MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

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

Term Project:
Waste Transfer Station Part II
Group Name: Jelkala
Burcu Yzak Fato lbi Onur Ylmaz

June 2011, Ankara

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Page 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. Estimations on Secondary Performance Measures ...................... 14 2.5. Statistical Analysis of Alternative Scenarios . 14 2.5.1 Confidence Interval Construction for Alternative 1..... 14 2.5.2. Cost Benefit Analysis for Alternative 1 . 15 2.5.3 Confidence Interval Construction for Alternative 2..... 15 2.5.4. Cost Benefit Analysis for Alternative 2 . 16 3. CONCLUSIONS. .. 17 4. APPENDIX ....... 18 4.1. SIMAN Output of Alternative 1 ... 18 4.2. SIMAN Output of Alternative 2 ... 20 4.3. SIMAN Output of Alternative 1 (Truncated) .... 22 4.4. SIMAN Output of Alternative 2 (Truncated) .... 24 4.5. Estimations of Secondary Performance Measures .... 26 4.6. ARENA Output of Alternative 1 (2-year-run) .. 27 4.7. ARENA Output of Alternative 2 (2-year-run) .. 29

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 the first simulation model which is shared as the answer of the Project Part 1.

2. OUTPUT ANALYSIS
2.1. Performance Measures
In order to evaluate alternatives, there is a need for setting some performance measures. With this reasoning and considering the objectives of manager, these performance measures are grouped into two as primary and secondary performance measures. Primary performance measures which are considered as the measures to evaluate whether the goals of manager are achieved or not are flow time of remaining waste, profit made in two years considering the investments and number of loads in the station Secondary performance measures which are considered to help determine what prevents the station achieve these goals can be listed as true machine utilization and number in queue values.

Port First Step Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 4 Iteration 5 Iteration 6 Iteration 7 Iteration 8 Iteration 9 Iteration 10 Alternative 1 Final numbers: Alternative 2 Final numbers: 38,39 40,59 38,97 38,78 40,09 38,84 39,45 39,99 39,73 40,13 2,00 38,55 2 39,39

Crane 34,68

Conveyor 99,90

Metal Gatherer 60,84

Manual Process Area 99,35

Worker Group 1 99,79

Worker Group 2 39,58

Notes

67,31 69,41 84,86 95,07 47,35 51,54 59,24 65,02 66,13 44,57 3,00 42,84 3

99,80 99,73 99,29 96,32 99,87 99,99 99,79 99,51 99,40 98,28 1 97,72 1

39,18 40,43 49,39 55,51 55,29 60,15 69,07 75,69 77,12 78,01 3 74,95 3

99,89 99,89 99,83 99,73 99,33 99,60 97,87 94,79 93,33 80,44 7 85,69 7

96,87 99,88 81,46 91,29 90,91 98,93 85,29 93,62 95,19 74,35 5 55,09 7

77,67 80,12 97,97 54,69 54,50 59,39 68,34 75,07 76,29 76,95 2 77,09 2

1 "Manual Process Area", 1 "Worker Group 1" and 2 "Metal Gatherer" added 1 "Manual Process Area" added 1 "Worker Group 1" added 1 "Worker Group 2" added 2 "Crane" added 1 "Manual Process Area" added 1 "Worker Group 1" added 1 "Manual Process Area" added 1 "Manual Process Area" added 1 "Worker Group 1" added # of workers in Worker Group 1 =11. Worker Group 2 =10 Resource levels of Alternative 1 2 more "Worker Group 1" # of workers in Worker Group 1 = 9. Worker Group 2 = 9 Resource levels of Alternative 2

Table 2.2.1: Utilizations of iterations and alternatives (All values in percentages) (Gathered from related ARENA Simulation Outputs) 3

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:

Increasing the number of cranes costs $900,000 and $15,000 annually Increasing the number of conveyors costs $100,000 and $11,000 annually Increasing the number of metal gatherer costs $700,000 and $10,000 annually Increasing the number of manual process areas costs $2,000 Increasing the number of workers in the worker groups costs $1,500 per month per worker.

Considering these mentioned issues, at each step only one addition is made to configuration and output statistics are collected for whether or not the goals are achieved. In order to track the additions made at each step, notes are added to the Table 2.2.1 on previous page. As average of replication averages become closer to the 180 minutes goal of remaining waste flow time, not only additions to resources but also operational changes are also considered such as changing number of workers in manual process area worker groups. After making step-by-step changes, finally, the goal is achieved at Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 which are listed also in Table 2.2.1 with the related utilization levels.

Resource Port Crane Conveyor Metal Gatherer Manual Process Area Worker

Number 2 3 1 3 7 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.

INVESTMENT COSTS Metal Gatherer Crane Manual Process Area Total Investment Cost Number Purchased 2 2 5 Cost 1,400,000.00 1,800,000.00 10,000.00 3,210,000.00

ANNUAL COSTS Workers Metal Gatherer Crane Zipper Conveyor Total Annual Cost In 2 years TOTAL COST Total Number 75 3 3 1 1 Cost 1,350,000.00 30,000.00 45,000.00 3,000.00 11,000.00 1,439,000.00 2,878,000.00 6,088,000.00 Notes 1,500 x 12 x 75 3 x 10,000 3 x 15,000

Table 2.2.3: Alternative 1 configuration costs

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 Port Crane Conveyor Metal Gatherer Manual Process Area Worker

Number 2 3 1 3 7 7 x First Group (x 9) + 2 x Second Group (x 9) = 81 Table 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 alternative, which shows that the flow time of remaining waste is less than 180 minutes, can be found from the Appendix 4.2 - ARENA Output of Alternative 2.

INVESTMENT COSTS: Metal Gatherers Crane Manual Process Area Total Investment Cost ANNUAL COSTS: Workers Metal Gatherer Crane Zipper Conveyor Total In 2 years Total Number 81 3 3 1 1 Number Purchased 2 2 5 Cost 1,400,000.00 1,800,000.00 10,000.00 3,210,000.00 Cost 1,458,000.00 30,000.00 45,000.00 3,000.00 11,000.00 Notes 1500 x 12 x 81 3 x 10000 3 x 15000

1,547,000.00 3,094,000.00 TOTAL COST 6,304,000.00 Table 2.2.5: Alternative 2 configuration costs
6

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

Considering the primary performance measures which are the number of elements in the system and remaining waste flow time, the following graphics are plotted for the Alternative 1 and taken from Arena Output Analyzer (by using moving average):

Graph 2.3.1.1: Number of entities versus time (Moving average) 7

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 minutes is selected for truncation point. In addition, in order to eliminate effects of this part on the whole statistics, replication length is selected to be relatively longer than 30000 minutes and assumed to be a 3-month period.

After the determination of the replication length, in order to decide number of replications, a sequential procedure from lecture notes is implemented, and precision is set to 0.08 (provide relatively high precision) and arbitrary replication number is set as 3. With these arrangements, the following data is gathered for the remaining waste flow time from ARENA Output Analyzer:

Graph 2.3.1.3: Confidence interval for remaining waste flow time (3 replications - Alternative 1)

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.

Graph 2.3.1.4: Confidence interval for remaining waste flow time (8 replications - Alternative 1)

Summary 2.3.1.3: Confidence interval for remaining waste flow time (8 replications - Alternative 1)

After making 8 replications, it is seen that target (160 x 0.08=12,8) and realized (10.8) half-widths satisfy the conditions.

Therefore, in order to reduce variance, 8 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 Appendix 4.3 - ARENA Output of Alternative 1 (Truncated). In addition, it must be mentioned that, it is obvious from the Summary 2.3.1.3 above, this alternative has at most 170.8 and on the average 160 minutes of remaining waste flow time with % 95 confidences; hence this alternative can be regarded as reliable in the concept of remaining waste flow performance measure.

2.3.2 Eliminating Initial Bias for Alternative 2

With the same approach used in the last part, now same plots will be generated for Alternative 2 as following:

Graph 2.3.2.1: Number of entities versus time (Moving average)

10

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 part on the whole statistics, replication length is selected to be relatively longer than 30000 minutes and assumed to be a 3-month (4 times larger than truncation point) period.

In order to find the appropriate number of replications, a sequential procedure is applied like the previous alternative. Firstly, same precision level (0.08) and arbitrary number of replications, which is 3, are selected and the following Minitab output gathered for the remaining waste flow time:

Graph 2.3.2.3: Confidence interval for remaining waste flow time (3 replications - Alternative 2)

11

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 Appendix 4.4 - ARENA Output of Alternative 2 (Truncated). Also it must be mentioned about the summary output above that the mean level is less than 180 minutes, which is sufficient for managers goals, but 95 % CI is in conflict with that because of the fact that this configuration creates a disperse data for remaining flow time. Therefore, this alternative cannot be fully regarded as reliable in the sense of remaining waste flow time.

Graph 2.3.2.4: Confidence interval for remaining waste flow time (5 replications - Alternative 2)

12

Summary 2.3.2.3: Confidence interval for remaining waste flow time (5 replications Alternative 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

Y= x

i and s2 =

(i - Yi ) 2 . Moreover, the estimated primary and

secondary performance measure values are tabulated for each alternative to be able to compare these two alternatives easier.

2.4.1. Estimations on Primary Performance Measures

ALTERNATIVE 1 Replications 1 2 3 4 5

ALTERNATIVE 2 1.025.100 1.021.300 1.026.700 1.015.100 991.910 1.016.022 14.200 Replications 1 2 3 4 5

Flowtime () Revenue ()
151,92 164,18 151,02 154,05 156,33 155,5 5,27

Flowtime () Revenue ()
180,97 169,9 182,35 160,87 177,45 174,308 8,93 955.960 956.540 974.000 926.320 949.630 952.490 17.206

Table 2.4.1.1: Estimations on primary performance measures

13

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.

2.5. Statistical Analysis of Alternative Scenarios

2.5.1 Confidence Interval Construction for Alternative 1

In this part, the configuration named as Alternative 1 which has a truncation point of 30000 and needs to be replicated at least 8 times will be run for 2 years and related revenue figures will be gathered. After running for two years and gathering maximum revenue levels, which are final revenue levels at the same time, this following confidence level is constructed for revenue:
One-Sample T: revenue Variable revenue N 8 Mean 13266800 StDev 52352 SE Mean 23412 99% CI (13159007, 13374593)

Summary 2.5.1: 99% confidence interval for revenue (Alternative 1) 14

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

With the same approach used in part 2.5.1, this time the configuration which needs to be replicated at least 5 times and with a replication length of 3-month is run for 2 years and revenue information is gathered. Collecting the maximum (final) revenue statistics for replications, the following analysis is made to construct a confidence interval:

One-Sample T: Revenue Alternative 2 Variable revenue2 N 5 Mean 12817500 StDev 83895 SE Mean 41947 99% CI (12572489, 13062511)

Summary 2.5.3: 99% confidence interval for revenue (Alternative 2)

This output shows that, for 2 years Alternative 2 has an expected revenue level of $ 12.817.500 and with 99 % confidence this level will not be dropped less than $ 12.572.489. For this high level precision, it is obvious from the summary above, maximum and minimum levels of interval changes with nearly half a million dollars. Although it must be compared
15

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.

16

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 different blocks 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 constructed, some additional information about this model could have been provided like it is asked as defining distinguishable modules of models in the first part of the project. The second main difficulty was about dividing the report into two because in the question paper it is directly divided starting from Output Analysis; however to come up with a complete report, it become a little difficult to arrange sub-chapters of this report.

17

4. APPENDIX
4.1. ARENA Output of Alternative 1
ARENA Simulation Results Department of Industrial Engineering Summary for Replication 1 of 1 Project: Unnamed Project Analyst: Department of Industrial Engineering Replication ended at time Base Time Units: Minutes : 129600.0 Minutes TALLY VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Observations ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ plasticFlowTime glassFlowTime paperFlowTime glassTruckTally compostFlowTime remainingFlowTime plasticTruckTally organicFlowTime metalFlowTime 159.91 196.75 140.23 1006.5 2018.2 155.69 1016.7 1095.7 133.31 15.699 15.328 16.028 .23043 31.892 15.786 .36196 (Corr) 15.996 33.625 32.255 32.160 1000.0 1465.2 35.127 1000.0 61.979 24.991 539.08 592.47 516.27 1016.4 2605.8 523.18 1037.6 2553.6 510.16 86613 86559 86635 1079 10196 86627 2820 76439 86634 Run execution date : 5/27/2011 Model revision date: 5/27/2011

18

DISCRETE-CHANGE VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Final Value ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Crane True Utilization metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o Number in Crane Queue Crane Utilization metalRevenue Worker Group 2 Utilization Number in Port Queue Port Utilization Metal Gatherer Utilization organicRevenue NR(conveyor) landfillCost Worker Group 1 Utilization Metal Gatherer True Utilization paperRevenue NR(workerArea) compostRevenue NUMENT glassRevenue Number in Conveyor plasticRevenue Simulation run time: 1.68 minutes. Simulation run complete. 133.71 8.3192E+05 53.747 251.12 3.3147E+05 153.90 .09205 40.126 256.18 73785. 9.8278 1.5125E+05 371.76 234.02 88102. 5.6309 6041.1 855.50 4.1221E+05 8.9983 71571. 3.3314 (Corr) 9.1323 7.1549 (Corr) 3.8044 .01290 1.1541 6.6050 (Insuf) .02484 (Corr) 9.3105 6.0144 (Corr) .13965 (Insuf) 27.346 (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 1.0000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.00 1.6687E+06 361.00 300.00 6.6376E+05 200.00 6.0000 100.00 300.00 1.5075E+05 10.000 3.0289E+05 500.00 300.00 1.7646E+05 7.0000 11885. 2072.0 8.2538E+05 9.0000 1.4336E+05 300.00 1.6687E+06 19.000 300.00 6.6376E+05 .00000 .00000 50.000 .00000 1.5075E+05 9.0000 3.0289E+05 .00000 .00000 1.7646E+05 .00000 11885. 142.00 8.2538E+05 9.0000 1.4336E+05

19

4.2. ARENA Output of Alternative 2

This output shows that the Alternative 2 has remaining waste flow time less than 180 minutes. ARENA Simulation Results Department of Industrial Engineering Summary for Replication 1 of 1 Project: project Analyst: aykutKerem Replication ended at time Base Time Units: Minutes : 129600.0 Minutes TALLY VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Observations ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ plasticFlowTime glassFlowTime paperFlowTime glassTruckTally compostFlowTime remainingFlowTime plasticTruckTally organicFlowTime metalFlowTime 148.68 189.33 128.42 1006.2 2001.0 141.84 1016.0 1113.5 120.63 10.265 9.5605 10.794 .30893 25.035 10.555 .37176 31.757 10.756 34.055 33.464 31.783 1000.0 1482.3 36.105 1000.0 44.730 24.671 452.99 521.92 427.80 1015.4 2429.4 449.07 1037.0 2415.6 420.09 83244 83197 83266 993 9495 83255 2677 73771 83265 Run execution date : 5/26/2011 Model revision date: 5/26/2011

20

DISCRETE-CHANGE VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Final Value ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Crane True Utilization metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o Number in Crane Queue Crane Utilization metalRevenue Worker Group 2 Utilization Number in Port Queue Port Utilization Metal Gatherer Utilization organicRevenue NR(conveyor) landfillCost Worker Group 1 Utilization Metal Gatherer True Utilization paperRevenue NR(Zipper) NR(workerArea) compostRevenue NUMENT glassRevenue Number in Conveyor plasticRevenue Simulation run time: 2.12 minutes. Simulation run complete. 128.51 7.4940E+05 43.566 235.04 3.1709E+05 154.17 .08515 38.553 241.12 70767. 9.7716 1.7409E+05 385.64 224.85 84119. .08150 5.9981 5407.9 832.04 3.7838E+05 8.9983 67723. (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) .01151 (Corr) (Corr) (Insuf) (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) (Insuf) 30.377 (Corr) (Corr) (Corr) .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 1.0000 .00000 .00000 .00000 300.00 1.5071E+06 292.00 300.00 6.3680E+05 200.00 5.0000 100.00 300.00 1.4468E+05 10.000 3.4947E+05 700.00 300.00 1.6883E+05 1.0000 8.0000 10928. 1992.0 7.5936E+05 9.0000 1.3600E+05 .00000 1.5071E+06 .00000 .00000 6.3680E+05 .00000 .00000 50.000 .00000 1.4468E+05 9.0000 3.4947E+05 .00000 .00000 1.6883E+05 .00000 .00000 10928. 116.00 7.5936E+05 9.0000 1.3600E+05

21

4.3. ARENA Output of Alternative 1 (Truncated)

ARENA Simulation Results Department of Industrial Engineering Summary for Replication 8 of 8 Project: project Analyst: aykutKerem Run execution date : 5/27/2011 Model revision date: 5/27/2011

Replication ended at time : 129600.0 Minutes Statistics were cleared at time: 30000.0 Minutes (Thursday, June 16, 2011, 20:00:00) Statistics accumulated for time: 99600.0 Minutes Base Time Units: Minutes TALLY VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Observations ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ plasticFlowTime glassFlowTime paperFlowTime glassTruckTally compostFlowTime remainingFlowTime plasticTruckTally organicFlowTime metalFlowTime 160.94 199.49 140.63 1006.4 2033.0 156.33 1016.8 1097.3 133.76 19.071 18.254 19.606 .29059 30.539 19.211 .44104 32.944 19.617 34.323 34.216 33.175 1000.0 1570.0 36.091 1000.0 44.494 25.783 602.93 678.51 597.29 1015.8 2472.7 607.74 1037.3 2500.9 589.26 64282 64260 64287 801 8044 64290 2092 57737 64284

22

DISCRETE-CHANGE VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Final Value ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Crane True Utilization metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o Number in Crane Queue Crane Utilization metalRevenue Worker Group 2 Utilization Number in Port Queue Port Utilization Metal Gatherer Utilization organicRevenue NR(conveyor) landfillCost Worker Group 1 Utilization Metal Gatherer True Utilization paperRevenue NR(workerArea) compostRevenue NUMENT glassRevenue Number in Conveyor plasticRevenue Simulation run time: 6.27 minutes. Simulation run complete. 129.07 9.9191E+05 51.892 241.11 3.9470E+05 148.56 .09077 38.651 247.11 88337. 9.7942 1.8041E+05 358.85 225.83 1.0506E+05 5.4375 7287.0 834.07 4.9159E+05 9.0000 85340. 5.0369 (Corr) 15.073 10.648 (Corr) 5.8113 .02221 1.7442 9.8440 (Insuf) .03694 (Corr) 14.043 8.7806 (Corr) .21357 (Insuf) 35.249 (Corr) .00000 (Corr) .00000 3.7094E+05 .00000 .00000 1.4828E+05 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 31194. 9.0000 67934. .00000 .00000 39611. .00000 2558.9 45.000 1.8513E+05 8.0000 32132. 300.00 1.6110E+06 406.00 300.00 6.3991E+05 200.00 5.0000 100.00 300.00 1.4517E+05 10.000 2.9269E+05 500.00 300.00 1.7034E+05 7.0000 11921. 1994.0 7.9785E+05 9.0000 1.3849E+05 .00000 1.6110E+06 .00000 .00000 6.3991E+05 200.00 .00000 50.000 .00000 1.4517E+05 9.0000 2.9269E+05 100.00 .00000 1.7034E+05 4.0000 11921. 100.00 7.9785E+05 9.0000 1.3849E+05

23

4.4. ARENA Output of Alternative 2 (Truncated)

ARENA Simulation Results Department of Industrial Engineering Summary for Replication 5 of 5 Project: project Analyst: aykutKerem Run execution date : 5/27/2011 Model revision date: 5/27/2011

Replication ended at time : 129600.0 Minutes Statistics were cleared at time: 30000.0 Minutes (Thursday, June 16, 2011, 20:00:00) Statistics accumulated for time: 99600.0 Minutes Base Time Units: Minutes TALLY VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Observations ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ plasticFlowTime glassFlowTime paperFlowTime glassTruckTally compostFlowTime remainingFlowTime plasticTruckTally organicFlowTime metalFlowTime 183.88 224.13 164.24 1006.1 2010.6 177.45 1016.2 1136.0 156.84 18.895 17.511 19.554 (Corr) 27.531 19.233 .54106 40.792 19.548 34.738 34.761 34.621 1000.0 1473.3 38.276 1000.0 36.584 26.135 586.94 651.15 578.94 1015.4 2485.1 591.77 1037.2 2437.7 572.38 65939 66012 65942 787 8017 65939 2119 58987 65940

24

DISCRETE-CHANGE VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Final Value ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Crane True Utilization metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o Number in Crane Queue Crane Utilization metalRevenue Worker Group 2 Utilization Number in Port Queue Port Utilization Metal Gatherer Utilization organicRevenue NR(conveyor) landfillCost Worker Group 1 Utilization Metal Gatherer True Utilization paperRevenue NR(workerArea) compostRevenue NUMENT glassRevenue Number in Conveyor plasticRevenue Simulation run time: 6.03 minutes. Simulation run complete. 132.41 9.4963E+05 68.844 259.24 4.0267E+05 158.69 .08230 39.721 263.41 88412. 9.8589 2.2037E+05 397.11 231.69 1.0671E+05 5.9039 7674.1 873.06 4.7871E+05 9.0000 85812. 4.3247 (Corr) 14.825 9.6276 (Corr) 5.2198 .01264 1.2428 8.8116 (Insuf) .03320 (Corr) 13.017 7.5515 (Corr) .19485 (Insuf) 37.968 (Corr) .00000 (Corr) .00000 3.4954E+05 .00000 .00000 1.4917E+05 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 31171. 9.0000 81601. .00000 .00000 39544. .00000 2861.0 37.000 1.7663E+05 8.0000 31763. 300.00 1.5461E+06 388.00 300.00 6.5437E+05 200.00 5.0000 100.00 300.00 1.4657E+05 10.000 3.5809E+05 700.00 300.00 1.7336E+05 7.0000 12063. 1968.0 7.7842E+05 9.0000 1.3943E+05 200.00 1.5461E+06 41.000 300.00 6.5437E+05 200.00 .00000 50.000 300.00 1.4657E+05 10.000 3.5809E+05 500.00 300.00 1.7336E+05 7.0000 12063. 112.00 7.7842E+05 9.0000 1.3943E+05

25

4.5. Estimations of Secondary Performance Measures

Alternative 1
Replications 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Port 40,14 40,06 39,08 39,91 38,65 40,44 39,33 40,93 39,57 0,44 Crane 44,62 44,57 43,40 44,45 43,02 44,67 43,72 45,35 44,01 0,56 Conveyor Metal Gatherer Manual Process Area Worker Group 1 Worker Group 2 Number in crane queue 98,31 90,89 98,05 98,27 97,94 98,39 98,09 98,48 96,69 10,54 78,16 77,84 75,96 77,71 75,28 78,33 76,51 79,40 76,99 1,65 80,51 80,46 78,35 80,29 77,68 81,14 78,86 81,86 79,46 1,80 74,45 74,35 72,36 74,17 71,77 74,80 72,91 75,66 73,42 1,59 77,01 76,94 75,02 76,80 74,28 77,68 75,59 78,34 76,01 1,62 51,14 59,21 49,24 52,26 51,89 72,63 45,75 68,50 52,75 14,40

Alternative 2
Replications 1 2 3 4 5 Port 40,47 39,41 40,52 38,94 39,72 39,81 0,47 Crane 44,99 43,76 45,03 43,16 44,14 44,22 0,65 Conveyor Metal Gatherer Manual Process Area Worker Group 1 Worker Group 2 Number in crane queue 98,76 78,68 86,05 80,99 81,05 72,55 98,47 76,44 83,68 78,71 78,83 62,68 98,76 78,71 86,02 81,04 80,98 73,66 98,31 75,42 82,46 77,65 77,60 56,54 98,59 77,23 84,34 79,42 79,35 68,84 98,58 77,30 84,51 79,56 79,56 66,86 0,04 2,04 2,39 2,16 2,16 51,65

26

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

ARENA Simulation Results Department of Industrial Engineering Summary for Replication 8 of 8 Project: project Analyst: aykutKerem Run execution date : 5/30/2011 Model revision date: 5/30/2011

Replication ended at time : 1036800.0 Minutes Statistics were cleared at time: 30000.0 Minutes (Sunday, June 19, 2011, 20:00:00) Statistics accumulated for time: 1006800.0 Minutes Base Time Units: Minutes TALLY VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Observations ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ plasticFlowTime glassFlowTime paperFlowTime glassTruckTally compostFlowTime remainingFlowTime plasticTruckTally organicFlowTime metalFlowTime 171.22 208.56 151.55 1006.5 2037.3 167.02 1016.8 1116.2 144.63 9.4151 9.0488 9.6370 .07688 14.247 9.4921 .11798 7.2051 9.6221 31.653 31.445 31.806 1000.0 1448.6 35.425 1000.0 41.419 23.694 839.74 905.18 808.60 1016.6 2887.9 830.18 1037.7 2761.3 800.38 667369 667367 667362 8319 82745 667373 21720 586111 667362

27

DISCRETE-CHANGE VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Final Value ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Crane True Utilization metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o Number in Crane Queue Crane Utilization metalRevenue Worker Group 2 Utilization Number in Port Queue Port Utilization Metal Gatherer Utilization organicRevenue NR(conveyor) landfillCost Worker Group 1 Utilization Metal Gatherer True Utilization paperRevenue NR(workerArea) compostRevenue NUMENT glassRevenue Number in Conveyor plasticRevenue Simulation run time: 3.88 minutes. Simulation run complete. 132.57 6.7988E+06 60.847 248.95 2.7008E+06 152.75 .08936 39.767 254.02 6.1089E+05 9.8219 1.2352E+06 368.56 231.96 7.1931E+05 5.5865 50554. 866.08 3.3681E+06 9.0000 5.8439E+05 1.7522 (Corr) 8.1264 3.7817 (Corr) 2.0550 .00553 .52525 3.4643 (Corr) .01315 (Corr) 4.8443 3.0598 (Corr) .07467 (Corr) 16.766 (Corr) .00000 (Corr) .00000 3.7094E+05 .00000 .00000 1.4828E+05 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 31194. 9.0000 67934. .00000 .00000 39611. .00000 2558.9 30.000 1.8513E+05 8.0000 32132. 300.00 1.3222E+07 587.00 300.00 5.2513E+06 200.00 7.0000 100.00 300.00 1.1893E+06 10.000 2.4017E+06 500.00 300.00 1.3988E+06 7.0000 98909. 2362.0 6.5488E+06 9.0000 1.1364E+06 100.00 1.3222E+07 69.000 300.00 5.2513E+06 100.00 .00000 .00000 300.00 1.1893E+06 10.000 2.4017E+06 400.00 300.00 1.3988E+06 5.0000 98909. 118.00 6.5488E+06 9.0000 1.1364E+06

28

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

ARENA Simulation Results Department of Industrial Engineering Summary for Replication 5 of 5 Project: project Analyst: aykutKerem Run execution date : 5/30/2011 Model revision date: 5/30/2011

Replication ended at time : 1066800.0 Minutes Statistics were cleared at time: 30000.0 Minutes (Sunday, June 19, 2011, 20:00:00) Statistics accumulated for time: 1036800.0 Minutes Base Time Units: Minutes TALLY VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Observations ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ plasticFlowTime glassFlowTime paperFlowTime glassTruckTally compostFlowTime remainingFlowTime plasticTruckTally organicFlowTime metalFlowTime 202.79 242.42 183.25 1006.2 2061.8 196.33 1016.3 1142.0 175.82 14.661 14.424 14.774 (Corr) 21.406 14.717 .09228 10.992 14.769 31.578 33.208 31.574 1000.0 1444.2 33.798 1000.0 36.584 23.332 1047.0 1116.8 1030.8 1015.9 3082.4 1043.1 1037.2 2748.0 1024.9 693732 693739 693733 8272 92460 693732 22298 601112 693732

29

DISCRETE-CHANGE VARIABLES Identifier Average Half Width Minimum Maximum Final Value ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Crane True Utilization metalRevenue+plasticRevenue+glassRevenue+o Number in Crane Queue Crane Utilization metalRevenue Worker Group 2 Utilization Number in Port Queue Port Utilization Metal Gatherer Utilization organicRevenue NR(conveyor) landfillCost Worker Group 1 Utilization Metal Gatherer True Utilization paperRevenue NR(workerArea) compostRevenue NUMENT glassRevenue Number in Conveyor plasticRevenue Simulation run time: 2.85 minutes. Simulation run complete. 133.82 6.6140E+06 82.184 262.19 2.7980E+06 160.58 .08964 40.149 266.28 6.2090E+05 9.8685 1.5342E+06 401.47 234.25 7.4226E+05 5.9692 55460. 897.26 3.3342E+06 9.0000 5.9734E+05 1.3229 (Corr) 9.9270 3.0067 (Corr) 1.5997 (Corr) .39599 2.7032 (Corr) .01045 (Corr) 3.9821 2.2731 (Corr) .05940 (Corr) 16.777 (Corr) .00000 (Corr) .00000 3.4954E+05 .00000 .00000 1.4917E+05 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 31171. 9.0000 81601. .00000 .00000 39544. .00000 2861.0 25.000 1.7663E+05 8.0000 31763. 300.00 1.2900E+07 729.00 300.00 5.4578E+06 200.00 6.0000 100.00 300.00 1.2094E+06 10.000 2.9921E+06 700.00 300.00 1.4476E+06 7.0000 1.0937E+05 2218.0 6.5028E+06 9.0000 1.1649E+06 100.00 1.2900E+07 80.000 300.00 5.4578E+06 200.00 .00000 50.000 300.00 1.2094E+06 10.000 2.9921E+06 400.00 200.00 1.4476E+06 7.0000 1.0937E+05 1435.0 6.5028E+06 9.0000 1.1649E+06

30