Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
This paper focuses on the layout planning problem for the expansion project of Lushun Ro-Pax (Ro-Ro/ Passenger) terminal to provide high quality service for the rapidly growing throughputs of passengers and vehicles. To better design layout alternatives, we first define a series of performance indicators regarding operation efficiency, carbon emissions, land utilization and traffic safety. Then, a multi-agent microscopic traffic simulation model is established to reproduce the complex operation processes and traffic flows of passengers and vehicles in the Ro-Pax terminal. Finally, we apply the established simulation model to make a comprehensive assessment of available layout alternatives based on the defined performance indicators. The determined optimal layout design is to set up function zones, including the area of passengers waiting for shuttle buses (WA-SBP), the area of private cars waiting for accompanying passengers (WA-PC) and the area of passengers waiting for accompanying private cars (WA-PCP), in the quay apron area and combine marshalling areas for outbound vehicles (MA-VWBs) of two adjacent berths. It not only is cost-effective but shows enough robustness to the variation of terminal's throughput. Meanwhile, this study also confirms simulation is an effective option to solve layout planning problem for the Ro-Pax terminal and the proposed methodology can be anticipated as a pattern to cope with similar problems. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2019 | 10.1016/j.simpat.2019.101942 | Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
Ro-Pax terminal,Multi-agent microscopic simulation,Layout planning | Performance indicator,Page layout,Service quality,Computer science,Marshalling,Operations research,Traffic simulation,Real-time computing,Robustness (computer science),Layout planning,Throughput | Journal |
Volume | ISSN | Citations |
96 | 1569-190X | 1 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.39 | 0 | 7 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guolei Tang | 1 | 1 | 2.75 |
| Jingjing Yu | 2 | 1 | 0.39 |
| Ningning Li | 3 | 1 | 0.39 |
| Xianqun Song | 4 | 1 | 0.39 |
| Xiaoyi Zhao | 5 | 1 | 0.39 |
| Xuhui Yu | 6 | 1 | 0.39 |
| Yue Qi | 7 | 1 | 0.39 |