Container supply chain for forest biomass
Kalle Karttunen, Project Manager M.Sc (Agr. & For.)
LUT Savo Sustainable Technologies
FORMEC 2013 Techniques for sustainable management46th International Symposium on Forestry Mechanisation, 30 Sept - 2 Oct 2013, Stralsund Germany
Content
› Introduction
› Intermodal composite container
› Study scenarios
› Material and methods
› Containers
› Simulation
› Availability analysis
› Results
› Unit cost
› Time usage
› Total cost saving potential
› Conclusion
› Container or not?
› Future research
Introduction- Intermodal composite container
Aim of the study was to determine the profitability of an innovative intermodal composite container solution compared to traditional supply chains of forest chips from long-distances
“Composite Container Logistics 2011 – 2013” and “Container Logistical Innovations, 2013 – 2014”Karttunen, K., Lättilä, L., Korpinen, O-J. and Ranta, T. Cost-efficiency of intermodal container supply chain for forest chips. Silva Fennica (manuscript).
The main idea of composite container was to maximize road transport dimensions and minimize weight of container for intermodal transportationContainer is made of plastic channel composite1 materialContainer is called Supercont® and it is produced by a Finnish company, Fibrocom
6058 mm2550 mm
3050 mm(+ 200 mmcurrentdimension)
1 pat pend
1. Structural benefits:Light weight of container (1500 kg) -> More payloadTemperature isolated -> Non-freezingComposite material -> RFID-freeChannel structure, “one-shot”-moulding -> Durable
2. Supply chain benefits:Suitable for standard equipments -> FlexibilitySuitable for truck-train/vessel-truck -> IntermodalityFlexibility in roadside chippings -> Easy handlingProductivity of unloading -> Fast handling
1 pat pend
Introduction- Intermodal composite container
Introduction- Study scenarios
Sub-scenarios
TraditionalPast dimensions 1.1.1 2.1.1 3.1.1Current dimensions 1.1.2 2.1.2 3.1.2
a.Sensitivity analyses 1.1.3 2.1.3 3.1.3b.Sensitivity analyses 3.1.4
ContainerPast dimensions 1.2.1 2.2.1 3.2.1Current dimensions 1.2.2 2.2.2 3.2.2
a.Sensitivity analyses 1.2.3 2.2.3 3.2.3b.Sensitivity analyses 3.2.4
Main scenarioSce. 1 Sce. 2 Sce. 3
Baseline (Sce 1): truck transportation for forest chips (logging residues and small-diameter trees) around the user site for current target demand (540 GWh)• the case power plant at central Finland, city of
Jyväskylä
Comparison (Sce 2 and 3): additional target demand of the case power plant (+200 GWh) from long-distances by trucks (Sce 2) and railway (Sce 3).• Sce 3: the case satellite railway terminal at
Kontiomäki
Sub-scenarios: • Traditional vs. container supply chains• Past dimensions (60 t) vs. current dimensions (64 t)
• Extra scenarios as sensitivity analyses: Several number of trucks and wagons
Introduction- Study scenariosMain differences betweencontainer and traditional supplychain:
TrucksContainer vs. Solid-frameUnloading: Stationary vs.
Back dumping
Satellite terminal loadingContainers (forklift loader) vs. Loose chips (frontloader)
Railway transportationMetal containers vs.
Composite containers
7
Traditional = Solid-frame-truckNew innovation = Container truck
- Full-trailer solid frame trucks (usage in Finland 89%)-Unloading: Back dumping with a carried chain(usage in Finland 65%)
- Metal container trucks (usage in Finland 8%)- Normally unloading method is back dumping, through open doors. -Unloading: Stationary machine in this study
- On average 25 t tare weight of truck and trailer (7 axle truck -> 64 t) max. 39 tpayload- 127 m3 (137 m3 current increase) frame
volume- (8 axle truck -> 68 t)- (9 axle truck -> 76 t)
- 20-24 t tare weight of truck, trailer and threecontainers (7 axle truck -> 64 t) max. 44 t payload-124 m3 (133 m3 current increase) frame volume(three containers)
Past: Total weight limit in Finland, 60 tCurrent (1.10.2013->): 64 – 76 t & 20 cm height more
Material and methods- Containers
Payload is dependent not only on the truck weight and dimensions and moisturecontent of biomass but also road weight limit legislation!
Material and methods- Containers (railway)
Intermodal Container Other options = Interchangeable Containers-Same composite containers for truckand train (Fibrocom, Supercont)
Fig. VR Transpoint
•Container wagons (Sg-t)•Maximum payload 61 t for wagon•Weight limit is not a problem in railwaytransportation of wood chips. Container frame-volume is a restrictive factor!
- Interchangeable concepts, but only for railway-Metal container (Innofreight) in this study
Material and methods- Containers (unloading)
-If containers have no doors, a special unloading system should be used.
-Containers can also be unloaded directly from trucks to the stationary system
-Heavy forklift or wheel loader is anyway needed in terminal actions (maximum weight capacity for composite container 20 t)
-Weighting, moisture sampling and RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) could be included into the operations
Stationary unloading system(used in this study):
11
Material and methods- Containers (terminal operations)
Front wheeled loader or heavy material handling machines forbulky material, forklift loader for containersIn Sweden are used Austrian interchangeable container solution (Innofreight), where heavy forklift truck are used for unloading using rotating devise, also tests in Finland Intermodal transportation option with containers could allow combination of truck and railway logistics either on the upstream or downstream part of supply chainInnofreight containers are too wide for Finnish roads (2.9 m) and metal containers are not suitable in winter time (freezing problem)
Material and methods-Simulation (background)
The simulation was conducted with AnyLogic 6 software, which is suitable for discrete-event and process-centric modelling
The trucks “agents” have five distinct states: out of service, waiting, moving, being loaded, and unloaded
The aim of the study method:Combine simulation method with forest biomass site-dependent availability analysis
1. Simulation web page to analyse alternative options (older version with past road dimensions): http://personal.lut.fi/users/lauri.lattila/MikkeliUpdated/MikkeliNetti.html2. The model runs in the virtual reality for one year and calculates the total costs supply chain for forest chips
yearly fixed costs variable costs the production amount of forest chips -> Unit cost (€/MWh)
3. Statistics sheet: Time usage of trucks and driving distances etc.
12Simulation expertise: Lättilä 2012, LUT
1.
2.
3.
Material and methods-Simulation (input)
13
Productivity of all operations from roadside to powerplant were taken into account (follow-upstudies, pre tests, early studies, estimates)
Cost structures of all vehicles and machines from roadside to powerplant were analysed with fixedand variable costs
Costs of forest operations (logging residues and small-diameter energy wood) were included in supply chain costs (9.3 – 9.8 €/MWh)
Several number of trucks (6 – 18) and wagons (15 or 20) were used in simulation scenarios
Parameter Values (“red color” in this study)Amount of trucks 0…N (6 – 18)Type of trucks Container or traditionalType of rotator Mobile or fixedCompression used Yes or noSatellite terminal Yes or noAmount of wagons 15 or 20Type of railway containers Composite (41 – 54 m3) or metal (46-52 m3)Target demand of plant 540 or 740 GWh
Material and methods-Availability analysis
14
Site-dependent forest biomass resource data was included in the simulation model (additional excel)
The source data consisted of municipal estimates of forest fuel availability and land-use data (Korpinen et al. 2012)
The datasets were imported to a geographical information system (GIS) environment that was processed by ArcGIS software
The points of origin for forest-fuel supply were generated via a 4 × 4 km grid
The competitive demand for forest fuels was taken into account as market share analyses
Result-Unit cost
15
Past dimension (60 t)BaselineSce. 1 Sce. 2 Sce. 3
Current dimension (64 t)BaselineSce. 1 Sce. 2 Sce. 3
First: Traditional supply chainSecond: Container supply chain
Container supply chains were the most cost-efficient alternatives for both past and current maximum truck dimensions in all scenarios!
Traditional supply chains were 7-19 % (past) or 3-11 % (current) more expansive than container supply chains
The most cost-efficient wayto increase procurement of forest chips was the container truck transportation!
Railway transportation was cost-competitive (17.6€/MWh) especiallyfor traditional options compared totruck transportation!But the whole costs of intermodal supply chain was still cheaper (17.1€/MWh)!
Results-Unit cost
The fixed and variable costs from roadside to powerplant:The biggest costs of the transportation chain were the fixed costs of the trucks, which varied between 2.1 and 4.7 €/MWh depending on the scenario The second biggest part was the fixed costs of chipping, which varied between 1.8 and 3.5 €/MWh
16
Result-Time usage
Simulated time usage of the truck logistics showed that the trucks stayed unused (“Trucks at base”) most (62 – 66 %) of their annual timeIt is notable that the traditional trucks spend 14.8 % of their time waiting to be emptiedLarge number of trucks are in unloading station of power plant at the same time, which is clearly a bottleneck in traditional operations.
17
Result- Total costTarget demand (Sce. 1: 540 GWh. Sce 2 and 3: 740 GWh): ”Truck drivingkilometres can be decreased with satellite terminal and railway supply chain”
Simulated supply deliveries (482-857 GWh): ”The total costs can be reduced with intermodal container supply chain”
18
Kilometre distance, km Sce. 1 Sce. 2 Sce. 3Logging residues 61 (92) 69 (103) 59 (88)Small-diameter energy wood 81 (121) 96 (144) 71 (106)
Average 71 (107) 83 (124) 65 (98)
Result- Total cost saving potential
As an example, if deliveries of forest chips is doubled from 500 GWh to 1000 GWh:Traditional supply chain: 15.9 €/MWh -> 20.5 €/MWh (increase: 4.6 €/MWh, 29%)Container supply chain: 15.6 €/MWh -> 18.1 €/MWh (increase: 2.5 €/MWh, 16%)Container cost saving potential: 0.4 €/MWh to 2.4 €/MWh ->
annual cost saving potential from 0.4 to 3.1 million euros!
19
Conclusion- Container or not?
Intermodal composite container supply chains were lower costs than traditional options in all scenarios
Traditional systems were 7 – 19 % more expensive than the intermodal container scenarios for past maximum road vehicle dimensions
Current dimension regulations decrease the total costs of forest chips in 0.4 – 1.9 €/MWh (on average 6 %)
Traditional options were still 3 – 11 % more expensive for current road vehicle dimensions than container supply chain
How to expand the procurement area for forest chips?Start using intermodal container trucks Start using satellite terminals and train transportation with interchangeable or intermodal containers instead of truck logistics from long-distances
Intermodal composite container logistics and railway transportation could be developed as an attractive option for a large-scale supply chain for forest chips
20
Conclusion- Future research
Study method:Simulation study combined with geographical site-dependent information will lead to results of greater relevance to practical decision making when considering the use of innovations
The study method leads to cost evaluations very close to the actual prices of forest chips (average price for forest chips 2008-2011: 17.4 €/MWh)The simulation model can be used elsewhere if site-dependent availability studies can be included
Supply chain:Intermodal containers for biomass transportation and terminal operations
Usability of heavy volume traditional trucks with more axles and more frame-volumeComposite material can be used for the wall of traditional trucks
Usability of intermodal and removable containers for forest roads
This study presented the costs of traditional or container supply chain but combined methods might achieve optimal solutions for the large-scale supply chain of forest biomass in practice
21
Thank you for your attention !Further information:[email protected] (project manager) or [email protected] (prof.)http://www.lut.fi/lut-savo-sustainable-technologieshttp://www.fibrocom.com/