system runs in a loop, goods returning to the central hub can also employ the same
conveyor system. Conveyors branches at 2 points in the EGMS main trunk. The centre
junction serves parcel 1-2 and 13-14, and the junction at the end serves parcel 3-4 and
15-16, with the return loop to return to the CDC logistic warehouse.
The raised conveyor interface on the highlighted in red crossing the main EGMS trunk is
shown on the following page in Figure 14 below. The minimum spacing between each
pallet must be at least 0.5m for operational safety.

Figure 14. Raised Conveyor Interface

Figure 15 Model of Conveyor System

5.2.2 Conveyor Simulation Parameters
Simulation 1 (SP) Simulation 2 (CP)
Conveyor Speed
(m/s)
0.5 Inter-arrival Rate
(sec/pallet)
5
Conveyor Spacing 0.5 Conveyor Speed
(m/s)
0.5
Conveyor Spacing 0.5
Simulation 3 (MC)
Inter-arrival Rate
(sec/pallet)
5
Conveyor Speed
(m/s)
0.5
Conveyor Spacing 0.5
Table 2. Conveyor Simulation Parameters
5.2.3 Conveyor Simulation Results
i) Flow Times for Conveyor
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s) 633 533 913 813 122 222 322 422

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time (s) 122 222 322 422 633 533 913 813
Table 3. Parcel Flow Time for Conveyor

= 122
= 913
=

.
= 497.5
It takes an estimate of 497.5 seconds to travel from the CDC logistic hub to the EGMS
terminal at each parcel. This simulation represents the ideal situation with no deviation.
Actual flow time to different parcels will vary in practise due to occurrence of variability.
ii) Throughput at Average Load for Conveyor
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Goods (pallet) 1051 1014 1073 1081 1026 1158 1088 1015
Throughput
(pallet/s)
0.0122 0.0117 0.0124 0.0125 0.0119 0.0134 0.0126 0.0117
Throughput
(kg/s)
3.041 2.934 3.105 3.123 2.969 3.351 3.148 2.937

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Goods (pallet) 1083 1059 1082 1072 1138 1076 1116 1047
Throughput
(pallet/s)
0.0125 0.0123 0.0125 0.0124 0.0132 0.0125 0.0129 0.0121
Throughput
(kg/s)
3.134 3.064 3.131 3.102 3.292 3.113 3.229 3.030
Table 4. Average Load Throughput for Conveyor

(
) = 0.199
(
) = 49.71
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0124
(
) =
(
)

= 3.107
The average throughput to each parcel at average load is 0.0124 pallets per second, 3.107
kg per second. And the total throughput of the entire conveyor system is 0.199 pallets per
second, 49.71 kg per second.
iii) Throughput at Maximum Capacity
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Goods (pallet) 1479 1555 1647 1585 1507 1521 1551 1520
Throughput
(pallet/s)
0.0171 0.0180 0.0191 0.0182 0.0174 0.0176 0.0180 0.0176
Throughput
(kg/s)
4.280 4.499 4.766 4.586 4.361 4.401 4.488 4.398

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Goods 1558 1523 1521 1565 1426 1541 1506 1532
Throughput
(pallet/s)
0.0180 0.0176 0.0176 0.0181 0.0165 0.0178 0.0174 0.0177
Throughput
(kg/s)
4.508 4.407 4.401 4.528 4.126 4.459 4.359 4.433
Table 5. Maximum Capacity for Conveyor
(
) = 0.284
(
) = 72.00
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0178
(
) =
(
)

= 4.437
The maximum capacity to each parcel is 0.0178 pallets per second, 4.437 kg per second
and the total maximum capacity of the entire system is 0.284 pallets per second, 72.00 kg
per second.
iv) Capacity Utilisation
=

= 0.700
At average load of inter-arrival time exponential distribution 5sec/pallet, the capacity
utilisation of the system is 70%
5.2.4 Conveyor Qualitative Result
Bottleneck does not occur in this simulation; the process is linear with simple branching
and merging junctions. Varying parameters of the simulation, it was found out that
increasing conveyor speed is the only way to increase maximum capacity. (Decreasing
spacing between each parcel also increases maximum capacity, but this is not safe.) Also,
we found out that changing the conveyor layout does not affect the throughput. Layout of
conveyor systems only affect the flow time, but throughput and capacity of the system
remains almost similar. From these simulations, we can tell that the conveyor system is
reliable, simple to understand. Furthermore, it can be easily automated.
Next, the speed of conveyor used in this simulation is a minimal estimate, as it can travel
up to 2 metres per second safely; which is 400% of what is used in this simulation.
Finally, as mentioned before, conveyor systems does not allow failure. As a single fault in
the main trunk would disable the entire conveyor system.
5.3 Simulation for AGVs
5.3.1 AGV Model
The model for AGV is shown in Figure 16 on page 39. From the terminal, AGVs will be
activated and will travel along transport nodes as reflected by black circles in the model
until it reaches its destination queue. Vehicles have collision detection and are able to
stray slightly from the path. Also traffic is bi-directional and there are no fixed route for
the AGVs. This also means that AGVs can follow the same path back and forth the EGMS
Tunnel. In this model, 16 dedicated AGVs are used (one for each parcel). However the
number of AGVs can be easily changed and suited to capacity needs.

5.3.2 AGV Simulation Parameters
Vehicle Speed (m/s) 2 Inter-arrival Rate
(sec/pallet)
5
No. of Vehicles 16 Vehicle Speed (m/s) 2
Vehicle Capacity
(Pallet)
20 No. of Vehicles 16
Loading/Unloading
Time (s/pallet)
10 Vehicle Capacity
(Pallet)
20
Loading/Unloading
Time (s/pallet)
10
Simulation 3 (MC)
Inter-arrival Rate
(sec/pallet)
1
Vehicle Speed (m/s) 2
No. of Vehicles 16
Vehicle Capacity
(Pallet)
20
Loading/Unloading
Time (s/pallet)
10
Table 6 AGV Simulation Parameters


Figure 16. Model of AGV System

5.3.3 AGV Simulation Results
i) Flow Time for AGV
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s) 162 139 138 162 52 77 102 127

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time (s) 51 75 101 126 162 138 140 162
Table 7. Parcel Flow Time for AGV
= 51
= 162
=

.
= 119.6
ii) Throughput at Average Load for AGV
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Goods (pallet) 1027 1095 1080 1049 1112 1096 1049 1042
Throughput
(pallet/s)
0.0119 0.0127 0.0125 0.0121 0.0129 0.0127 0.0121 0.0121
Throughput
(kg/s)
2.972 3.168 3.125 3.035 3.218 3.171 3.035 3.015

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Goods (pallet) 1042 1090 1091 1077 1114 1096 1095 1087
Throughput
(pallet/s)
0.0121 0.0126 0.0126 0.0125 0.0129 0.0127 0.0127 0.0126
Throughput
(pallet/kg)
3.015 3.154 3.157 3.116 3.223 3.171 3.168 3.145
Table 8. Average Load Throughput for AGV
(
) = 0.200
(
) = 49.89
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0125
(
) =
(
)

= 3.118
kg per second. And the total throughput of the entire system is 0.200 pallets per second,
49.89 kg per second.
iii) Throughput per AGV
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0125 sec
(
) =
(
)

= 3.118 sec
The average throughput for each AGV in the system is 0.0125 pallets per second per AGV,
3.118kg per second per AGV.
iv) Maximum Capacity for AGV
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Goods (unit) 2394 2562 2531 2385 2724 2710 2599 2549
Throughput
(unit/s)
0.0277 0.0297 0.0293 0.0276 0.0315 0.0314 0.0301 0.0295
Throughput
(kg/s)
6.9271 7.413 7.324 6.901 7.882 7.841 7.520 7.376

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Goods 2684 2667 2723 2583 2419 2547 2538 2418
Throughput
(unit/s)
0.0311 0.0309 0.0315 0.0299 0.0280 0.0295 0.0294 0.0280
Throughput
(kg/s)
7.766 7.717 7.879 7.474 6.999 7.370 7.344 7.000
Table 9. Maximum Capacity for AGV
(
) = 0.475
(
) = 118.73
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0297
(
) =
(
)

= 7.42
and the total maximum capacity of the entire system is 0.475 pallets per second, 118.73
kg per second.
v) Maximum Capacity per AGV
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0297 sec
(
) =
(
)

= 7.42 sec
The maximum capacity for each AGV in the system is 0.0297 pallets per second per AGV,
7.42 kg per second per AGV.
vi) Capacity Utilisation for AGV
=

= 0.420
At average load of inter arrival time exponential distribution 5 sec/pallet, the capacity
utilisation of the system is 42.0%
5.3.4 AGV Qualitative Results
There were no bottleneck in this simulation. Furthermore, the capacity of this system is
fully dependent on the number of vehicles, which can be increased or decreased just by
adding or cutting vehicles.
Maximum capacity of this system can be increased by increasing maximum load of each
AGV, speed of each AGV, and decreasing loading and unloading time.
For this simulation, the conditions are less than ideal as job flow is completely random.
Queuing and scheduling techniques can be planned and used to raise the throughput and
capacity further.
AGVs System prevent single point failure, and is easily reprogrammed and customised to
suit different or changing layouts
5.4 Simulation for RGV
5.4.1 RGV Model
The model for RGV is shown by Figure 17 on page 46. It is mostly similar to the AGV
system. The main difference of RGV system from AGV system is that vehicles are not able
to stray from nodes as it has to follow the path of the rail infrastructure. Finally,
transportation path are uni-directional as vehicles that are travelling from opposite
directions are not able to use the same rail. RGV system requires 2 sets of rail in a loop
and is reflected in the model.
As seen from the model, RGVs are able to branch out and merge at junctions. For
meaningful comparison, 16 RGVs will be used as well, 1 for each parcel.


5.4.2 RGV Simulation Parameters
(s/pallet)
5
No. of Vehicles 16 Vehicle Speed (m/s) 4
Vehicle Capacity
(pallet)
40 No. of Vehicles 16
Loading/Unloading
Time (s/pallet)
10 Vehicle Capacity
(pallet)
40
Loading/Unloading
Time (s/pallet)
10
Simulation 3 (MC)
Inter-arrival Rate
(s/pallet)
5
No. of Vehicles 16
Vehicle Capacity
(pallet)
40
Loading/Unloading
Time (s/pallet)
10
Table 10. RGV Simulation Parameters

Figure 17. Model for RGV System

5.4.3 Simulation Results for RGV
i) Flow Time for RGV
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s) 160 146 136 123 31 41 53 73

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time (s) 30 42 53 59 85 98 110 124
Table 11. Parcel Flow Time for RGV
= 31
= 160
=

.
= 85.25
ii) Throughput at Average Load for RGV
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Goods (pallet) 1031 1096 1081 1052 1112 1098 1050 1043
Throughput
(pallet/s)
0.00119 0.0127 0.0125 0.0122 0.0129 0.0127 0.0122 0.0121
Throughput
(kg/s)
2.983 3.171 3.128 3.044 3.218 3.177 3.038 3.018

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Goods (pallet) 1092 1090 1092 1077 1114 1096 1093 1087
Throughput
(pallet/s)
0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0125 0.0129 0.0127 0.0127 0.0126
Throughput
(pallet/kg)
3.160 3.154 3.160 3.116 3.223 3.171 3.163 3.145
Table 12. Average Load Throughput for RGV
(
) = 0.200
(
) = 50.07
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0125
(
) =
(
)

= 3.129
iii) Throughput per RGV
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0125 sec
(
) =
(
)

= 3.129 sec
The average throughput for each RGV in the system is 0.0125 pallets per second per
RGV, 3.129 kg per second per RGV.
iv) Maximum Capacity for RGV
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Goods (unit) 3076 3215 3150 3192 3275 3166 3072 3070
Throughput
(unit/s)
0.036 0.0372 0.0365 0.0369 0.0379 0.0366 0.0356 0.0355
Throughput
(kg/s)
8.901 9.303 9.115 9.236 9.476 9.161 8.889 8.883

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Goods 3171 3175 3296 3128 3187 3133 3111 3177
Throughput
(unit/s)
0.0367 0.0368 0.0381 0.0362 0.0369 0.0363 0.0360 0.0368
Throughput
(kg/s)
9.175 9.187 9.537 9.051 9.222 9.065 9.002 9.193
Table 13. Maximum Capacity for RGV
(
) = 0.586
(
) = 146.39
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0366
(
) =
(
)

= 9.15
and the total maximum capacity of the entire system is 0.586 pallets per second, 146.39
kg per second.
v) Maximum Capacity per RGV
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0366 sec
(
) =
(
)

= 9.15 sec
The maximum capacity for each RGV in the system is 0.0366 pallets per second per RGV,
9.15 kg per second per RGV.
vi) Capacity Utilisation for RGV
=

= 0.342
5.3.4 RGV Qualitative Results
There are no bottleneck in this system. Similar to conveyor, RGV system is a linear system
in a loop. Vehicles can be easily added or removed to suit capacity needs.
Similar to AGVs, for the RGV simulation, queuing and scheduling techniques are not
employed. As such the capacity can be increased further. Maximum capacity of this
system can also be increased by increasing maximum load of each RGV, speed of each
RGV, and decreasing loading and unloading speed.
RGVs System also suffer from point failures, though not as severe as conveyor system.
Even with failures, faulty vehicles can be flushed out and the system will still be able to
operate. It is easy to remove faulty RGVs to ease maintenance and repair as compared to
conveyor system.
5.5 Simulation for Capsule System
5.5.1 Capsule Model
The model for Capsule system shown on page 53 employs transport nodes as seen in the
previous 2 simulations. However the capsule system operates with few capsule vehicles
that travel back and forth bi-directional nodes to simulate rail movements. As the
simulation program do not have capsule elements, vehicles with appropriate parameters
of greater speed and capacity is used to simulate such.
There will be 3 capsule vehicles convoy along the main trunk of the EGMS Tunnel as seen
from the model, stopping by each junction to distribute goods. Two more capsule vehicles
are located on each side trunk to distribute goods to the outer layer of the parcelized
factory.

5.5.2 Capsule Simulation Parameters
(sec/pallet)
5
Vehicle Capacity
(pallet)
100 Vehicle Speed (m/s) 10
Loading/Unloading
Time (sec/pallet)
5 Vehicle Capacity
(pallet)
100
Loading/Unloading
Time (sec/pallet)
5
Simulation 3 (MC)
Inter-arrival Rate
(sec/pallet)
5
Vehicle Capacity
(pallet)
100
Loading/Unloading
Time (sec/pallet)
5
Table 14. Capsule Simulation Parameters

Figure 18. Model of Capsule System

5.5.3 Simulation Results for Capsule System
i) Flow Time for Capsule System
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s) 56 51 51 56 13 19 24 29

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time (s) 14 18 24 29 56 51 51 57
Table 15. Parcel Flow Time for Capsule
= 13
= 57
=

.
= 37.4
ii) Throughput at Average Load for Capsule
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Goods (pallet) 1035 1096 1080 1052 1112 1098 1050 1043
Throughput
(pallet/s)
0.0120 0.0127 0.0125 0.0122 0.0129 0.0127 0.0122 0.0121
Throughput
(kg/s)
2.995 3.171 3.128 3.044 3.218 3.177 3.038 3.018

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Goods (pallet) 1094 1092 1095 1077 1114 1096 1093 1090
Throughput
(pallet/s)
0.0127 0.0126 0.0127 0.0125 0.0129 0.0127 0.0127 0.0126
Throughput
(pallet/kg)
3.166 3.160 3.168 3.116 3.223 3.171 3.163 3.154
Table 6. Average Load Throughput for Capsule
(
) = 0.200
(
) = 50.11
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0125
(
) =
(
)

= 3.132

iii) Maximum Capacity for Capsule
Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Goods (unit) 1222 1303 1235 1267 1627 1610 1550 1516
Throughput
(unit/s)
0.0141 0.0151 0.0143 0.0147 0.0188 0.0186 0.0179 0.0175
Throughput
(kg/s)
3.536 3.770 3.574 3.666 4.708 4.659 4.485 4.387

Parcel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Goods 1566 1548 1591 1579 1277 1248 1224 1263
Throughput
(unit/s)
0.0181 0.0179 0.0184 0.0183 0.0148 0.0144 0.0142 0.0146
Throughput
(kg/s)
4.531 4.479 4.604 4.569 3.695 3.611 3.542 3.655
Table 17. Maximum Capacity for Capsule
(
) = 0.262
(
) = 65.47
(
) =
(
)

= 0.0164
(
) =
(
)

= 4.092
and the total maximum capacity of the entire system is 0.262 pallets per second, 65.47 kg
per second.
iv) Capacity Utilisation for Capsule
=

= 0.765
5.5.4 Capsule Qualitative Results

Figure 19. Bottleneck in Capsule System
In the maximum capacity simulation, a bottleneck occurred at the 2 queues connecting
the EGMS side trunks. As such, it can be seen from the results that parcel 1-4 and parcel
13-16 receive much lesser goods compared to parcel 5-12. This situation can be improved
by raising the capacity of the capsules in the side trunk by having more capsules.
Otherwise, if the side trunk parcels are smaller having a more relaxed logistic flow, this
configuration will suffice.
Capsule system is a relative new development and have little case studies, providing for
unfamiliar performance capabilities. However it can be extremely versatile if designed
and customised to suit logistic needs.


5.6 Comparison Table
Quantitative Measure units Conveyor AGVs RGVs Capsule
Shortest Flow Time s 122 51 31 13
Longest Flow Time s 913 162 160 57
Average Flow Time s 497.5 119.6 85.25 37.4

Capacity @ Average Rate pallet (kg) 0.199 (49.71) 0.200 (49.89) 0.200 (50.07) 0.200 (50.11)
Throughput to Each Parcel @
Average Rate
pallet (kg) 0.0124 (3.11) 0.0125 (3.12) 0.0125 (3.13) 0.0125 (3.13)
Capacity per Vehicle pallet (kg) - 0.0125 (3.12) 0.0125 (3.13) -

Maximum Capacity pallet (kg) 0.284 (72.0) 0.475 (118.73) 0.586 (146.39) 0.262 (65.47)
Throughput to Each Parcel @
Max Capacity
pallet (kg) 0.0178 (4.44) 0.0297 (7.42) 0.0366 (9.15) 0.0164 (4.09)
Max Capacity per Vehicle pallet (kg) - 0.0297 (7.42) 0.0366 (9.15) -
Capacity Utilisation % 70.0 42.0 34.2 76.5
Table 18. Quantitative Comparison

Qualitative Measure Conveyor AGVs RGVs Capsule
Bottleneck none none none @ Middle Junction
Infrastructure Moderate Moderate High Very High
Cost Low Moderate High Very High
Capacity Factor Conveyor Speed,
Spacing between
Pallets,
Vehicle Speed, Vehicle Load,
Loading/Unloading Speed
Increasing Capacity Fixed Adding Vehicles Adding Vehicles Adding Capsules
Single Point Failure Yes No Limited Limited
Flexibility Low High Moderate Low
Queuing & Scheduling None Yes Yes Yes
Table 19. Qualitative Comparison


5.7 Comparison Study & Design Considerations
The flow time for 4 methods are very different. Methods with faster flow speed usually
requires greater infrastructure (e.g. RGV, Capsule) and will be suitable for logistic flow
that require fast call time. Systems with slower flow time (e.g. AGV, Conveyor) are useful
for dangerous, fragile or larger bulky items that are unsafe for faster transportation.
Also, from the comparison table seen on the previous page, it seemed that all 4 systems
operate at almost the same capacity at average load. This is expected because at lower
average load, all the systems should be operating under maximum capacity and are able
to fully transport all the pallets from the source to each parcel. The capacity for conveyor
is slightly lower due to its slower flow time, more pallets are in transit.
More interestingly, the maximum capacity is varied for the various systems. The
maximum capacity obtained from the simulations are based on fixed parameters used
only for comparison. It does not fully represent the true potential of the system. From the
table, it is shown that RGV performed the best for the maximum capacity and might be
expected due to higher infrastructure cost and more inflexibility. However, the Conveyor
system will have the highest maximum capacity if the conveyor speed used was 2
metres/second, or, adding more capsules to the capsule systems will have the same effect.
Capacity utilisation for the four different methods vary significantly in this simulation.
One would like the capacity utilisation to be as high as possible, as they are making the
most use of their resource. Yet a high utilisation rate would not be able to adapt to
increasing logistic flow or unexpected logistic surge. Choosing the right utilisation rate
and thus transportation method is critical to the operational requirement of the EGMS.
Bottleneck occurred in the capsule system, and is resulted from uneven distribution of
resource. Such can be corrected by better resource allocation and optimisation of system.
Bottleneck occurrence are rarely resulted from the method used, as such, with correct
planning, all methods should flow smoothly without bottlenecks.
Infrastructure and its cost are important factors and depends heavily on the goods
requirement and lifespan of the EGMS. A high infrastructure investment such as capsule
system could potentially provide a very high throughput at fast flow time, but may be
costly and inflexible. Also, this is more suitable for transport flow that does not change
over time. If the transport flow changes regularly, a more flexible system such as AGV will
be more suitable to suit the demands.
Out of all 4 methods, failures can occur most severely in conveyor system, where just a
single fault anywhere in the flow can disrupt the entire flow of goods. As such, when
conveyors are used, redundancy should be planned. Still, fault mitigation and resolution
should be clearly schematised for all methods to prepare for contingency.
Lastly, in operations management, various queuing and scheduling methods can be used
to further increase the efficiency, capacity, throughput, utilisation rate etc. Such
techniques can be applied to AGV RGV and Capsule system where one can control and
alter the flow of goods. A flexible system is required to be able to employ queuing and
scheduling methods.
5.8 Conclusion
We have discussed quantitative results and several performance factors for the different
methods. It is important to select the most appropriate method to suit the logistic
requirements. Furthermore, the method should be optimised further and redundancy is
required to be planned. Lastly, different models can work together providing for a multi-
modal system, making use of the advantages of different methods for a more profound
and comprehensive transportation system.

CHAPTER 6: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 Design Overview
A simple and basic design and implementations will be discussed in this chapter. Firstly,
a cross-section design of the tunnel will be drawn for each method. The design will be
explained and discussed. Finally, various design features will be suggested. Height is not
considered for implementation as it is assumed that the EGMS tunnel will be tall enough.
6.2 Suggested Design for Conveyor
Figure 20. Conveyor Design
The above figure depicts the suggested cross section of the tunnel of width 6m for the
conveyor method. Firstly, 2 conveyors of width 1.5m are used. This is to increase output
further and more especially for redundancy. Both conveyors can be linked up at various
points of the entire conveyor chains creating sections, such that when point fault occurs,
freight from the faulty conveyor can be rerouted to the working conveyor. This will
minimise single point failure as failure can be circumvented through rerouting across
faulty sections. Conveyors should be set close to the ground, or even recessed in the
ground for greater stability and greater safety. Also, a dedicated maintenance corridor
walkway should be built for repairs and checks. Furthermore, a safety distance of 0.5m is
present between each conveyors, walkway and walls as shown in the figure. The
minimum spacing between each pallet must be at least 0.5m for operational safety.
Major features in such designs should include conveyor interfaces for sorting, merging.
Barcode scanning at each junction can be carried out to facilitating sorting of freight into
individual parcels. Exact mechanical parts will not be discussed in this project as they are
readily available in the market. Next, conveyors can be activated by sections, to save
energy when conveyors are not in used during lower flow rates. Finally, conveyor 1 and
conveyor 2 can be used flexibly to suit the demand of the freight transportation system.
Conveyors always operate on first come first served basis.
6.3 Suggested Design for AGV
Figure 21. AGV Design
AGV systems does not require rail, however in this suggested design, AGV should still
travel along fixed paths for safety and minimise collisions. Suggested paths are 1.5m in
width and 2 paths can fit within the tunnel. These path is shown as red lines as seen from
the figure. Similar to conveyor design, both paths can be linked and AGVs can be routed
between the 2 paths for greater flexibility, utilisation rate and also to circumvent failures
or obstacles. Finally, for this method, the walkway is not required and can be replaced
with a third path. Otherwise, the EGMS tunnel can be shrunk from 6m to 4.5m width.
Having many paths provides great flexibility and capability, however it also creates more
complications when it comes to scheduling traffic. A safety distance of 0.5m set between
interfaces will lessen collision risks.
One of the many AGV guiding methods can be employed as discussed in the literature
review. AGVs can be controlled individually, or by batches to meet demands of the flow
rate. Maintenance of AGV does not affect the transportation operation. This model also
allows for flexible resource utilisation as AGVs can be shared or dedicated among
different parcels to suit the desired flow rate performance.
6.4 Suggested Design for RGV

Figure 22. RGV Design
In the figure shown above, 2 sets of rails can be installed for 2 fixed transportation paths.
This design is similar to that of AGV design suggested previously, only with different
performance capabilities. Also, by linking 2 rails at different junctions, this design can also
minimise operation failure. Since RGVs follow fixed rail, safety distances can be slightly
lower than 0.5m, thus reducing the size of the EGMS tunnel slightly.
In RGV design, a collision vehicle is required to flush any RGVs that fail. Maintenance of
rail and RGV should be required regularly to ensure safe operations with minimal chance
for derailing. With higher infrastructure cost, it has greater performance capability.
However once installed, it is inflexible and laborious to re-lay the rails. Similar to AGV
system, flexible resource utilisation is also possible as RGVs can be shared or dedicated
among different parcels to suit the desired flow rate performance.
6.5 Suggested Design for Capsule
Figure 23. Capsule Design
In this capsule design shown above, 1 capsule 3m wide travels along a heavy duty rail. At
both sides of the EGMS tunnel are pallet receiving interface. This is for automated
retrieval of pallets to distribute individually to parcels as the capsule alone will not be
able to reach the terminals at the parcels. The pallet receiving interface may be AGVs
forklifts or conveyors, and this also means that Capsule system is unable to work alone.
The pallet receiving interface need not be part of the tunnel, and could be within terminal
provided. When done so, the width of the tunnel could be lessen.
As mentioned, Capsule system requires more study to obtain its performance capabilities.
This also means that in the design of the system, synergies with interfaces can be
considered heavily to formulate an ideal reliable and efficient system. Also, a collision
vehicle might be required to flush out failed capsules or any obstacles. Great
infrastructure cost is required for such system which could be a factor. This design will
be more suitable with at greater efficiency for greater distance with greater flow rate.
CHAPTER 7: FUTURE RESEARCH
This paper is a preliminary study to possible transportation systems that are solutions to
the EGMS. As such, there are much more to be done and researched upon before final
implementation.
Firstly, more information regarding the EGMS system should be obtained, with respect to
the 1) 2West finalised layout, 2) type, volume, weight and amount of goods being
transported, 3) full requirement of the transportation system such as flow rate, flow time
etc. These information will help select the right methods for the EGMS, and must be done
before any meaningful testing can be conducted.
For each of the methods used, optimisation must be conducted by operations
management technique. This can be done by varying parameters to a greater extent and
plotting sensitivity graphs for various parameters (e.g. how one parameter affects the
output). Such is critical but it is only meaningful and accurate when all information
required are present. Finally, the optimal parameters that provide the most favourable
output for each method should then be decided upon, thereafter choosing the right
machineries with the right specifications.
Furthermore, each system have further categories to explore and develop. Firstly, for
conveyor systems, various types of conveyors such as belt, rollers, chain, trolley and
towline conveyors perform differently and have various situational use. AGV and RGV
systems can employ pallet trucks, driverless trains or unit load carriers. Also, for each
system, engineering aspects need to be calculated. This involves material selection for
mechanical parts, stress strain and failure limits, and electronic circuitry. Finally for
Capsule system, manufacturing design need to be formulated as it is not in the market
yet. As such, with good engineering design, Capsule system may have a high potential.
Next, with a uni-modal method such as conveyor, redundancy is required. Otherwise
failures will shut down the entire logistic flow. As such, a back-up plan that synergises
with the transportation system need to be installed, especially for high reliability
industry.

Figure 20. Various Types of Conveyor, AGVs, RGVs Methods
A multi-modal method should also be explored to raise the performance capacity of the
EGMS by allowing the system to enjoy advantages from various methods. (E.g. Capsule
main trunk & AGVs side trunks, or Conveyor Main Trunk & RGV Side Trunks). Simulations
can be conducted for different combinations.
Next, financing and costing should also be analysed before investing. This is especially so
for heavy infrastructure methods such as capsule. The method should be worthwhile to
be invested upon and should reap investment returns in the long run. Also, operation cost
should be taken into account, such variable cost can amount into significant cost in the
longer run.
Lastly, safety consideration is an important factor. Although there will be no human
interface and the tunnel is used solely for transportation, there can be fire and structural
hazards. Also, it should be safe for human during maintenance and repair. To that end,
proper Standard Order Procedure (SOP) should be designed to ensure minimisation of
safety risk.
With all the above points, this study is far from over, as little technical aspect has been
covered. As mentioned, more information and specification is required before a more in
depth study can be done.

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION
This paper takes a cursory and preliminary study of the EGMS. We have researched on
transportation systems throughout the world, then proposed 4 flexible methods for
implementation, Conveyor, AGV, RGV and Capsule systems. Next, these 4 methods were
tested with simulation software FlexSim for performance criteria and the results were
reported, both quantitative and qualitative. Next we performed a comparison study
between the methods. Also, a rough design and implementation scheme is suggested
and safety considerations are discussed. Finally, possible future research were revised
to encourage and fulfil higher potential for this study.
In Conclusion, the objectives of the study were met, as we have proposed solutions to
the EGMS. Furthermore, meaningful results were obtain and we have a clearer picture
on the capabilities of each system. Also, we learnt the limitations of each system and
possible improvements can be next in future study.

REFERENCES
[1] Jurong Town Corporation. (2013). Creating Dynamic Ecosystems. Periscope, 8-9.
[2] Jurong Town Corporation. (December, 2013). Standard Factory Launch. Retrieved from
Jurong Town Corporation: http://www.jtc.gov.sg/Sales-Rental/Standard-Factory-
Launch/Pages/default.aspx
[3] Urban Redevelopment Authority. (20 November, 2013). Urban Design (UD) Plans And
Guidelines For Developments Within Downtown Core Planning Area. Retrieved from
Urban Redevelopment Authority: Urban Design (UD) Plans And Guidelines For
Developments Within Downtown Core Planning Area
[4] Myanmar Geologists Society, Singapore. (22 April, 2012). Technical Seminar No.5: Land
Reclamation Works in Singapore. Retrieved from Myanmar Geologists Society,
Singapore: http://member.mgss.org.sg/index.php/downloads/doc_download/22-land-
reclamation-works-in-singapore
[5] Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade & Industry, Republic of Singapore . (2013).
Population Trends 2013. Singapore: Singapore Department of Statistics.
[6] Singapore Economic Development Board. (November, 2013). Industries - LOGISTICS AND
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT. Retrieved from Singapore Economic Development Board:
http://www.edb.gov.sg/content/edb/en/industries/industries/logistics-and-supply-chain-
management.html
[7] National Skill Development Corporation. (2002). Human Resource and Skill Requiprements in
the Transportation, Logistics, Warehousing and Packaging. New Delhi: National Skill
Development Corporation.
[8] Luca Elio Spallarossa. (2013). Global Logistics Advisory. Genova Italy: Luca Elio Spallarossa.
[9] M. Sreenivas, D. T. (n.d.). THE ROLE OF TRANSPORTATION . Retrieved from Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics: http://www.siam.org/journals/plagiary/1814.pdf
[10] Rijsenbrij, B.-J. P. (2005). Developments in Underground Freight Transportation. In P. N.
Hugo Priemus, The Future of Automated Freight Transport: Concepts, Design and
Implementation (pp. 65-76). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

[11] MHI. (n.d.). Conveyors. Retrieved from MHI: http://www.mhi.org/fundamentals/conveyors
[12] Shuttleworth. (n.d.). Conveyor Technologies. Retrieved from Shuttleworth:
http://www.shuttleworth.com/
[13] Dematic. (n.d.). Conveyor Systems. Retrieved from http://www.dematic.com/conveyor-
systems
[14] Autoveyor. (2012). Automatic Rail Guided Vehicle. Retrieved from Autoveyor:
http://www.autoveyor.com.sg/product/automatic-rail-guided-vehicle/
[15] Rail Guided Vehicle System. (n.d.). Retrieved from Daesung System Engineering Co. Ltd.:
http://dssec.en.ec21.com/Rail_Guided_Vehicle_System--8374615_8374678.html
[16] RGV (Rail Guided Vehicle). (n.d.). Retrieved from Shin-Heung Machine Co., Ltd.:
http://smck.en.ec21.com/RGV_Rail_Guided_Vehicle--3756831_3757228.html
[17] ATS Automation. (2 December, 2004). Rail-Guided Vehicle System facilitates material
transfer. Retrieved from Thomasnet News: http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/Rail-
Guided-Vehicle-System-facilitates-material-transfer-457938
[18] Daifuku. (n.d.). High-Speed Rail-Guided Vehicle. Retrieved from Daifuku:
http://www.daifukumexico.com/products/73/338/889/Manufacturing-
Distribution/Conveyor-Vehicle-Systems/High-Speed-Rail-Guided-Vehicle-Sorting-Transfer-
Vehicle-STV
[19] Savant Automation. (2012). Automatic Guided Vehicle Systems (AGVS). Retrieved from
Savant Automation: http://www.agvsystems.com/
[20] Johan Visser, B. W.-J. (2008). Review of Underground Logistic Systems in the Netherlands:
An Ex-post Evaluation of Barriers, Enablers and Spin-off. h International Symposium on
Underground Freight Transportation by Capsule Pipelines and Other Tube/Tunnel Systems .
Arlington: Delft University of Technology.
[21] Mills, L. V. (1994). Tube Freight Transportation. Public Roads.
[22] Liu, H. (200). Pneumatic Capsule PipelineBasic Concept, Practical Considerations, and
Current Research. Mid-Continent Transportation Symposium 2000 (p. 230). Ames, Iowa:
Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University.
[23] P., V. L. (1994). Tube Transportation. Broadway Cambridge, Boston: US Dept of
Transportation, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
[24] Liu, H. (n.d.). Capsule pipeline: An Overview. Columbia: University of Missouri, Capsule
Pipeline Research Centre.
[25] Pevco. (2013). Pevco Pneumatic Tube Systems for Hospital Pharmacies, Blood Banks & Labs.
Retrieved from Pevco: http://www.pevco.com/
[26] Decker, K. D. (22 February, 2008). A world without trucks: underground freight networks.
Retrieved from LOW-TECH MAGAZINE: http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/02/a-
world-without.html
[27] Liu, H. (1998). Facts About Pneumatic Capsule Pipeline. Retrieved from University of
Missouri: http://www.missouri.edu/~cprc/Facts About PCP.html
[28] CargoCap. (n.d.). What is CargoCap? Retrieved from CargoCap: http://www.cargocap.com/
[29] Stein, B. S. (n.d.). Cargo Cap. Retrieved from CargoCap/Ruhr-University of Bochum:
http://www.cargocap.com/

A Study of A Transportation System For Bulk/Heavy Materials: Department of Mechanical Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of A Transportation System For Bulk/Heavy Materials: Department of Mechanical Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A STUDY OF A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR BULK/HEAVY MATERIALS 1

A STUDY OF A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR

You might also like