Term Project: Waste Transfer Station Part II

7/31/2019 Term Project: Waste Transfer Station Part II

1/31

Term Project:Waste Transfer Station

P t II

MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

I E 3 7 2 S I M U L A T I O N


2/31

P t II

Table of Contents

Page

Table of Contents 1

1. INTRODUCTION.... 2

2. OUTPUT ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 2

2.1. Performance Measures.............................................................................................. 2

2.2. Alternative Scenarios..................................................................................... 4

2.3. Output Analysis................................................................................................. 7

2.3.1 Eliminating Initial Bias for Alternative 1. 7

2.3.2 Eliminating Initial Bias for Alternative 2 10

2.4. Estimations on Alternative Scenarios.. 12

2.4.1. Estimations on Primary Performance Measures.......................... 13

2 4 2 E ti ti S d P f M...................... 14


3/31

1. INTRODUCTION

In the first part of this project, the given waste management system is modeled and

some alternative scenarios are generated as initial thoughts. The aim of the second part of the

project is to analyze these alternatives by modifying the model constructed in the previous

part and interpreting the outputs of these models. At the end of this project, the modified

simulation model which is satisfying the goals of the manager will be suggested as

recommendations. Since this is a simulation based project, this suggested model will not

necessarily be the optimal configuration; however it will be compared with the all other

options and the one which fits to objectives best will be suggested. In addition, numerical

results of implementing this suggestion will be provided in detail throughout the report. The

model which is used throughout this report is thefirst simulation model which is shared as the

answer of the Project Part 1.


4/31

3

Port Crane ConveyorMetal

Gatherer

Manual

Process

Area

Worker

Group 1

Worker

Group 2Notes

First Step 39,39 34,68 99,90 60,84 99,35 99,79 39,58

Iteration 1

Iteration 2 38,39 67,31 99,80 39,18 99,89 96,87 77,671 "Manual Process Area", 1 "Worker Group 1"

and 2 "Metal Gatherer" added

Iteration 3 40,59 69,41 99,73 40,43 99,89 99,88 80,12 1 "Manual Process Area" added

Iteration 4 38,97 84,86 99,29 49,39 99,83 81,46 97,97 1 "Worker Group 1" added


Iteration 6 40,09 47,35 99,87 55,29 99,33 90,91 54,50 2 "Crane" added





Alternative 1 40,13 44,57 98,28 78,01 80,44 74,35 76,951 "Worker Group 1" added # of workers in

Worker Group 1 =11. Worker Group 2 =10

Final

numbers:2,00 3,00 1 3 7 5 2 Resource levels of Alternative 1

Alternative 2 38,55 42,84 97,72 74,95 85,69 55,09 77,092 more "Worker Group 1" # of workers in

Worker Group 1 = 9. Worker Group 2 = 9Final

numbers:2 3 1 3 7 7 2 Resource levels of Alternative 2

Table 2.2.1: Utilizations of iterations and alternatives (All values in percentages) (Gathered from related ARENA Simulation Outputs)


5/31

2.2. Alternative Scenarios

In order to decide on the alternative scenarios, the given model is run, statistics are

collected and the bottlenecks are tried to be found. To reach a feasible solution that satisfies

the goals of the manager, a step by step approach is used. In order to see the bottlenecks of

each step easier, the utilization of the resources are tabulated as can be seen in Table 2.2.1 on

previous page.

In this step-by-step approach, utilization statistics are collected at each run and the

bottlenecks are shown by highlighting in the table above. Bottlenecks are thought as the

resources with the highest true utilization level and dependency of these utilizations are also

considered such as worker groups and manual process areas. Iterations are proceed until there

is a configuration which concludes remaining waste flow time less than 180 minutes as

averages of a number of replication averages. At each iteration, if the utilization levels are

close to each other and maximum level, cost of making these investments are taken into

consideration as:

I i th b f t $900 000 d $15 000 ll


6/31

Resource Number

Port 2

Crane 3

Conveyor 1

Metal Gatherer 3

Manual Process Area 7

Worker 5 x First Group (x 11) + 2 x Second Group (x 10) = 75

Table 2.2.2 : Alternative 1 configuration

In Alternative 1, when the given configuration in the Table 2.2.2 above concluded that

the simulation model reaches a remaining waste flow time less than 180 minutes when

average of replication averages are checked. ARENA Simulation output for this alternative

which shows that the remaining waste flow time is less than 180 minutes and satisfies the goal

of manager can found from Appendix 4.1. For this configuration, annual operation,

investment and total costs are calculated in the Table 2.2.3 below.


7/31

As tabulated in Table 2.2.3, Alternative 1 yields a total cost of $ 6.088.000 for two

years when all annual operation, investment cost and monthly wages of workers are taken into

consideration.

In Alternative 2, configuration only changes for the number of worker groups and

number of workers in these groups. Configuration of Alternative 2 is presented in the Table

2.2.4 below:

Resource Number

Port 2

Crane 3

Conveyor 1

Metal Gatherer 3

Manual Process Area 7

Worker 7 x First Group (x 9) + 2 x Second Group (x 9) = 81Table 2.2.4 : Alternative 2 configuration

The effect of this change in configuration on the cost figures can be seen from the

Table 2.2.5 below. As presented, Alternative 2 yields a total cost of $ 6.304.000 for two years

when all related cost items are taken into consideration. ARENA Simulation Output of this


8/31

When these two alternative models are run for three months, the final value of the

total revenues tally is found to be nearly one fourth of the total cost for two years. So it is

thought that both alternatives will achieve the profit goal of the manager. Since these two last

alternatives satisfy all objectives and both are the result of step-by-step increase from scratch,

they will be regarded as best possible suggestions and will be studied as main alternative

options in the rest of this report.

2.3. Output Analysis

In this part, since this station works continuously and simulation model is constructed

to start from zero, this effect of the initializing will be eliminated. In order to achieve this, for

each two alternatives, moving averages of primary performance measures will be plotted and

the time where the line starts to stabilize approximately will be taken as the truncation point.

Considering these truncation points, a relatively long replication length will be chosen to

eliminate effects of this initial bias.

2.3.1 Eliminating Initial Bias for Alternative 1

C id i h i f hi h h b f l i


9/31

Graph 2.3.1.2: Flow time of remaining waste versus time (Moving average)

In order to eliminate effect of initial bias, we need to find a point where these two

plots are get stabilized thereafter. Therefore, by observing the plots, approximately 30000

i t i l t d f t ti i t I dditi i d t li i t ff t f thi t


10/31

Summary 2.3.1.2: Confidence interval for remaining waste flow time (3 replications - Alternative 1)

In order to decide number of replications, target half-width is calculated by multiplying

the outputs mean and determined precision; then it is compared with the half-width level

gathered from output. Since target half-width (156 x 0.08 = 12.48) is less than what is

gathered for the 3 replications (18.3), required number of replications is calculated according

to the formula given in lecture notes and found to be 8.


11/31


12/31

Graph 2.3.2.2: Flow time of remaining waste versus time (Moving average)

With the same approach used in the last part, by observing the plots, approximately

30000 minutes is selected for truncation point. In addition, in order to eliminate effects of this

h h l i i li i l h i l d b l i l l h 30000


13/31

Summary 2.3.2.2: Confidence interval for remaining waste flow time (3 replications - Alternative 2)

In order to decide sufficient number of replications, target half-width is calculated

(177.74 x 0.08 = 14.24) and compared with the half-width gathered from summary output

above. Since target level is less than what is calculated for the 3 replications (17), required

number of replications is calculated according to the formula given in lecture notes and found

to be 5.

Therefore, in order to reduce variance, 5 replications with truncating first 30000 minutes

and with a replication length of at least 3 months will be used in the next parts of the report.

With this approach, ARENA Simulation Report of the last replication is given in the

A di 4 4 ARENA O f Al i 2 (T d) Al i b i d


14/31

Summary 2.3.2.3: Confidence interval for remaining waste flow time (5 replicationsAlternative 2)

2.4. Estimations on Alternative Scenarios

While estimating the performance measures, 3-month replication period after

truncation and five replications are used for both of the alternatives to compare them with the

similar conditions. Averages of replication averages are used to estimate mean; and sample

variance of the replications is used to estimate the standard deviation. The formulas used are

i d

2

i i )

2

M h i d i d


15/31

As can be seen from the tables above, Alternative 1 has higher revenue estimation

than the Alternative 2. In addition, when estimations of remaining waste flow time taken into

consideration, Alternative 1 also has a better (in that sense, smaller) flow time. When standard

deviation estimations are checked, it shows that Alternative 2 has higher diversity than

Alternative 1 which is not desirable.

(Actually there are 8 replications for Alternative-1, but only five of them are presented

here)

2.4.2. Estimations on Secondary Performance Measures

Since secondary performance measures are only checked to diagnose any problems of

system, their calculations are provided for any further investigation in Appendix 4.5 -

Estimations of Secondary Performance Measures. The only point to mention about these

measures that although the second alternative seems to use all resources a little bit more

efficient than the first alternative, its crane queue storage has a higher level and its standard

deviation estimation shows that this level is not so precise because standard deviation

estimation is very close to the mean estimation.


16/31

This output shows that, for 2 years Alternative 1 has an expected revenue level of $

13.266.800 and with 99 % confidence this level will not be dropped less than $ 13.159.0007.

Considering high precision level and low variations from minimum and maximum levels of

interval, this alternative can be regarded as a reliable alternative in monetary issues. For

further analysis, output of the last replication of 2 year-run for this alternative is provided in

Appendix 4.6 - ARENA Output of Alternative 1 (2-year-run)

2.5.2. Cost Benefit Analysis for Alternative 1

According to the study conducted, Alternative 1s revenue within two year is

approximately $13,266,800 and the cost of investment is $3,210,000 which reveals that the

revenue is far sufficient to cover the investment. Moreover, if the investment costs considered

with the total operation costs during this time period which is $6,088,000, revenues even

sufficient to cover such cost and the profit of the company would be near $7,178,800.

2.5.3 Confidence Interval Construction for Alternative 2


17/31

with other measures, it can be directly said that this high difference of maximum and

minimum of confidence interval can create problems in business environment. For further

investigation, output of the last replication of 2 year-run for this alternative is provided in

Appendix 4.7 - ARENA Output of Alternative 2 (2-year-run)

2.5.4. Cost Benefit Analysis for Alternative 2

As for the Alternative 2s revenues within two year, it is approximately $12,817,500

although the cost of investment is the same $3,210,000. However, the revenue is still far

sufficient to cover the investment. Moreover, if the investment costs considered with the total

operation costs during this time period is $6,304,000, which is increased; but, revenues even

sufficient to cover such cost and the profit of the company would be near $7,178,800.

However, flow time of remaining waste is increased although the operation cost is increased.


18/31

3. CONCLUSIONS

To conclude, both alternative systems have same investment costs; however they

differ in operation costs. Moreover, they both could cover their overall costs by far at the end

of two year time period. However, Alternative-1 has both lower operation cost and better

remaining waste flow time in terms of both length of the average flow time and reliability of

this average flow time. As a result, the proper suggestion for the company is Alternative-1.

Conducting this project, there are mainly two difficulties which are faced by this

group. The first one is that the model which is given as the solution of Part I is a little more

professional than the ones covered in the lectures and recitations. For example, there are

differentblocks in model and different approaches of modeling like using While blocks to

model conditional situations. Although it was not so difficult to understand how the model


19/31

18

4. APPENDIX

4.1. ARENA Output of Alternative 1

ARENA Simulation ResultsDepartment of Industrial EngineeringSummary for Replication 1 of 1

Project: Unnamed Project Run execution date : 5/27/2011Analyst: Department of Industrial Engineering Model revision date: 5/27/2011

Replication ended at time : 129600.0 MinutesBase Time Units: Minutes

TALLY VARIABLES

Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Observations___________________________________________________________________________________________________

plasticFlowTime 159.91 15.699 33.625 539.08 86613glassFlowTime 196.75 15.328 32.255 592.47 86559paperFlowTime 140.23 16.028 32.160 516.27 86635glassTruckTally 1006.5 .23043 1000.0 1016.4 1079compostFlowTime 2018.2 31.892 1465.2 2605.8 10196remainingFlowTime 155.69 15.786 35.127 523.18 86627plasticTruckTally 1016.7 .36196 1000.0 1037.6 2820

organicFlowTime 1095.7 (Corr) 61.979 2553.6 76439metalFlowTime 133.31 15.996 24.991 510.16 86634


20/31

19

DISCRETE-CHANGE VARIABLES

Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Final Value___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Crane True Utilization 133.71 3.3314 .00000 300.00 300.00metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o 8.3192E+05 (Corr) .00000 1.6687E+06 1.6687E+06Number in Crane Queue 53.747 9.1323 .00000 361.00 19.000Crane Utilization 251.12 7.1549 .00000 300.00 300.00metalRevenue 3.3147E+05 (Corr) .00000 6.6376E+05 6.6376E+05Worker Group 2 Utilization 153.90 3.8044 .00000 200.00 .00000Number in Port Queue .09205 .01290 .00000 6.0000 .00000Port Utilization 40.126 1.1541 .00000 100.00 50.000Metal Gatherer Utilization 256.18 6.6050 .00000 300.00 .00000organicRevenue 73785. (Insuf) .00000 1.5075E+05 1.5075E+05NR(conveyor) 9.8278 .02484 .00000 10.000 9.0000landfillCost 1.5125E+05 (Corr) .00000 3.0289E+05 3.0289E+05

Worker Group 1 Utilization 371.76 9.3105 .00000 500.00 .00000Metal Gatherer True Utilization 234.02 6.0144 .00000 300.00 .00000paperRevenue 88102. (Corr) .00000 1.7646E+05 1.7646E+05NR(workerArea) 5.6309 .13965 .00000 7.0000 .00000compostRevenue 6041.1 (Insuf) .00000 11885. 11885.NUMENT 855.50 27.346 1.0000 2072.0 142.00glassRevenue 4.1221E+05 (Corr) .00000 8.2538E+05 8.2538E+05Number in Conveyor 8.9983 (Corr) .00000 9.0000 9.0000plasticRevenue 71571. (Corr) .00000 1.4336E+05 1.4336E+05

Simulation run time: 1.68 minutes.Simulation run complete.


21/31

20

4.2. ARENA Output of Alternative 2

This output shows that the Alternative 2 has remaining waste flow time less than 180 minutes.


Project: project Run execution date : 5/26/2011Analyst: aykutKerem Model revision date: 5/26/2011

Replication ended at time : 129600.0 MinutesBase Time Units: Minutes

TALLY VARIABLES


plasticFlowTime 148.68 10.265 34.055 452.99 83244glassFlowTime 189.33 9.5605 33.464 521.92 83197paperFlowTime 128.42 10.794 31.783 427.80 83266glassTruckTally 1006.2 .30893 1000.0 1015.4 993compostFlowTime 2001.0 25.035 1482.3 2429.4 9495remainingFlowTime 141.84 10.555 36.105 449.07 83255plasticTruckTally 1016.0 .37176 1000.0 1037.0 2677organicFlowTime 1113.5 31.757 44.730 2415.6 73771metalFlowTime 120.63 10.756 24.671 420.09 83265


22/31

21



Crane True Utilization 128.51 (Corr) .00000 300.00 .00000

metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o 7.4940E+05 (Corr) .00000 1.5071E+06 1.5071E+06Number in Crane Queue 43.566 (Corr) .00000 292.00 .00000Crane Utilization 235.04 (Corr) .00000 300.00 .00000metalRevenue 3.1709E+05 (Corr) .00000 6.3680E+05 6.3680E+05Worker Group 2 Utilization 154.17 (Corr) .00000 200.00 .00000Number in Port Queue .08515 .01151 .00000 5.0000 .00000Port Utilization 38.553 (Corr) .00000 100.00 50.000Metal Gatherer Utilization 241.12 (Corr) .00000 300.00 .00000organicRevenue 70767. (Insuf) .00000 1.4468E+05 1.4468E+05NR(conveyor) 9.7716 (Corr) .00000 10.000 9.0000landfillCost 1.7409E+05 (Corr) .00000 3.4947E+05 3.4947E+05Worker Group 1 Utilization 385.64 (Corr) .00000 700.00 .00000

Metal Gatherer True Utilization 224.85 (Corr) .00000 300.00 .00000paperRevenue 84119. (Corr) .00000 1.6883E+05 1.6883E+05NR(Zipper) .08150 (Corr) .00000 1.0000 .00000NR(workerArea) 5.9981 (Corr) .00000 8.0000 .00000compostRevenue 5407.9 (Insuf) .00000 10928. 10928.NUMENT 832.04 30.377 1.0000 1992.0 116.00glassRevenue 3.7838E+05 (Corr) .00000 7.5936E+05 7.5936E+05Number in Conveyor 8.9983 (Corr) .00000 9.0000 9.0000plasticRevenue 67723. (Corr) .00000 1.3600E+05 1.3600E+05



23/31

22

4.3. ARENA Output of Alternative 1 (Truncated)

ARENA Simulation ResultsDepartment of Industrial Engineering

Summary for Replication 8 of 8


Replication ended at time : 129600.0 MinutesStatistics were cleared at time: 30000.0 Minutes (Thursday, June 16, 2011, 20:00:00)Statistics accumulated for time: 99600.0 MinutesBase Time Units: Minutes

TALLY VARIABLES

Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Observations

___________________________________________________________________________________________________



24/31

23



Crane True Utilization 129.07 5.0369 .00000 300.00 .00000metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o 9.9191E+05 (Corr) 3.7094E+05 1.6110E+06 1.6110E+06Number in Crane Queue 51.892 15.073 .00000 406.00 .00000Crane Utilization 241.11 10.648 .00000 300.00 .00000metalRevenue 3.9470E+05 (Corr) 1.4828E+05 6.3991E+05 6.3991E+05Worker Group 2 Utilization 148.56 5.8113 .00000 200.00 200.00Number in Port Queue .09077 .02221 .00000 5.0000 .00000Port Utilization 38.651 1.7442 .00000 100.00 50.000Metal Gatherer Utilization 247.11 9.8440 .00000 300.00 .00000organicRevenue 88337. (Insuf) 31194. 1.4517E+05 1.4517E+05NR(conveyor) 9.7942 .03694 9.0000 10.000 9.0000landfillCost 1.8041E+05 (Corr) 67934. 2.9269E+05 2.9269E+05

Worker Group 1 Utilization 358.85 14.043 .00000 500.00 100.00Metal Gatherer True Utilization 225.83 8.7806 .00000 300.00 .00000paperRevenue 1.0506E+05 (Corr) 39611. 1.7034E+05 1.7034E+05NR(workerArea) 5.4375 .21357 .00000 7.0000 4.0000compostRevenue 7287.0 (Insuf) 2558.9 11921. 11921.NUMENT 834.07 35.249 45.000 1994.0 100.00glassRevenue 4.9159E+05 (Corr) 1.8513E+05 7.9785E+05 7.9785E+05Number in Conveyor 9.0000 .00000 8.0000 9.0000 9.0000plasticRevenue 85340. (Corr) 32132. 1.3849E+05 1.3849E+05

Simulation run time: 6.27 minutes.

Simulation run complete.


25/31

24

4.4. ARENA Output of Alternative 2 (Truncated)



Replication ended at time : 129600.0 MinutesStatistics were cleared at time: 30000.0 Minutes (Thursday, June 16, 2011, 20:00:00)Statistics accumulated for time: 99600.0 MinutesBase Time Units: Minutes

TALLY VARIABLES


plasticFlowTime 183.88 18.895 34.738 586.94 65939glassFlowTime 224.13 17.511 34.761 651.15 66012paperFlowTime 164.24 19.554 34.621 578.94 65942glassTruckTally 1006.1 (Corr) 1000.0 1015.4 787compostFlowTime 2010.6 27.531 1473.3 2485.1 8017remainingFlowTime 177.45 19.233 38.276 591.77 65939plasticTruckTally 1016.2 .54106 1000.0 1037.2 2119

organicFlowTime 1136.0 40.792 36.584 2437.7 58987metalFlowTime 156.84 19.548 26.135 572.38 65940


26/31

25



Crane True Utilization 132.41 4.3247 .00000 300.00 200.00

metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o 9.4963E+05 (Corr) 3.4954E+05 1.5461E+06 1.5461E+06Number in Crane Queue 68.844 14.825 .00000 388.00 41.000Crane Utilization 259.24 9.6276 .00000 300.00 300.00metalRevenue 4.0267E+05 (Corr) 1.4917E+05 6.5437E+05 6.5437E+05Worker Group 2 Utilization 158.69 5.2198 .00000 200.00 200.00Number in Port Queue .08230 .01264 .00000 5.0000 .00000Port Utilization 39.721 1.2428 .00000 100.00 50.000Metal Gatherer Utilization 263.41 8.8116 .00000 300.00 300.00organicRevenue 88412. (Insuf) 31171. 1.4657E+05 1.4657E+05NR(conveyor) 9.8589 .03320 9.0000 10.000 10.000landfillCost 2.2037E+05 (Corr) 81601. 3.5809E+05 3.5809E+05Worker Group 1 Utilization 397.11 13.017 .00000 700.00 500.00

Metal Gatherer True Utilization 231.69 7.5515 .00000 300.00 300.00paperRevenue 1.0671E+05 (Corr) 39544. 1.7336E+05 1.7336E+05NR(workerArea) 5.9039 .19485 .00000 7.0000 7.0000compostRevenue 7674.1 (Insuf) 2861.0 12063. 12063.NUMENT 873.06 37.968 37.000 1968.0 112.00glassRevenue 4.7871E+05 (Corr) 1.7663E+05 7.7842E+05 7.7842E+05Number in Conveyor 9.0000 .00000 8.0000 9.0000 9.0000plasticRevenue 85812. (Corr) 31763. 1.3943E+05 1.3943E+05



27/31

26

4.5. Estimations of Secondary Performance Measures

Alternative 1

Replications Port Crane Conveyor Metal Gatherer Manual Process Area Worker Group 1 Worker Group 2 Number in crane queue

1 40,14 44,62 98,31 78,16 80,51 74,45 77,01 51,14

2 40,06 44,57 90,89 77,84 80,46 74,35 76,94 59,21

3 39,08 43,40 98,05 75,96 78,35 72,36 75,02 49,24

4 39,91 44,45 98,27 77,71 80,29 74,17 76,80 52,26

5 38,65 43,02 97,94 75,28 77,68 71,77 74,28 51,89

6 40,44 44,67 98,39 78,33 81,14 74,80 77,68 72,63

7 39,33 43,72 98,09 76,51 78,86 72,91 75,59 45,75

8 40,93 45,35 98,48 79,40 81,86 75,66 78,34 68,50

39,57 44,01 96,69 76,99 79,46 73,42 76,01 52,75

0,44 0,56 10,54 1,65 1,80 1,59 1,62 14,40

Alternative 2

Replications Port Crane Conveyor Metal Gatherer Manual Process Area Worker Group 1 Worker Group 2 Number in crane queue

1 40,47 44,99 98,76 78,68 86,05 80,99 81,05 72,55

2 39,41 43,76 98,47 76,44 83,68 78,71 78,83 62,68

3 40,52 45,03 98,76 78,71 86,02 81,04 80,98 73,66

4 38,94 43,16 98,31 75,42 82,46 77,65 77,60 56,54

5 39,72 44,14 98,59 77,23 84,34 79,42 79,35 68,84

39,81 44,22 98,58 77,30 84,51 79,56 79,56 66,86

0,47 0,65 0,04 2,04 2,39 2,16 2,16 51,65


28/31

27

4.6. ARENA Output of Alternative 1 (2-year-run)

ARENA Simulation ResultsDepartment of Industrial Engineering



Replication ended at time : 1036800.0 MinutesStatistics were cleared at time: 30000.0 Minutes (Sunday, June 19, 2011, 20:00:00)Statistics accumulated for time: 1006800.0 MinutesBase Time Units: Minutes

TALLY VARIABLES




29/31

28



Crane True Utilization 132.57 1.7522 .00000 300.00 100.00

metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o 6.7988E+06 (Corr) 3.7094E+05 1.3222E+07 1.3222E+07Number in Crane Queue 60.847 8.1264 .00000 587.00 69.000Crane Utilization 248.95 3.7817 .00000 300.00 300.00metalRevenue 2.7008E+06 (Corr) 1.4828E+05 5.2513E+06 5.2513E+06Worker Group 2 Utilization 152.75 2.0550 .00000 200.00 100.00Number in Port Queue .08936 .00553 .00000 7.0000 .00000Port Utilization 39.767 .52525 .00000 100.00 .00000Metal Gatherer Utilization 254.02 3.4643 .00000 300.00 300.00organicRevenue 6.1089E+05 (Corr) 31194. 1.1893E+06 1.1893E+06NR(conveyor) 9.8219 .01315 9.0000 10.000 10.000landfillCost 1.2352E+06 (Corr) 67934. 2.4017E+06 2.4017E+06Worker Group 1 Utilization 368.56 4.8443 .00000 500.00 400.00

Metal Gatherer True Utilization 231.96 3.0598 .00000 300.00 300.00paperRevenue 7.1931E+05 (Corr) 39611. 1.3988E+06 1.3988E+06NR(workerArea) 5.5865 .07467 .00000 7.0000 5.0000compostRevenue 50554. (Corr) 2558.9 98909. 98909.NUMENT 866.08 16.766 30.000 2362.0 118.00glassRevenue 3.3681E+06 (Corr) 1.8513E+05 6.5488E+06 6.5488E+06Number in Conveyor 9.0000 .00000 8.0000 9.0000 9.0000plasticRevenue 5.8439E+05 (Corr) 32132. 1.1364E+06 1.1364E+06



30/31

29

4.7. ARENA Output of Alternative 2 (2-year-run)

ARENA Simulation Results

Department of Industrial Engineering



Replication ended at time : 1066800.0 MinutesStatistics were cleared at time: 30000.0 Minutes (Sunday, June 19, 2011, 20:00:00)Statistics accumulated for time: 1036800.0 MinutesBase Time Units: Minutes

TALLY VARIABLES


plasticFlowTime 202.79 14.661 31.578 1047.0 693732glassFlowTime 242.42 14.424 33.208 1116.8 693739paperFlowTime 183.25 14.774 31.574 1030.8 693733glassTruckTally 1006.2 (Corr) 1000.0 1015.9 8272compostFlowTime 2061.8 21.406 1444.2 3082.4 92460remainingFlowTime 196.33 14.717 33.798 1043.1 693732plasticTruckTally 1016.3 .09228 1000.0 1037.2 22298

organicFlowTime 1142.0 10.992 36.584 2748.0 601112metalFlowTime 175.82 14.769 23.332 1024.9 693732


31/31

30



Crane True Utilization 133.82 1.3229 .00000 300.00 100.00metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o 6.6140E+06 (Corr) 3.4954E+05 1.2900E+07 1.2900E+07Number in Crane Queue 82.184 9.9270 .00000 729.00 80.000Crane Utilization 262.19 3.0067 .00000 300.00 300.00metalRevenue 2.7980E+06 (Corr) 1.4917E+05 5.4578E+06 5.4578E+06Worker Group 2 Utilization 160.58 1.5997 .00000 200.00 200.00Number in Port Queue .08964 (Corr) .00000 6.0000 .00000Port Utilization 40.149 .39599 .00000 100.00 50.000Metal Gatherer Utilization 266.28 2.7032 .00000 300.00 300.00organicRevenue 6.2090E+05 (Corr) 31171. 1.2094E+06 1.2094E+06NR(conveyor) 9.8685 .01045 9.0000 10.000 10.000landfillCost 1.5342E+06 (Corr) 81601. 2.9921E+06 2.9921E+06

Worker Group 1 Utilization 401.47 3.9821 .00000 700.00 400.00Metal Gatherer True Utilization 234.25 2.2731 .00000 300.00 200.00paperRevenue 7.4226E+05 (Corr) 39544. 1.4476E+06 1.4476E+06NR(workerArea) 5.9692 .05940 .00000 7.0000 7.0000compostRevenue 55460. (Corr) 2861.0 1.0937E+05 1.0937E+05NUMENT 897.26 16.777 25.000 2218.0 1435.0glassRevenue 3.3342E+06 (Corr) 1.7663E+05 6.5028E+06 6.5028E+06Number in Conveyor 9.0000 .00000 8.0000 9.0000 9.0000plasticRevenue 5.9734E+05 (Corr) 31763. 1.1649E+06 1.1649E+06

Simulation run time: 2.85 minutes.

Simulation run complete.

Documents

Term Project: Waste Transfer Station Part II