Greening the Link Between Land and Sea

By Catherine
Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

Cargo Ship APL TOURMALINE arriving at the Port of Oakland
By Catherine Bolgar

With container-port traffic having more than tripled since 2000, and today’s world container trade expected to double by 2024, ports have become important industrial centers, as well as flashpoints for environmental concerns. Regulations and technology are combining to help ports be greener.

When a port invests in green technology, it is not only good for the environment but also good for themselves, because it can make unit operating costs go down in the long run,” says Vinh Thai, senior lecturer at the School of Business IT and Logistics at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia.

As the link between land and sea, ports affect not just terrestrial and marine habitats, but also such environmental aspects as air quality and noise, especially for the often-large cities next to them.

“During the loading and unloading of petroleum products, a release can occur with consequent damage to the ecosystem,” says Rosa Mari Darbra, associate professor of chemical and industrial engineering at Polytechnic University of Catalonia in Barcelona. “The noise of the port, which works 24 hours every day, may generate disturbance and even anxiety to the surrounding population. The storage of solid bulk, such as coal, can generate particles. If they are not properly protected, they may affect the respiratory systems of citizens, especially children and old people.”

The International Maritime Organization adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or Marpol, in 1973. It aims to prevent, among other things, fuel spills with design measures such as double hulls, and prohibits dumping sewage near land. It also requires ports to be able to accept waste from ships and either recycle or treat it appropriately on land, either at the port itself or elsewhere.

In order to facilitate ships’ delivery of waste at port, Spain in 2010 established a flat rate for waste-handling, Dr. Darbra says. Even if this measure has increased work for ports, the aim is to encourage ships to be greener.

Cargo shipAir pollution has been tamed around ports in the North Sea, Baltic Sea and North America by requiring ships to switch to low-sulfur fuel when entering designated coastal areas. Some ports, such as Rotterdam, offer discounted fees to ships that can show low emissions, Dr. Thai says.

Similarly, Hong Kong and Singapore reduce port fees for vessels that switch to cleaner fuel while at berth. Nine of the world’s top 10 busiest ports are in Asia, and the ports with the highest emission levels from shipping also are in Asia: Singapore, Hong Kong, Tianjin, China, and Port Klang, Malaysia.

Ports also are cutting emissions by encouraging ships to shut down their engines while at berth and switch to onshore power systems. These power generators usually burn fuel that’s cleaner than the bunker fuel used by ships. However, the challenges are providing enough power and connectivity. “Sometimes the electrical plugs and sockets aren’t the same between countries—the voltage isn’t the same,” Dr. Thai says.

Similarly, ports can switch to cargo-handling equipment such as cranes that run on electricity instead of diesel, he adds. Even warehouses can be greener if designed to use natural light instead of electricity whenever possible.

Greater efficiency does reduce harmful emissions. “In high-traffic ports, the congestion from vessels idling for long periods of time significantly increases pollution levels. This is responsible for excessive pollution, producing greater greenhouse-gas effects when productivity does not increase equally with efficiency. It’s a vicious circle,” says Jaime Ortiz, vice provost for global strategies and studies at the University of Houston. “Economically it’s not good either, as pollution shortens the lifespans of the vessels, the cargo on board and the people working on the ships.”

forklift handling container box loading to freight trainThe design of land transportation also affects ports’ sustainability. The use of trucks to transport the cargo from the port to the hinterland involves highway congestion and pollution, Dr. Darbra says. If a maximum amount of cargo were shifted to rail, it would bring important reductions in pollution. Two other competitive solutions are short sea shipping and inland waterways.

“These three measures could improve the environmental sustainability of seaports a lot,” Dr. Darbra says. “They could help decongest traffic at seaports.”

Inland vessels have less capacity than ocean-going ships, but can carry far more cargo than trucks. Goods could travel with less pollution by inland waterways to logistical centers closer to their destination, before being shifted to trucks for just the last, short leg. Inland waterways “give more power to the logistic chain,” Dr. Darbra says.

 

Catherine Bolgar is a former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe, now working as a freelance writer and editor with WSJ. Custom Studios in EMEA. For more from Catherine Bolgar, along with other industry experts, join the Future Realities discussion on LinkedIn.

Photos courtesy of iStock

Lippert Components and ENOVIA – An Improved PLM Experience

By Matthew
Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

Read what Lippert Components has to say about their ENOVIA experience and with it, how they took on their PLM challenges and succeeded by:

  • Improving efficiencies
  • Improving access of information and sharing
  • Managing schedules more effectively

“The fact that ENOVIA has a rich web-based UI and is easily navigable has resulted in greater PLM user experience overall. Supporting the UI is a PLM foundation that will permit Lippert to manage continued growth.”

Access, read and download the Lippert case study inside our ENOVIA Community on 3DSwYm at this blog post

HERE

Lippert Components

This case study of Lippert Components, Inc. is based on a June 2016 survey of ENOVIA customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

Moving to Modular Buildings? Better Know Your Fabricators’ Limitations

By Patrick
Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

clicktotweetClick to Tweet: Moving to #Modular Buildings? Better
Know Your Fabricators’ Limitations @3DSAEC #prefab

Building owners, designers and contractors are increasingly realizing the benefits of modular prefabrication. This trend, transforming the way construction components are delivered, is helping speed projects to market and leading to higher quality buildings.

The switch from stick-built construction to the assembly of manufactured components also makes the fabricator’s role more important than ever. Yet every manufacturer faces limitations that can impact their capabilities in delivering the optimum system to the jobsite.

When designers factor in manufacturer limitations, they can better select partners that can deliver the best possible end product.

Three challenges in particular must be addressed:

clicktotweetClick to Tweet: 3 Universal Challenges
of Building Product #Manufacturing

Factory machinery, with inherent limitations, is used for manufacturing building products.

Factory machines, with inherent limitations, are used for manufacturing building products.

1. Factory machinery’s capability limitations.

Compared to assembly in the field, manufacturing large system components in the factory presents a number of benefits in quality, safety, scheduling, and other areas. The benefits are limited only by the manufacturer’s capabilities, including the following:

  • Machinery size. The size of the available assembly table, kiln or other equipment will dictate the size of the finished component. A manufacturer’s capabilities can best be assessed by breaking down a design based on the capabilities of their machinery.
  • Local codes. Does the manufacturer’s machinery solution meet the local codes? For example, in the U.S. and UK, a welding machine is an acceptable solution for forming the rebar for a prefabricated concrete slab. In many Nordic countries, code prevents use of this type of machine.
  • Machinery layout. Lines must be organized so that a bottleneck does not delay the entire product’s delivery. By adopting a Design for Manufacturing and Assembly approach—with the use of universal connectors—manufacturers can outsource a single component or system that can easily be assembled in the factory or onsite.

 


Limited space presents challenges for prefabrication delivery processes

Limited space presents challenges for prefabrication delivery processes.

2. Limited space for storage and staging areas.

Manufacturers must address upfront two challenges in the logistics of getting product onsite:

Highway size limitations. Federal governments set minimum height and width requirements that will limit the size of pre-assembled systems. In addition, oversized products typically must be transported in daylight hours with an escort.

The space available for storing product. Factories cannot be stopped at the first sign of a site delay. If a problem arises on the site, a manufacturer may suddenly be faced with the need to store, for example, 1,000 housing modules. And what happens for manufacturers producing for multiple sites, where suddenly two sites experience delays? Having a buffer zone, such as a lot or warehouse space situated outside the factory or just off the jobsite, can be essential.

clicktotweetClick to Tweet: Limitations of machinery, space & competitive
bidding wreak havoc on #AEC building projects @3DSAEC


Bidding processes don’t account for delivery and other realities of modular products.

3. Poor outcomes due to competitive bidding practices.

Today the reigning belief is that the best price comes from competitive bidding. Yet the bidding process actually is more likely to lead to the worst possible price. The bid component truly leads to about 15 percent of the 30 to 35 percent overrun most projects face as a result of redundancy.

There are two reasons for this:

Delivery is not addressed upfront. By creating a generic design that multiple parties are able to bid, there is no possibility of optimizing against the delivery process. By creating a time and material contract that uses the delivery process as the starting point, projects will come out with a better price.

Unknown factors lead GCs to bid high. Every project faces unknown variables, be it weather or an unforeseen site challenge. These factors cause contractors to pad their bid. But by working directly with the trades who will address these unknowns, it’s possible to get early insight into potential challenges.

Room for Improvement

The off-site or near-site manufacture of building systems leads to a more repetitive, reliable process. These processes can be simulated and studied for further optimization. By working with manufacturers as partners in the design process, projects can gain an edge in schedule, budget and quality.

clicktotweetClick to Tweet: Moving to #Modular Buildings? Better
Know Your Fabricators’ Limitations @3DSAEC #prefab

Related Resources

WHITEPAPER: Prefabrication and Industrialized Construction

Design for Fabrication Industry Solution Experience

Collaborative and Industrialized AEC Industry Solutions from Dassault Systèmes



Page 4 of 284« First...23456...102030...Last »