Chelst Et Al 1981 A Coal Unloader A Finite Queueing System With Breakdowns

A Coal Unloader: A Finite Queueing System with Breakdowns
Author(s): Kenneth Chelst, Andrea Zundell Tilles and J. S. Pipis

Source: Interfaces, Vol. 11, No. 5 (Oct., 1981), pp. 12-25
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25060139 .
Accessed: 04/01/2015 14:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Interfaces.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTERFACES
Vol.
11, No.
1981, The institute of Management

Copyright ?
1981
0092-2102/81/1105/0012$01.25
October
5,
Sciences
A COAL UNLOADER: A FINITE QUEUEING

SYSTEMWITH BREAKDOWNS*
Kenneth
Department
of Industrial
Engineering
Detroit,
Michigan
Andrea
Control
Data
Chelst
and Operations
Zundell
Corporation,
Research,
48202
State University,
Wayne
Tilles
Rock ville, Maryland
20850
and
J. S. Pipis
Detroit
Edison,
2000
Second
Avenue,
Detroit,
Michigan
48226
owns and operates

the coal-fired Monroe
Edison Company
is generally
in nearby states and
brought by train to the plant from mines
is unloaded by a single unloader system. There were difficulties
in meeting
the plant's coal
needs with
the existing
rail transport system. Management
observed
frequent queues of
trains at the unloader system which they attributed to breakdowns
of the unloader
system.
The Detroit
Abstract.
Plant. Coal
Power
A queueing model was developed

downs and the potential
benefits
was
to study
model
also used
and queueing
throughput,
delays.
to explore
the impact on the system of unloader break
with adding a second unloader
associated
system. The
the relationship
between
the number
of trains, coal
Power Plant is a 3,000-megawatt

facility that requires approxi
tons of coal annually. In addition to being one of the world's
mately 6.5 million
largest coal-fired plants, it is also one of the first of its size to utilize a unit train to
supply its fuel. At present there are between four and eight trains allocated to moving
coal from the mines to the power plant, which has one unloader system to dump the
as
coal. Originally,
coal was to be brought into the plant entirely by rail. However,
the plant increased its generating capacity, the existing rail system became insuffi
cient. The more recent plan has been to combine rail and vessel delivery of coal to
The Monroe
satisfy
the
plant's
requirements.
factors are believed to have contributed to the rail shortfall. The major
contributor is believed to be the designed single-car unloader. Trains were frequently
attributed to unloader break
queued at the unloader system, which management
downs. These delays were costly for a number of reasons:
Several
Trains waiting to be unloaded are not transporting coal, which results in a

decreased throughput. More expensive backup vessels must then be used to
satisfy coal requirements at an added cost of $30,000 to $60,000 per equiva
lent
trainload.
If the unloader
is broken for long periods of time,

trains may exceed local holding-track capacity. These
at Toledo and a demurrage cost is then incurred.
the number of queued

trains will then be held
QUEUES?APPLICATIONS; TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT

*This
paper was
refereed,
as requested
by
the first author.
12
INTERFACES

October
1981
in the winter months contribute

It is thought that trains waiting
to the problem of frozen coal and its associated added costs.
significantly
is considering
To alleviate these problems, Detroit Edison
the addition of a
a simulation model of the
second multimillion
dollar unloader system. Although
entire rail coal movement
it was
system had already been built for other purposes,
decided to build an analytic model which focused on the unloader in order to isolate
its effect.
The specific parameters the model was to explore were: the impact of a second
unloader system on the coal throughput; L, the average number of trains in queue;
and W, the average time spent in the unloader system. In addition, the impact of
other changes were studied, including increasing the number of trains, reducing the
frequency of unloader breakdowns,
reducing the repair time, and changing the cycle
time between mine and power plant (puchasing coal from different mine fields). A
schematic
diagram of the unloader
system
is displayed
in Figure
1.
FIGURE 1. THE COAL SUPPLY SYSTEM.
Literature
Review
The nature of the unloader system suggested a queueing model subject to service
1958] viewed the
interruptions. The earliest work in this area [White and Christie,
service interruption as a high priority class of customer which preempts the service of
the primary customer, which in this case is a loaded train. Our problem involved a
finite source of customers (i.e., a limited number of trains), and the primary statistic
of concern is the average arrival rate of trains to the unloader system, which
is
to the coal throughput. This statistic is not addressed
in the priority
equivalent
literature. Because of the limited number of trains involved, we could
queueing
analyze this problem using only basic queueing theory at the level of Hillier and
text on Operations Research
Lieberman's
[1979].
INTERFACES
October 1981
13

MODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS

we adopted an approach set forth by
In beginning
the model development,
in
Morris
his
Art
article
"The
of
To make the problem tractable
[1967]
Modeling."
we assumed an exponential probability density function for four time components of
the
system's
operation:
the time to unload a train

the time to repair a broken unloader
the time it takes for an unloaded train to
go to the coal fields and return with a
time
Unloading
time
Repair
Cycle time
trainload of coal
Failure
time
the time between
breakdowns
loader is operating
Though the exponential assumption was
breakdowns showed that the exponential
for the repair time (Figure 2) and failure
an exponential
since there
distribution,
when
the un
continuously.
motivated
1977 data on 15
by tractability,
distribution was a reasonable approximation
time. Cycle time we knew could not follow
was an obvious minimum
time for an un
loaded train to go to the coal fields and return with
a trainload of coal.
FIGURE 2. REPAIR TIME: A COMPARISONOF EMPIRICALDATA

AND THE EXPONENTIALDENSITY.
\
>i?
CO
as
LU
C3
\
\*^
EXP(-T/2.8)
N^l o
2.8
1977DATA
15
REPAIR
TIMEINDAYS
14
INTERFACESOctober 1981

Additional
assumptions
about system operation
follow:
Coal availability does not affect the train cycle rate.

All trains are the same size.
A train can wait at the facility while an unloader is being repaired (this
assumption only affects the demurrage cost).
When two unloaders are broken, two crews work independently on them.
When one unloader is broken, only one crew repairs it.
A train that is in a facility when one unloader breaks down is rerouted to the
other unloader facility. (The average repair time of the unloader is substan
tially greater than the time necessary to reroute the train.)
The queueing model we built, as mentioned
earlier, was amodified version of a
server finite source queueing model which allowed for
standard single and multiple
server breakdowns. The notation we use in describing our model
is as follows:
Xj is the arrival rate of an individual train when not in queue. (Equivalently,
1/X2 is the mean cycle time of the train.)
pi1 is the rate at which a train is unloaded.
k2 is the rate at which unloader breakdowns occur when an unloader system is
operating.
fjL2 is the rate at which an unloader is repaired (1/ju,2 is the mean

K is the total number of trains in the system.
repair time).
the system's state, we need to specify both i, the number of

broken unloaders andy, the number of trains queued at Monroe. The probability of
being in a particular state (i,j) is written as Pitj.
In Figures 3 and 4 we present state transition rate diagrams for the one-unloader
and two-unloader systems, respectively.
If the top row of each figure were isolated,
we would simply have a standard finite source queueing model
[Hillier and Lieber
In order to describe
for example, we are in state (0,2), two trains are in queue and
man, 1979]. When,
new trains arrive at a rate of (K? 2)X.2. Trains are unloaded at a rate of /?j for the
single unloader system (Figure 3); transitions occur from the top row to the second
row whenever
the unloader breaks down, which occurs at a rate of X2. Within
the
second
row,
are made
transitions
to a higher
state
with
the
rate of (K?j)\j. No transitions to a lower state can occur,

when the single unloader is broken.
arrival
of
a new
train
FIGURE 3. TRANSITION RATE DIAGRAM OF SINGLE-UNLOADER

QUEUEING SYSTEM.
October 1981
INTERFACES
at a
since no train is unloaded
15

FIGURE 4. TRANSITION RATE DIAGRAM OF TWO-UNLOADER

QUEUEING SYSTEM.
Our discussion of the transition rates within row 1 and between rows 1 and 2
two minor
to Figure 4 of the two-unloader
system with
similarly
applies
service is
modifications.
there are two or more trains being unloaded,
Whenever
occur
a
at a
at
rate
downward
and
breakdowns
of
(i.e.,
transitions)
completed
2pl9
rate of 2X2 Row 2 ismodified
to allow for completion of unloading a train at a rate of
P! because coal can still be unloaded when only one unloader is broken. In addition,
we need to add state (1,0), since it is now possible to have one unloader broken and
no trains waiting
to be unloaded, which was not possible
in the previous model.
Lastly, we must now add another row of states to allow for two broken unloaders.
Breakdown
transitions from row 2 to 3 occur at a rate of \2 >while repair transitions
from row 3 to 2 occur at a rate of 2p2- Transitions within row 3 result from new train
can be represented by systems of difference
arrivals. In steady state these models
equations which equate the rate into and out of each state (available upon request
from the authors).
For the one-unloader model
involving K trains, the model results in 2^+1
simultaneous equations with 2K+ 1 unknowns. Any one of these equations is redun
dant and must be replaced by an equation that sets the sum of all of the state
probabilities equal to one. The two-unloader model involves 3K+ 2 equations and an
equal number of unknowns. These equations were rewritten so that the right-hand
side contained all zeroes except for the last equation, whose right-hand side was one.
A standard program to invert a matrix and which is available on any computer could
used to solve these equations. Because of the special structure of the
=
b) is contained in only
right-hand side, the entire solution of these equations (AX
one column of the inverse of the A matrix. We therefore wrote our own simple
program to solve this problem, which allowed us to perform basic sensitivity analysis
with little added cost.
have been
16
INTERFACES

October
1981
Once all of the Pu are calculated,

it is a straightforward task to convert these
more
measures.
into
The following
statistics were calcu
performance
meaningful
we
lated for both unloader systems;
present the appropriate formulas only for the
simpler one-unloader model. The average number of trains atMonroe, L, is given by
K
L= 1
=
j I Pu.
\
The fraction of time the unloader

l
i=0
is idle is P0,o>
is broken is
K
Pu
I
is busy
is
I=
of a queue of trains is
1 P0,o
The probability
The key
Poj
1
statistic
is the average
coal
(Po,i + Put)
which
throughput,
the average
equals
arrival
rate:
*_1
r
i
=
+
+
\t.
*1
Ln2- 1 i*"") <Po.n Pun) J KPOt0
This
is then used in Little's

=
train, W
L?kj.
formula
[Little,
1961] to determine
the average wait for a
INPUT DATA AND RESULTS

Data were collected from a record of unloader outages for the first 10months of
1977. The mean time between breakdowns,
while
the dumper is operating, was
calculated as follows: There were 15 breakdowns during the time period. Approxi
mately 400 trains were unloaded. The average unloading time, l/fil9 is 9.5 hours per
train. Thus
l/\2
=
(9.5 hours/train) x (400 trains)/15
= 253 hours/breakdown
= 10.6
days/breakdown.
breakdowns
1977 data showed that the coal unloader system was out of service
Similarly,
total of 42.5 days. The mean repair time, 1//a2> was
= 42.5
1/jjl2
days/15 repairs
= 2.8
days/repair.
for a
The time for a train to complete a trip from the unloader to the mines and back
was 108 hours. When
this is coupled with a 9.5-hour average unloading
time, it
means each train can bring in a maximum of 74.6 trainloads per year. In Figure 5 we
have plotted
the number
October 1981
INTERFACES
of trainloads
throughput
per year against
17

the number
of
trains in the system. Three plots were generated:

(1) single unloader; (2) two un
The
loaders, operating one at a time; (3) two unloaders operating simultaneously.
curve
curves
were
3
1
models
for
and
for
described
while
the
model
earlier,
queueing
2 requires only a slight modification
of these models. From Figure 5 we see that five
trains and a single unloader can throughput 322 trainloads. The two unloaders can
throughput 355 trainloads if only one operates at a time, and 370 trainloads if both
operate
simultaneously.
FIGURE 5. RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN THE NUMBER OF TRAINS AND THE

ANNUAL
COAL THROUGHPUT:
ONE-
VS TWO-UNLOADER
SYSTEMS.
600r
MAY
TWO UNLOADERS-BOTH
OPERATESIMULTANEOUSLY
TWO UNLOADERS-ONE
OPERATING
AT A TIME
ONE UNLOADER
TRAINS INSYSTEM
We can also look horizontally at the curves to determine how many additional
trains are required for the single-unloader
system to maintain a specified level of
an
To
maintain
annual
400
trainload
throughput, the single unloader
throughput.
one additional train
an
or
a
additional
of
two-thirds
train
requires
approximately
18
INTERFACES

October
1981
operating two-thirds of the time (these two things are not equivalent) when compared
to the two-unloader
system. As the throughput required increases to 475 or 520
the
trainloads,
single unloader requires one and one and a half additional trains,
the difference between the two systems grows as the demand
respectively. Clearly,
return from each train sets inmore quickly for the single
increases and diminishing
unloader
The
system.
eighth train only adds about 50 trainloads to the total
throughput for the single unloader, while it adds 60 trainloads to the total throughput
for the dual system. Remember,
each train is potentially capable of carrying 74.6
trainloads per year. These differences become especially significant if, for example,
after a coal strike, abnormally high amounts of coal are needed in a relatively short
time. The single unloader may need as many as five or six additional trains to bring in
the
same
amount
of
coal.
Wq, is even more dramatically affected by

four trains in operation,
adding a second
to
hours
unloader reduces the wait from 6.7 hours
0.1
(see Figure 6). With eight
to
hours
1.6 hours. These differences may be
trains, the wait is reduced from 20.5
cause
critical when conditions
coal to freeze.
The average wait to begin unloading,
the addition of a second unloader. With
FIGURE 6. THE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN THE NUMBER OF TRAINS AND

THE AVERAGE DELAY INQUEUE: ONE- VS TWO-UNLOADER SYSTEMS.
25 r
20
3
O
X
ONEUNLOADER
15
TWO UNL0ADERS-0NLY
ONEOPERATING
ATA TIME
?< 10
oc
L?
>
<
5h
TWO UNL0ADERS-B0TH
MAY
OPERATESIMULTANEOUSLY
6
7
5
NUMBEROF TRAINS IN SYSTEM
October 1981
INTERFACES
19

These
same
two
sets
of
performance
measures
can
be
better
perceived
by
com
bining them into a single figure. In Figure 7 we have graphed tons per day, number of
trains, and average waiting time. To unload 21.5 x 105 tons/day, the dual system
requires six trains and the average delay will be 0.8 hours. The single unloader
requires seven trains to match the throughput, and the average delay will be 17.6
hours.
FIGURE 7. THE RELATIONSHIPBETWEENAVERAGEWAITING TIME AND

THE COAL f HROUGHPUT:ONE- VS TWO-UNLOADER SYSTEMS.
-TWO UNLOADERS
'(STRAINS)
ONE UNLOADER
(STRAINS)
24
HRSWAITING
analyses were carried out to determine the sensitivity of the results to

parameters. We present an analysis of cycle time. Cycle time could
changes
be changed by purchasing coal from different mines. A decrease in the cycle time
increases the throughput but also increases the average delay. A 20% decrease in the
cycle time produces a throughput for the single unloader which is generally greater
than what the throughput would be for the dual system under present cycle time
Additional
inmodel
20
INTERFACES

October
1981
(Figure 8). The single unloader will feed through 470 trainloads with six trains, with
an 86.4 hour cycle time; two unloaders will feed through 445 trainloads with six
trains if the cycle time remains at 108 hours. In contrast, the impact on waiting time
of a 20% change is not as significant. The dual system will always have significantly
shorter waiting
periods
(Figure 9).
FIGURE 8. SENSITIVITYOF COAL THROUGHPUTTO CHANGES IN TRAIN

CYCLE
TIME: ONE-
VS TWO-UNLOADER
SYSTEMS.
600 r
TWO UNLOADERS
990
ONE UNLOADER
900
490
<
UJ
>
w 400
z
<
390 h
300
290
ONE UNLOADER
TWO UNLOADERS
200
_L
3
_L
6
J_
7
NUMBER OF TRAINS INSYSTEM
The number of trainloads was found not to be very sensitive to 20% changes in
the mean time between unloader failures or to the failure duration. As would be
expected, the single unloader was more affected by the changes. Delay in unloading
for the single-unloader
system was the parameter most affected by these changes. A
20% increase
INTERFACES
(decrease)
October
1981
in cycle
time reduced
(increased)
the delay by about 12%.
21

FIGURE 9. SENSITIVITYOF AVERAGE WAITING TIME TO CHANGES IN

THE TRAIN CYCLE TIME:ONE- VS TWO-UNLOADER SYSTEMS.
/^(+20%)
ONE UNLOADER
(-20%)
(+20%)
TWO UNLOADERS
COMPARISON WITH A SIMULATION MODEL

The analytic models
required the solution of (2K+ 1) and (3K+2) simultaneous

equations, respectively. A more complete and complex simulation model written in
GPSS/V was available to Detroit Edison. The simulation model made no assump
it used
tions about the probability density function of the various time elements;
validated against
actual data instead. The simulation model had been previously
case. Results from runs of the analytic model
historical data for the one-unloader
were
checked against simulation runs and the results were close enough to use the
analytic model for planning purposes. In Table 1we present an illustrative compari
son for a six-train configuration.
22
October 1981
INTERFACES

TABLE 1. COAL THROUGHPUTCAPACITY (x)

COMPARED FOR SIX TRAINS MOVING COAL.
Simulation Model
= 428 trainloads
System x
One-Unloader
s.d.
Analytic Model
400 trainloads
18
= 469
System x
=
4
s.d.
Two-Unloader
450
The major advantages of the analytic models were the computer costs and run
time. A single run of the simulation model on an IBM 370/158 used an average of 2
and 50 seconds CPU time and cost $23.94.
minutes
(This included a $2.70 flat
one
for
To
obtain reliable estimates
handling rate.)
just
configuration
(e.g., a fixed
number of trains), at least 10 runs were typically made with different seed values and
at the above cost. In contrast, a single run of the analytic model could provide
for a range of train configurations.
The savings in computer costs and run time is more than just a financial factor.
It enables "what if" questions to be answered in a shorter period of time. This was
raised a question that could be answered with one run
exemplified when management
statistics
of the analytic model. To the surprise of management,

the answers were available
an hour, whereas the simulation model would have taken at least one day. In
addition, the ease and low cost of gathering information from the analytic model
allowed certain trends to be recognized.
within
IMPLEMENTATION
The results of the study were presented to upper management
and are being used
to analyze whether or not to purchase the second unloader system. Perhaps of greater
to raise
is that the models allowed, and continue to enable, management
significance
and explore new questions:
What
What
is the effect if only one of the unloaders can run at a time?

is the relationship between unloader down time and train waiting
time?
that they must differentiate between ways of in

showed management
a
unloader
concept not previously
availability,
creasing
Speeding up
recognized.
a
has
effect
than
different
repairs
reducing the breakdown frequency. Our analytic
models provided management with tools to answer rapidly some very specific opera
Our models
tional questions:
trains should be run to bring in X trainloads of coal?
trains can be run without the average delay exceeding
time?
How many
How many
waiting
a specific
In summary,
the analytic model,
which was originally
only to
developed
the addition of an unloader, provides ongoing information about changing
in order tomeet system constraints (such as coal throughput
the system configuration
and wait time). This enables management
and the people who run the system to tune
to
seasonal
the system
consider
and exceptional needs (such as recovery from a coal
use
miners'
Little's definition
the
strike). To
[Little, 1970] of implementation,
models are being used regularly to "update the intuition of decision makers."
evaluate
INTERFACES
October
1981
23

AC KNOWLEDGEMENT
I would
like to thank Professor Kolesar
comments
whose
significantly
improved
the style of the paper.

References
Hillier,
F. S. and Lieberman,
G.
J.,
1979, Operations
3rd Edition,
Research,
Holden-Day,
Inc.,
San
Francisco.
J. D. C,
1961, "A Proof for the Queueing
3, pp. 383-387.
and Managers:
Little J. D. C,
1970, "Models
Science
Vol.
16, No. 8, pp. B466-B484.
Little,
Morris,
W.
White,
H. C.
Formula:
The
Concept
1967, "The Art of Modeling,"

Management
L. S., 1958, "Queueing
and Christie,
with
Vol. 6, No.
Research
1, pp. 79-95.
Operations
T.,
L = \W,"
Operations
of a Decision
Science
Preemptive
Research
Calculus,"
Vol.
9, No.
Management
Vol.
13, No.
12, pp. B707-B717.
or with Breakdowns,"
Priorities
24 INTERFACESOctober 1981

Detroit
2000SecondAvenue
,.
48226
Michigan
V":-^r\
v Detroit,
VJV!
(313)237-8000
November 8,
1979
Dr. Gene Woolsey

Research
for Operations
Institute
Colorado School of Mines
80401
Golden, Colorado
Dear Dr. Woolsey:
in the attached
The Analytical
paper
queuing model discussed
was designed
whether a second coal
to assist
in evaluating
the
coal
would
handling
capability
unloading
facility
improve
at the Monroe Power Plant, Detroit
Edison's
electric
largest
to fulfilling
source.
This model in addition
power generation
areas
useful
in
other
such
its designed
purpose has been very
for increasing
as (a) identifying
several
other alternatives
coal through put at this power plant and (b) identifying
sev
eral ways of reducing waiting
with severe
delays associated
Michigan winters.
The success of this modeling effort
has resulted
in an increased
use and recognition
of analytical
modeling as a system evaluation
tool at Detroit
Edison and in the Fuel Supply Department.
The
Fuel Supply Department is responsible
for negotiating
contracts
for the procurement of all fuel to be consumed for electrical
of low sulphur coal
will be
generation.
Large quantities
to comply with the changing regulations
required
regarding
sulphur
dioxide
Much of this coal is already under contract,
emissions.
however some additional
term
contracts
will be required.
long
it appears that any new long term coal purchases will be
Generally,
limited by the available
coal transportation
alternatives
rather than
or mining constraints.
coal reserve
we are developing
a
Presently,
discrete
simulation
model of the total
system (mines, power plants,
vessel
to assist
us
sites)
system, and proposed transloader
delivery
in selecting
coal purchase strategies
and identifying
possible
network.
The attached
improvements in the existing
transportation
paper
was used in the initial
the
current
of
development
stages
system and
is presented
for your use and general
information.
Sincerely,
R. L. Hall
Division
Director,
Operations
Fuel Supply Department
(313) 237-7885
RLHrjmg
attachment
INTERFACES
October
1981
25


Chelst Et Al 1981 A Coal Unloader A Finite Queueing System With Breakdowns

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chelst Et Al 1981 A Coal Unloader A Finite Queueing System With Breakdowns

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Coal Unloader: A Finite Queueing System with Breakdowns

Author(s): Kenneth Chelst, Andrea Zundell Tilles and J. S. Pipis

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

1981, The institute of Management

A COAL UNLOADER: A FINITE QUEUEING

Rock ville, Maryland

owns and operates

A queueing model was developed

Power Plant is a 3,000-megawatt

Trains waiting to be unloaded are not transporting coal, which results in a

is broken for long periods of time,

the number of queued

QUEUES?APPLICATIONS; TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT

the first author.

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

in the winter months contribute

diagram of the unloader

FIGURE 1. THE COAL SUPPLY SYSTEM.

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

MODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS

the time to unload a train

the time between

loaded train to go to the coal fields and return with

FIGURE 2. REPAIR TIME: A COMPARISONOF EMPIRICALDATA

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

about system operation

Coal availability does not affect the train cycle rate.

fjL2 is the rate at which an unloader is repaired (1/ju,2 is the mean

the system's state, we need to specify both i, the number of

rate of (K?j)\j. No transitions to a lower state can occur,

FIGURE 3. TRANSITION RATE DIAGRAM OF SINGLE-UNLOADER

since no train is unloaded

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

FIGURE 4. TRANSITION RATE DIAGRAM OF TWO-UNLOADER

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

Once all of the Pu are calculated,

The fraction of time the unloader

is then used in Little's

the average wait for a

INPUT DATA AND RESULTS

per year against

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

trains in the system. Three plots were generated:

FIGURE 5. RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN THE NUMBER OF TRAINS AND THE

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

Wq, is even more dramatically affected by

FIGURE 6. THE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN THE NUMBER OF TRAINS AND

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

FIGURE 7. THE RELATIONSHIPBETWEENAVERAGEWAITING TIME AND

analyses were carried out to determine the sensitivity of the results to

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

FIGURE 8. SENSITIVITYOF COAL THROUGHPUTTO CHANGES IN TRAIN

NUMBER OF TRAINS INSYSTEM

the delay by about 12%.

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

FIGURE 9. SENSITIVITYOF AVERAGE WAITING TIME TO CHANGES IN

COMPARISON WITH A SIMULATION MODEL

required the solution of (2K+ 1) and (3K+2) simultaneous

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.72 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:57:41 PM

TABLE 1. COAL THROUGHPUTCAPACITY (x)

of the analytic model. To the surprise of management,

is the effect if only one of the unloaders can run at a time?