kalmar maintenance cost compare

17
1 (17) Richard Pope Manager, Port Crane Sales NA July 22, 2015 Kalmar Maintenance & Fuel Comparisons to Competitors Kalmar E-One 2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

Upload: anonymous-kvxe6a

Post on 26-Jan-2016

83 views

Category:

Documents


25 download

DESCRIPTION

COST COMPARISON

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

1 (17)

Richard Pope Manager, Port Crane Sales NA July 22, 2015

Kalmar Maintenance & Fuel Comparisons to Competitors

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

Page 2: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

2 (17)

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Chart 1: Long-term cost savings between Kalmar and ZPMC ................................................ 4

2 Summary Data .............................................................................................................................. 5

3 Cost Summary .............................................................................................................................. 6

4 Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 7

4.1 Kalmar vs. Konecranes .......................................................................................................... 7

4.1.1 Gantry ............................................................................................................................. 7

4.1.2 Hoist ............................................................................................................................... 7

4.1.3 Trolley ............................................................................................................................. 7

4.1.4 Hydraulics ....................................................................................................................... 8

4.1.5 Engine ............................................................................................................................ 8

4.1.6 General ........................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Kalmar vs. ZPMC ................................................................................................................... 8

4.2.1 Gantry ............................................................................................................................. 8

4.2.2 Hoist ............................................................................................................................... 8

4.2.3 Trolley ............................................................................................................................. 9

4.2.4 Hydraulics ....................................................................................................................... 9

4.2.5 Engine ............................................................................................................................ 9

4.2.6 General ........................................................................................................................... 9

5 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 11

5.1 Analysis Objective ............................................................................................................... 11

5.2 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................... 12

5.3 Table 1: Component tally and fuel consumption ................................................................... 13

5.4 Table 2: Maintenance Burden .............................................................................................. 15

5.5 Table 3: RTG Fuel consumption data .................................................................................. 17

Page 3: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

3 (17)

1 Executive Summary This analysis aims to highlight the cost differences in maintenance and fuel based on a comparison of the fundamental rubber tire gantry (RTG) crane systems of Kalmar and its competitors. Rather than a comparison of total cost of ownership (TCO), the intent here is to identify the differences between each manufacturer’s major systems, e.g. gantry, hoist, spreader bars, spreader micro-movements, etc. and how those differences translate to maintenance costs and fuel consumption. To make the comparisons, the main components of each manufacturer’s RTG, e.g. motors, gearboxes, brakes, etc., were counted. The main systems examined were hoist, gantry, trolley, anti-sway, and side shift/trim/skew. Included with the gearbox count are oil capacities, which are the basis for maintenance costs, i.e. labor and the cost of oil. Likewise, hydraulic systems, if any, were included due to their high demand on maintenance resources. The primary difference between Kalmar and Konecranes RTGs are total quantity of motors, gearboxes, inverters, and brakes. Konecranes’ higher numbers of these main components leads to at least 11% higher cost of maintenance annually. Further, Konecranes uses predominately self-branded motors, inverters, and other parts in the manufacturer of their RTGs. As the only source for these proprietary parts, the owner’s options on parts sourcing are extremely limited. Without alternative sources for these key parts, owners must keep an expensive inventory of vital parts on hand or experience long out-of-service time while parts are shipped in. When compared to Kalmar, ZPMC’s extensive use of hydraulics contributes significantly to their 70% higher fuel consumption. These hydraulic systems also add substantial cost for maintenance in terms of labor, oil, filters, hoses, and old oil disposal. Large gearboxes with high volumes of gear oil significantly add to maintenance labor and cost of oil, including disposal of old oil. Overall, ZPMC’s high fuel consumption and extra maintenance requirements add nearly $50,000 more cost per year than a Kalmar RTG of equal capability. ZPMC also uses proprietary self-branded motors, brakes, gearboxes, and other parts to build their RTGs. Again, as the only source for these proprietary parts, the owner’s options are limited. Without alternative sources, owners must either keep an expensive inventory of vital parts on hand or experience long out-of-service time while parts are shipped in from China. Although ZPMC is known to be the low price leader, the initially lower price loses its value in short order. In a separate analysis, we found that lower maintenance and fuel costs can offset a $130,000 difference in purchase price in as little as 2.4 years and can lead to a savings of more than $1 million over the long term. Please see Chart 1: Long-term cost savings between Kalmar and ZPMC that follows this executive summary. Through our simple, maintenance-friendly design, Kalmar offers the most cost effective RTG available, with substantial savings in maintenance and operating costs. Our regional service center in Monroe Township, NJ offers full parts and service support only 60 miles away. With quick turn time on parts, typically less than 24 hours, owner’s inventory can be kept to a minimum, saving capital and inventory maintenance costs. Our commercially available main component parts from ABB, Siemens, Pintsch-Bubenzer, and others ensure there are always alternative sources for parts if needed.

Page 4: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

4 (17)

1.1 Chart 1: Long-term cost savings between Kalmar and ZPMC Break-even based on ZPMC initial cost of $1,600,000 vs. Kalmar initial cost of $1,730,000

Page 5: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

5 (17)

2 Summary Data The summary tables that follow are derived from a more detailed breakdown found in the appendix. Comparison of Design, Maintenance, and Operating Costs Rubber Tire Gantry Crane – 4,000 hours use annually System Kalmar KCI ZPMC Total motors 15 commercially

available, i.e. ABB, Siemens, SEW Euro

26 Self-branded (proprietary)

11 Self-branded (proprietary)

Motor maintenance inspections

$390.00 $676.00 $286.00

Total brakes 15 Pintsch-Bubenzer, SEW Euro, or other commercially available

18 Pintsch-Bubenzer, Sibre, Self-branded

8 Self-branded (proprietary)

Annual brake inspection cost

$1,950.00 $2,340.00 $1,040.00

Total inverters 7 ABB or Siemens 11 Self-branded (proprietary)

7 Fuji

Total gearboxes 15 18 8 Gearbox oil volume on crane

298 liters 500 liters 860 liters

Annual gearbox maintenance on crane

Est. $7,700.80 Est. $12,718.00 Est. $21,278.00

Total Hydraulic systems on crane

None None 2 - Wheel turn and locks 1 - spreader 2 - List/trim/skew

Hydraulic oil volume on crane

0 liters 0 liters 460 liters

Annual hydraulic systems maintenance

$0.00 Est. $0.00 Est. $6,000.00

Engine type Variable speed (VSG) Variable speed (VSG) Two speed Fuel cost per year $39,920.00 $39,920.00 $68,040.00 Crane weight 141 mt 141 mt 170 mt Items in bold are main contributors to higher maintenance and operating costs.

Page 6: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

6 (17)

3 Cost Summary Annual maintenance and fuel costs Based on 4000 hours per year Assumptions: - Costs shown are for maintenance on systems where significant differences exist. - Other systems on crane, e.g. wire ropes, sheaves, tires, engines, etc., are assumed to be similar and require similar maintenance. Therefore, these systems were not included in the cost difference analysis. - Labor costs were calculated at $65.00 per hour. Difference in actual labor costs will change the basic cost but the relative difference remains the same. Motor maintenance inspections

Approx $390 per year

Approx. $676 per year 26 motors on board adds approximately $286 per year maintenance cost when compared to Kalmar.

Approx. $286 per year. Fewer motors saves approximately $104 per year maintenance cost when compared to Kalmar.

Annual brake inspection cost

Approx. $1,950 per year

Approx. $2,340 per year 18 brakes on board adds approximately $390 per year maintenance cost when compared to Kalmar.

Approx. $1,040 per year. Fewer brakes saves approximately $910 per year maintenance cost when compared to Kalmar.

Mechanical systems (gearboxes)

Approx. $7,700 per year

Approx. $12,720 per year 8 gantry gearboxes, two hoist gearboxes, & 4 trolley gearboxes adds approximately $5,020 per year maintenance cost when compared to Kalmar.

Approx. $21,280 per year Very large gantry gearboxes, 4 trolley gearboxes, & complex list/trim/skew systems adds approximately $13,580 per year maintenance cost when compared to Kalmar.

Hydraulic systems None None Hydraulics add approximately $6,000 per year maintenance cost

Fuel consumption $39,920.00 Equal to Kalmar, $39,920 $68,040 High fuel consumption adds approximately $28,120 per year in operating cost when compared to Kalmar.

Total cost to compare $49,960 $55,656 $96,646 Annual operating cost differences based on added maintenance and fuel burden

$5,700.00 (+11%) $46,690.00 (+93%)

Page 7: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

7 (17)

4 Findings As this analysis intended to highlight the cost differences in maintenance and fuel consumption based on a comparison of fundamental rubber tire gantry (RTG) crane systems between Kalmar, Konecranes, and ZPMC, we examined the principal differences with respect to the hoist, gantry, trolley, anti-sway, and side shift/trim/skew. A tally of each manufacturer’s major systems, such as number of motors, inverters, gearboxes, brakes, and hydraulic systems and significant differences were found, which contribute to notable cost impacts in terms of maintenance and fuel consumption. 4.1 Kalmar vs. Konecranes 4.1.1 Gantry

Comparing Kalmar E-One2 RTGs with Konecranes, the main stand-out difference is the significantly higher number of motors in the Konecranes gantry system. The gantry system on Konecranes RTGs consists of eight (8) motors with integral brakes. The gantry motors serve double duty as the wheel turn motors as well. This necessitates eight (8) additional gearmotor systems to lock the gantry bogies in the desired position. There are eight (8) driven bogies, where one wheel is driven and one wheel is undriven. When the bogie lock is released, energizing the gantry motors cause the bogies to rotate about their vertical axis. After wheel turn is completed, the bogie locks are re-engaged to prevent wheel turn when the gantry motors are energized. Over time, wear on the bogie lock pins can contribute to tracking issues and difficulties engaging and disengaging the lock pins. Kalmar uses two (2) gantry motors (optionally 4 motors) and uses four separate gearmotors for wheel turn. Locking pins are unnecessary because the integral brakes hold the gantry trucks in the desired position. The flexibility of Kalmar’s 8 or 16 wheel bogies and two or four wheel drive offers customers many options depending on their operating circumstances and weather conditions. For California weather conditions, Kalmar recommends two gantry motors on either our 8-wheel or 16-wheel configuration. Fewer motors and gearboxes result in higher dependability and less maintenance cost.

4.1.2 Hoist

For load handling, Konecranes uses two complete hoist systems – two hoist motors, two hoist gearboxes and two wire rope drums. When compared to Kalmar’s single hoist system, this amounts to twice the number of brakes, motors, and gearboxes demanding maintenance attention and adding to maintenance costs.

4.1.3 Trolley Konecranes uses four trolley motors and gearboxes, one driving each trolley wheel. Kalmar uses one trolley motor though a unique drive system that tracks trolley position precisely and is not susceptible to wheel slip or crabbing. When equipped with Smartrail CPI, accurate container placement data is reported to TOS and moves are recorded automatically thus eliminating the need for operators to input manually, saving both time and errors. Also, precise trolley position is a prerequisite to future automation possibilities.

Page 8: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

8 (17)

4.1.4 Hydraulics

Both Kalmar and Konecranes have eliminated the need for hydraulics on their cranes, resulting in improved fuel economy and reduced maintenance burden.

4.1.5 Engine Both Kalmar and Konecranes offer Tier 4 final engines and variable speed generators. The variable speed generators offer excellent fuel economy. Kalmar and Konecranes achieve similar fuel consumption at between 3.2 to 3.7 gallons per hour.

4.1.6 General For the most part, Konecranes uses proprietary, self-branded parts on their RTGs. Motors, inverters, and many other parts can only be obtained through Konecranes. This limits the owner’s options in the event of a downed crane; especially if Konecranes happens to be out of stock in the U.S. Kalmar uses commercially available parts for major components such as motors, inverters, PLC, and brakes. With our stocking warehouse only 60 miles away in Monroe Township, NJ, Kalmar can deliver most parts the same business day or within 24 hours of order. If for some reason we are out of stock, these components can be obtained through the individual manufacturers directly or through their stocking distributors.

4.2 Kalmar vs. ZPMC 4.2.1 Gantry

Comparing Kalmar E-One2 RTGs with ZPMC, the principal difference is the significantly larger gantry gearboxes. These gearboxes require a large amount of gear oil and double as the wheel support, which can be problematic in case of damage or repair as supplemental support for the crane will be required while work is done on the gearbox. In either the 8-wheel or 16-wheel configuration, Kalmar’s gantry gearboxes are a separate part that can be removed for repair or replacement without supplemental crane support. Further, Kalmar’s gearboxes only require about 37 liters of gear oil, much less than the ZPMC gearboxes. ZPMC uses an extensive hydraulic system of pipes, hoses, and cylinders on each sill beam for gantry wheel turning. Integral to this system are the bogie locks needed to lock the wheels in the desired position. This system is very maintenance intensive in terms of labor, hydraulic oil, filters, and hoses. Aside from the usual routine maintenance, hoses will tend to fail from time to time, leading to a considerable oil spill and a rather onerous clean-up effort according to environmental protection regulations.

4.2.2 Hoist

Like Kalmar, ZPMC’s hoist system consists of one motor, one gearbox, and one wire rope drum. However, this is where similarities end. Anti-sway is accomplished through angular reeving of the main hoist wire ropes. Eight large hoisting wires are connected directly to the spreader headblock in a so called “Johnny Walker” or stiff reeving configuration. The effectiveness of this system depends heavily on very accurate wire rope tensions. Obtaining

Page 9: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

9 (17)

precisely equal tension on eight individual wire ropes is challenging to the maintenance department, especially when ropes are going through their initial wear-in after replacement. When the ropes are not precisely balanced in tension, each rope has a disproportionate share of the load, sway dampening is marginal, and secondary sway can be introduced in the spreader bar. Kalmar’s independent 4-rope anti-sway system utilizes four constant torque gearmotor winches which automatically adjust to maintain equal tension and eliminate spreader sway in both the trolley and gantry directions. Since Kalmar’s system does not share any of the lifted load, the wire ropes are smaller than the main hoist ropes, making rope replacement easier and less expensive.

4.2.3 Trolley ZPMC uses four trolley motors and gearboxes, one driving each trolley wheel. As with Konecranes, ZPMC’s design includes three additional motors, brakes, and gearboxes for added maintenance burden when compared to Kalmar.

4.2.4 Hydraulics As mentioned above, ZPMC has a rather extensive system of hydraulics on board their RTGs. We estimate some 460 liters of hydraulic oil on board, which contributes to a high maintenance load in terms of labor, hydraulic oil replacement, and filters, as well as maintenance of other components such as solenoid valves, hoses, and piping. Crane hydraulic systems are among the most demanding in terms of maintenance.

4.2.5 Engine ZPMC typically offers two speed diesels. This along with the extensive hydraulics on ZPMC cranes are the chief reasons for ZPMC’s 6 gallons per hour fuel consumption. Kalmar’s VSG system and no on board hydraulics allows us to provide owners with 3.2 to 3.7 gallons per hour fuel economy.

4.2.6 General Like Konecranes, ZPMC uses proprietary, self-branded parts on their RTGs. Motors, brakes, gearboxes, and many other parts can only be obtained through ZPMC. This limits the owner’s options in the event of a downed crane; especially since most parts must be shipped from China. As mentioned before, Kalmar uses commercially available parts. We can usually deliver same business day or within 24 hours from our stocking warehouse in Monroe Township, NJ. If for some reason we are out of stock, these components can be obtained through the individual manufacturers directly or through their stocking distributors.

In summary, Kalmar’s design results in a simple, maintenance-friendly machine with substantial savings in maintenance and operating costs. Although there are many similarities between Kalmar and Konecranes, Kalmar can still offer users at least 11% savings in annual maintenance and fuel cost through innovative design. ZPMC’s added maintenance burden and fuel consumption adds at least $46,000 to the annual maintenance and fuel costs compared to Kalmar. Analyzed separately, we determined that lower maintenance demand and fuel savings can offset more than $130,000

Page 10: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

10 (17)

difference in purchase price in as little as 2.4 years (see Chart 1, p. 4). Although ZPMC is reputed as the low price leader, paying a little more initially for better engineering can save more than $1 million over the long term. As an added benefit over our competitors, Kalmar’s regional service center in Monroe Township, NJ, offers full parts and service support only 60 miles away. Our service and support technicians stand ready to deliver parts on short notice or to provide technical support when needed.

Page 11: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

11 (17)

5 Appendix 5.1 Analysis Objective This analysis aims to highlight the cost differences in maintenance and fuel based on a comparison of fundamental rubber tire gantry (RTG) crane systems of Kalmar and its competitors. It is not the intent of this analysis to identify the total cost of maintenance for each manufacturer’s crane or to compare total cost of ownership (TCO), but rather to identify the differences between each manufacturer’s major systems, e.g. gantry, hoist, spreader bars, spreader micro-movements, etc. and how those differences translate to maintenance costs and fuel consumption. Each manufacturer’s major systems are compared by such criteria as number of motors, inverters, gearboxes, brakes, and hydraulic systems. The premise is that, when it comes to cranes, simplicity is preferred over complexity and that more components translates directly to more maintenance cost, lower dependability (more components = more components to fail), less availability owing to higher out-of-service time for maintenance purposes. Mathematically, this is often expressed by the following formula…

𝐷 = 𝐶𝐷1 × 𝐶𝐷2 × 𝐶𝐷3 × 𝐶𝐷4 × 𝐶𝐷𝑛 Where… D = System dependability expressed as a percentage CD = Component dependability of components in a system Example cases…

1. A system has 2 components, where each is ideally dependable (99%).

𝐷 = .99 × .99 𝐷 = .9801 In this case, the system dependability is 98%

2. A similar system has 8 components, where each is ideally dependable (99%).

𝐷 = .99 × .99 × .99 × .99 × .99 × .99 × .99 × .99 𝐷 = .9227 In this case, the system dependability is 92.3%

Arguably, the math supports the notion that more components, regardless of the dependability of each component, contribute to reduced overall system dependability. However, what is not arguable is that more components require more maintenance attention, which will result in higher maintenance costs and lower availability due to the extra time spent for maintenance and repairs.

Page 12: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

12 (17)

5.2 Evaluation Criteria To make the comparisons, the main components of each manufacturer’s RTG, e.g. motors, gearboxes, brakes, etc., were counted for the hoist, gantry, trolley, anti-sway, and side shift/trim/skew. Included with the gearbox count are oil capacities, which are the basis for maintenance costs, i.e. labor and the cost of oil. Hydraulic systems were evaluated for quantities of oil on board and the resultant maintenance burden. With the development of fully electric spreaders and electromechanical alternatives for gantry wheel turn and spreader micro-movements, Kalmar and Konecranes have eliminated hydraulics on their RTGs and, therefore, have no maintenance burden for hydraulic systems. Hydraulic systems for the spreader, gantry wheel turn, and spreader micro-movements are still widely used on ZPMC RTGs. Fuel economy is compared between each manufacturer. Factors contributing to fuel economy are total crane weight, the presence or lack of hydraulic systems, and engine fuel saving features such as visco-electric cooling fans and variable speed generators (VSG). The development of variable speed generators have been a main contributor to improved fuel economy and do so by being load responsive, where engine speed is directly proportional to applied load. Kalmar’s VSG system also supports so called “house loads,” i.e. air conditioning or heat, lighting, and convenience outlets, even at idle. This eliminates the need to have an auxiliary generator to support house loads. In general, hydraulic systems contribute significantly to increased fuel consumption, as do two speed diesels. Hydraulic systems need to maintain constant system pressure, which requires the pump motor to run constantly. Even under no-load conditions, fuel is required to run the motor. Two speed diesels run at idle under no load conditions and at approximately 1800 rpm when the crane is called upon to do any work. Therefore, even at relatively light loads, such as moving the trolley with empty spreader or lowering the hoist, the diesel is running at full speed. In the previously mentioned VSG system, the engine might only be running at 1200 rpm under these light load conditions. This is why Kalmar strongly recommends VSG diesels.

Page 13: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

13 (17)

5.3 Table 1: Component tally and fuel consumption System Kalmar KCI ZPMC Gantry Driven wheels 2 8 2 Tires 8 16 8 Drive motors 2 ABB or Siemens 8 Self-branded

(proprietary) 2 Self-branded (proprietary)

Gearboxes 2 8 2 Brakes 2 8 2 Wheel Turn 4 Electric gearmotors With gantry motors Hydraulic (two

hydraulic pumps + motors)

Gearboxes 4 0 0 Wheel locks not required 8 4 Hydraulic driven pins Inverters 1 + 1 shared with hoist 4 Self-branded

(proprietary) 2 Fuji

Hoist Motors 1 ABB or Siemens 2 Self-branded

(proprietary) 1 Self-branded (proprietary)

Brakes 1 Pintsch-Bubenzer 2 Pintsch-Bubenzer or Sibre

1 Self-branded (proprietary)

Gearboxes 1 2 1 Rope Drums 1 2 1 Inverters 1 ABB or Siemens 2 Self-branded

(proprietary) 1 Fuji

Anti-Sway Type 4 Constant torque

winches 4 Constant torque winches

8-fall stiff reeving

Brakes 4 4 0 Gearboxes 4 4 0 Inverters 4 ABB or Siemens 4 Self-branded

(proprietary) None

Trolley Motors 1 Commercially

available, e.g. SEW 4 Self-branded (proprietary)

4 Self-branded (proprietary)

Brakes 1 4 4 Gearboxes 1 4 4 Inverters 1 ABB or Siemens 1 Self-branded

(proprietary) 4 Fuji

Side shift/Trim/Skew Side shift/skew 2 Electric motors By anti-sway system Hydraulic or screw

actuator

Page 14: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

14 (17)

System Kalmar KCI ZPMC Brakes 2 0 0 Gearboxes 2 0 2 Trim Optional, 1 Electric

motor By hoist motor Hydraulic or screw

actuator Brakes 1 0 0 Gearboxes 1 0 2 Diesel Make Cummins QSX15 Tier

4F Cummins QSX15 Tier 4F

Caterpillar

Fuel consumption (gals.)

3.2 - 3.7 per hour 3.2 - 3.7 per hour 5.5 - 6.5 per hour

Avg. Fuel cost per hour ($2.85/gal.)

9.98 9.98 17.01

Page 15: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

15 (17)

5.4 Table 2: Maintenance Burden System Kalmar KCI ZPMC Total motors 15 - 1.5 m-hours every

1000 hours 26 - 2.6 m-hours every 1000 hours

11 - 1.1 m-hours every 1000 hours

Cost of Motor maintenance inspections/4,000 hours.

$390.00 $676.00 $286.00

Total gearboxes Routine inspection

15 - 1.5 m-hours every 1000 hours

18 - 1.8 m-hours every 1000 hours

8 - 0.8 m-hours every 1000 hours

Gearbox oil volume each (liters) Gantry 37 30 200 Wheel turn 11.5 0 0 Hoist 125 100 200 Anti-sway 5 5 0 Trolley 10 10 30 Side shift/skew 2.2 0 35 Trim 19 0 35

Gearbox oil volume total per crane (liters)

Gantry 74 240 400 Wheel turn 46 0 0 Hoist 125 200 200 Anti-sway 20 20 0 Trolley 10 40 120 Side shift/skew 4.4 0 70 Trim 19 0 70

Total gearbox oil on board

298.4 500 860

Gearbox maintenance cost Oil cost @ 11.50/liter

$3,431.60 $5,750.00 $9,890.00

Drain labor @ 0.1 m-hrs./liter

29.84 50 86

Refill labor @ 0.1 m-hrs./liter

29.84 50 86

Total labor cost $3,879.20 $6,500.00 $11,180.00 Total gearbox oil maint,/annual

$7,310.00 $12,250 $21,070.00

Gearbox maintenance inspections/ annual

$390.00 $468.00 $208.00

Page 16: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

16 (17)

System Kalmar KCI ZPMC Total brakes 15 18 8

Brake inspections/1000 hours@ 0.5 m-hours each

7.5 manhours 9.0 manhours 4.0 manhours

Annual brake inspection cost@4000 hours per year

$1,950.00 $2,340.00 $1,040.00

Hydraulic systems None None Wheel turn and locks, spreader, List/trim/skew - Est. 460 liters oil + filters. Est. 92 m-hours labor + $4800 for oil + $260 for filters, every two years - $12,000

Total hydraulic oil maintenance/ annual

$0.00 $0.00 $6,000.00

Page 17: Kalmar Maintenance Cost Compare

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

17 (17)

5.5 Table 3: RTG Fuel consumption data Rubber Tired Gantry Crane Load Factor Study

SPBP Tenant Data

ID

Equip Make

Model

Engine Make

Engine Model

Year

HP

Engine Hours

Fuel Gallons

9020 ZPMC RTG Cummins KTA-19-63 1999 685 1,559 8,575 9051 ZPMC RTG Caterpillar 3456 2003 612 3,279 18,036 9052 ZPMC RTG Caterpillar 3456 2003 612 2,341 12,877 9053 ZPMC RTG Caterpillar 3456 2003 612 3,294 18,119 9054 ZPMC RTG Caterpillar 3456 2003 612 2,516 13,839 9055 ZPMC Transtainer Caterpillar 3456 2003 612 2,726 14,994 9056 ZPMC Transtainer Caterpillar 3456 2003 612 1,574 8,658 9057 ZPMC RTG Caterpillar 3456 2003 612 2,866 15,764 9058 ZPMC RTG Caterpillar 3456 2003 612 2,783 15,308 9071 ZPMC RTG Cummins QSX15-G7 2005 685 1,901 10,456 9072 ZPMC RTG Cummins QSX15-G7 2005 685 2,621 14,417 9073 ZPMC RTG Cummins QSX15-G7 2005 685 2,157 11,865 9074 ZPMC RTG Cummins QSX15-G7 2005 685 2,288 12,585 9075 ZPMC Transtainer CUMMINS QSX15-G7 2005 685 2,197 12,085 9076 ZPMC Transtainer CUMMINS QSX15-G7 2005 685 1,758 9,670

Total 646 35,860 197,248 Source: Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, 2009