Short Paper

chapter7.pdf

Home >Engineering homework help >Short Paper

7. Container handling in mainports: a dilemma about future scales Joan Rijsenbrij

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The ongoing expansion of world population, and the further economic development of almost every country, maintain increasing cargo flows all around the world. This globalization, along with the growing demands from consumers and the economies of scale, are essential drivers in container shipping and related container terminal operations and land transportation.

Today containerization has expanded to a global door-to-door trans- portation system with efficient 6000–8000 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit) vessels, large high-tech terminals, intermodal, inland transportation and computerized online information systems. Shippers and consignees are increasingly demanding better performance, such as flexibility for last- minute changes, a rapid response with fast deliveries and a perfect fit in their logistics chains. However, reliability and low costs are the major issues in door-to-door containerized transportation. Shipping lines have con- quered the pressure on rates with the application of economies of scale to their container vessels; ports and terminals followed with enlarged facilities with improved productivity, and inland transportation responded both with economies of scale (barge and rail transportation) and more efficient planning (trucking) to avoid empty-leg operations.

In the late nineties, this drive for economies of scale has encouraged many mergers and takeovers among shipping lines, terminal operators and logistics service providers. But, nevertheless, severe competition and the inability to control capacity have resulted in tremendous price erosions, leaving a broad awareness to look for cost reduction. The pure shipping costs have already been decreased considerably and therefore the focus on cost reduction is more and more directed towards terminal operations. At the same time, the introduction of large container vessels and the scrapping of older (small) container vessels has made shipping lines demand enlarged berth productivity and more flexibility to handle operational peaks.

109

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-02-25 18:55:45.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

It is expected that volumes in container shipping will continue to grow, despite some lower growth rates during 2002. From 2000 to 2010 the world- wide annual growth in container shipping could range from 5–7 per cent per annum, thus showing a doubling in the next 10–15 years.

The growing volumes, the increased vessel sizes and the demand for increased performance at lower cost will encourage the realization of new, larger and faster container terminals. Currently many ports all over the world are projecting new facilities (for example Shanghai, Pusan, Tanjung Pelepas, Norfolk, Algeciras, Southampton, Rotterdam, Bremerhaven, Wilhelmshaven and Le Havre) and all decision-making bodies are con- fronted with some major questions: how to design and construct the quay wall, with what type of container cranes to handle the future vessels, which gate systems to handle the inland flows in a secure way and what type of automation to adopt to assure cost-effective handling in the future.

So, terminal operators, port authorities, governments and inland trans- portation companies are challenged to expand and improve their handling facilities and inland infrastructure and at the same time to provide a better performance with even lower cost. Unfortunately they are faced with one dilemma: what future scales can be expected, both for vessel sizes and inland transport vehicles?

The (too) long preparation times for new facilities and infrastructure and the long lifetime of the dominant assets in ports (access channels, quay walls, terminals, road and rail systems) require action today in order to be ready for tomorrow, with ongoing globalization and a projected world population of 9 billion people by 2050.

7.2 TRENDS AFFECTING MAINPORT DEVELOPMENTS

The development of mainports will be highly influenced by the trends in global container logistics and the future demands of shippers, which con- tinuously monitor the service levels and cost-effectiveness of their world- wide supply chain. The following trends can be recognized:

● Container shipping volumes will continue to increase in the near future. Yearly growth figures of 5–7 per cent are projected for the coming years and that will create demands for more terminal capac- ity both in handling (waterside and landside) and storage; some terminals will be confronted with double-digit growth figures. Especially in the Far East (China, Korea, India, Vietnam and so on), considerable growth is expected.

110 Design and modelling

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

● Shipping will maintain the application of economies of scale, result- ing in larger vessels, larger numbers of cargo per call (both for main- line and feeder vessels) and enlarged peak demands. This necessitates larger stack capacities and special attention for special cargo like reefer-containers and break-bulk cargo. The increased volumes and larger yard areas put high demands on internal transportation, where many more movements must be processed over the existing infra- structure.

● Shippers and consignees are requiring better services from the ship- ping lines. This will increasingly result in service level agreements between shipping lines and terminal operators. Guaranteed service times for the delivery and receival of containers, guaranteed flows to be handled and sufficient flexibility in case of peak demands must be offered by the operator. Non-performance will result in penalties, either collected by the shipping line or by the land transportation companies. Railway companies and barge operators will demand time slots in order to maintain (tight) turnaround schedules.

● The formation of alliances and still more mergers will decrease the number of global players (shipping lines, shippers, logistics providers). However, the remaining parties will try to improve their buying power. Power play between the major carriers and shippers will continue; the fast-expanding global logistics service providers will become new players in this area.

● An increasing number of shipping lines are opting for dedicated faci- lities including marine terminals, intermodal terminals and inland depots. This may result in varying conditions for receivals and de- liveries, gate handling, documentation, inspection and so on. Shipping lines will attain more commercial interest in all major worldwide mainports.

● Privatization (or financing with public money) will be further encour- aged; however, the private sector shows some reluctance due to the limited profitability of port investments.

● The continuing demand for port facilities and the awareness of the scarcity and value of land for many applications (industry, housing, infrastructure, leisure and nature) will cause an increasing scarcity of land for port operations (terminals). This will result in growing demands among terminal operators for better area utilization, affecting stacking systems and landside services. In this respect the development of satellite terminals will contribute to a better utiliza- tion of mainport facilities. The dwell-time of containers at deep-sea ports can be reduced and diverted to the inland satellite terminals. All kinds of secondary services (Container Freight Stations (CFS),

Container handling in mainports 111

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

depots, repair, Value Added Logistics (VAL) services, security check- ing) can be shifted to those inland terminals as well, and that will benefit the utilization of high-cost facilities in deep-sea ports.

● Society is asking for more control over imported cargo entering the country. All kinds of inspections are required, such as X-rays (to detect drugs, illegal immigrants, illegal shipments), visual inspection (to check quantities, packing, control of due taxes) and even product tests (veterinary checks, bacteriological tests and so on). All such activities require additional transportation (mostly to the edges of a terminal), sometimes planned but often at random.

● All major ports will further improve their Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)-based port community information systems. Web applications will be further developed allowing for online informa- tion and tracking and tracing of shipments. The planning of termi- nal and inland transportation operations will be further supported with more pre-information and real-time data sharing.

● A growing reluctance against trucking (fuel consumption, air pollu- tion, noise pollution and scarcity of drivers for long-haul operations) will encourage a further shift to rail, barging and coastal shipping. Such modes require capacity for internal transportation, either in small (one-by-one) quantities or in large blocks for last-minute handling.

● For the expansion of existing container terminals and for the plan- ning and construction of new port facilities, the environmental issues will increasingly determine the selection of location and the possible speed of realization of such new facilities. Noise and emissions reduction, avoidance of visual hindrance and the preservation of nature and wildlife are the most prominent issues.

● Safety and sound working conditions will become an increasingly important topic for port operations. The still increasing amounts of hazardous cargo will get more attention from public regulatory bodies. Labour unions will rightly ask for safe working conditions and some participation in the daily decision-making processes.

● The last but certainly not the least trend is the strong drive for further cost control. For many years the transportation industry has not been very profitable (it is a buyers’ market) and despite the annually increasing volumes and the economies of scale it is expected that the near future will not show any improvement. So, cost control will remain a major issue and probably will be diverted from the ocean leg towards terminals and inland transportation.

The above trends will influence the container operations in mainports. The dilemma for terminal operators, port authorities and port planners is the

112 Design and modelling

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

question about future scale, the uncertainty about the size of future hub- and-spoke systems, and the concentration of shipping lines in a few large mainports.

7.3 THE IMPACT OF INCREASED SCALE

The continuing growth in container shipments and the competitive climate with the focus on service improvements and lower costs has fuelled the drive for economies of scale. Scale developments can be clearly recognized in the following areas:

1. Sizes of transport vehicles, such as seagoing vessels, barges, trains and road trucks.

2. Sizes of terminals, both in throughput (that is, terminal dimensions) and service performance.

3. The magnitude of information exchange and process control.

Waterborne transport has shown the largest scale developments (Figure 7.1). Seagoing vessels carry twentyfold more cargo than 50 years ago; motor barges and push-barge systems have only grown two to five times. The developments in rail transportation capacity have been limited with the exception of the USA, where the introduction of double-stack trains (with train lengths up to 3 km) supported a modal shift towards rail transport. Road trucks as well have showed little development with respect to cargo-carrying capacity. Only a few countries allow three-TEU trucks (the USA, Sweden). However, there is a tendency to accept three- and four- TEU trucks on the roads under some specific conditions (Canada).

Container handling in mainports 113

Figure 7.1 Scale developments in general cargo vessels (1946–96)

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Over the years the terminal handling capacity (throughput, normally measured in containers or TEUs moved over the quay wall) has increased from a few hundred thousand moves to about 5 million moves per terminal at present. However, the majority of terminals were sized for a capacity between 0.5 and 2 million moves (0.75 million – 3 million TEU). Scale developments are seen in the terminal area (up to 200 ha) and the quay wall designs. Equipment as well has been designed larger (loads almost doubled, due to twin-lift operation) and especially quay cranes have been enlarged with load moments rising from 600 ton-metres in the 1960s towards 6000 ton-metres nowadays. The handling and storage systems have been enlarged tremendously. The control over the internal container movements to carry hundreds of boxes per hour at the right time and to the right place (scheduling, sequencing), has enlarged the labour organizations and their management systems up to the limits of human capabilities. Some ter- minals have already been divided into several smaller units which can be better managed. The first automated handling systems have been installed, which boosted the scales in planning and control systems.

Scale developments in container transport would not have been possible without the impressive developments in information and communication technology (ICT). Worldwide connections between information databases, many Internet applications and a variety of identification techniques have supported a large-scale development towards continuous tracking and tracing of containers. This allows last-minute decisions in trade transac- tions, scheduling of vessels and vehicles and terminal handling. Today’s availability of high-capacity computer systems standardizes EDI messages, and effective planning and management information software is a pre- requisite for further increases in the scale of container logistics (Saanen et al. 2000).

Vessel size developments have been dominant by far in the design of han- dling facilities for mainports, a reason to review the impact of vessel sizes in more detail.

Vessel Size Developments

The considerable lifetimes of container cranes (25 years), terminal quay walls (50 years or more) and port entrances and breakwaters (100 years) require long-term projection when it comes to the impact of future vessel sizes and shipping lines’ demands on the design of terminal quay walls and cranes.

Reviewing some recent publications on vessel size developments and considering vessel size developments in adjacent shipping activities (for example bulk materials) leads to the conclusion that 200 000–250 000 DWT

114 Design and modelling

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

container vessels should certainly be considered as a feasible size for a ULCV (ultra-large container vessel). However, speculation about the most likely size will probably continue and that explains why it is recommended to use a range of characteristics for tomorrow’s container vessels (see Table 7.1).

From these data the following requirements may be put to ports and ter- minals in the future:

● minimum channel depth 20–23 metres; ● a turning basin of 600–750 m diameter; ● sufficient fendering and mooring facilities; ● call size (lifts per call) 6000–10 000 lifts, preferable to be handled in

24 hours; ● outreach for handling equipment about 70 metres from fenderface; ● lifting height (under the spreader) above water level 47–55 m,

depending on the ratio 8 ft 6 ins high/9 ft 6 ins high containers.

The arrival of vessel type I (12 500 TEU) is a fact; the application of the much larger type II may take another 10 years. The introduction of such large vessels does not only depend on technical demands (strength, avail- able diesel engine, propeller dimensions). Scale benefits are not dramatic when going from 8000 TEU towards 12 500 and 18 000 TEU, although the savings in fuel consumption per slot may become of more interest. Other factors will influence the selection of vessel size as well:

● risk of investing in vessel sizes with a limited area of application; ● a further concentration of container traffic in a few mainports

causing more complexity in logistics;

Container handling in mainports 115

Table 7.1 Characteristics of future type container vessels

Vessel characteristics Type I Type II

Vessel capacity (TEU) 12 500 18 000 Length overall (m) 375–395 400 Approximate deadweight (tons) 160 000 240 000 Beam (m) 55 65 Draught (m) 15–16 18–20 Speed (knots) 25 26 Containers across on deck 22 26 Tiers under deck 10–11 11–13 Tiers on deck 7 8

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

● reluctance from shippers to further concentration in the shipping industry;

● the arrival of new ports close to the existing ones, stopping a further growth in mainport sizes (see port planning in Korea, Japan, PR of China, US West Coast, North-West Europe);

● the tremendous investments in port facilities required for 18 000 TEU vessels, including the environmental constraints related to dredging of entrance channels and port basins.

In September 2006, the first 12 500 TEU class vessel was introduced (see Figure 7.2). The Emma-Maersk (officially 11 000 TEU, but unofficially 13 600 TEU) is the first of eight Maersk vessels for a Europe–Far East service. It remains to be seen whether this type of vessel or even further enlarged vessels will come into use in the next decade. In general it should be questioned whether such large vessels will really contribute to a cost benefit for the whole transport chain.

116 Design and modelling

Figure 7.2 Ultra-large container vessel Emma Maersk, 156 000 DWT

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Port and Terminal Developments

The possible future vessel characteristics and related handling operations will put high demands upon infrastructure and superstructure of ports and terminals. The long lead time of expansion programmes and the increasing shortages of land and connecting infrastructure necessitates planning well in advance, and making area reservations for such possible developments. The rapid introduction of post-Panamax container vessels (see Figure 7.3) has shown that many ports and terminals were insufficiently prepared to accommodate these large vessels and their related operations. Only through very costly modifications could many ports and terminals compensate for their lag in providing facilities.

For long-term planning, ports should consider the following demands of ultra-large container vessels:

● The access channel should provide sufficient keel clearance, so 20–23 m water depth will be required. Such a deep channel may influence sediment depositing which could include additional (expen- sive) regular dredging.

● A large turning basin will be required and powerful tugboats to assist manoeuvring. Obviously, due to the required short stay in port,

Container handling in mainports 117

Figure 7.3 Large post-Panamax container vessel

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

pilotage must be available 24 hours a day; a helicopter service for pilots will be helpful.

● The mooring will require an increased fender system and even upgraded bollards (maybe 100 tons per bollard) could be required.

● A redesigned quay wall will be necessary, not only because of the increased forces from mooring, the larger quay cranes and the increased water depth (approximately 20 metres), but also to withstand the forces from enlarged power installed for bow and aft thrusters.

● There must be sufficient facilities to provide 10–15 000 tons of bunker oil within 20 hours during berthing of the vessel.

● Due to the time pressure from such vessels there must be sufficient (spacious) access to the vessel for maintenance and supply activities.

If terminals want to prepare themselves for services for the ULCVs, they should meet the following demands:

● The berth productivity should be in the range of 275–375 lifts per berth hour. A 24-hour stay in port may generate 8000 lifts that must be handled in about 22 effective operating hours. Working with six quay cranes, this will require a sustainable net productivity of 60–65 lifts per crane hour and that can only be realized if the technical crane productivity is 100 lifts/hour (undisturbed cycle).

● There will be increased transshipment activities asking for more internal movements in the terminal (repositioning in stack, trans- portation to adjacent dedicated terminals), and more last-minute decisions.

● The vessel stowage planning systems must be further improved due to the large amount of boxes to be handled and the complex oper- ations connecting feeder, barge and rail services, arriving just-in-time (or even late).

● Enlarged stack capacity will be required to absorb the high volume of discharged containers and some spare capacity in case of vessel clashing. Unforeseen delays in vessel arrival schedules (due to bad weather, vessel breakdown or whatever) will affect the storage capac- ity. Special attention should be given to the space required for spe- cials like reefer-containers, hazardous cargo, over-height (OH) and over-wide (OW) containers and break-bulk cargo.

● Lashing will remain necessary if hatch-coverless vessels continue to be rare species. The handling of SATLs (semi-automatic twist locks) will require special attention and could easily become a major bot- tleneck in performance improvements and automation of waterside operations.

118 Design and modelling

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

● The probably increasing peak demands may require more flexible work rosters and the availability of stand-by (part-time) employees in case of sudden changes.

● There will come an increased need for efficient inland satellite termi- nals, operationally connected to the major seaside terminal and pro- vided with all kinds of secondary services (depot, repair, CFS, VAL and so on) and even the possibility to store cargo in bonded areas.

A weekly vessel call with 6000–8000 lifts/call will result in 300 000–400 000 lifts (450 000–600 000 TEU) per year and that is only a one-day-per-week operation (that is, costly underutilization). The terminal’s economics ask for much more cargo and so the larger vessels will probably encourage (partly) dedicated terminals with an annual handling capacity of about 5 million TEU (compared to the 2 million TEU/annum operations of today).

Requirements for Container Cranes

One important component has not been mentioned: the container handling cranes at the terminal quayside. The two most important influences of the vessel scale development on the design of cranes are the increased dimen- sions in order to handle the containers of the vessel and the required increased handling capacity, which should be at least doubled.

The majority of mainport terminals are in the process of preparing themselves for the type I future vessel (12 500 TEU) by just ‘beefing-up’ the crane characteristics. Recently purchased container handling cranes have the following characteristics:

● Outreach 60–65 m from centre waterside (WS) rail. ● Back reach 15–25 m from centre landside (LS) rail. ● Rail gauge 25–35 m centre to centre WS/LS rail. ● Lifting height above quay level 40–44 m. ● Lifting capacity up to 100 tons. ● Lifting speed full load up to 100 m/min. ● Lifting speed low load up to 200 m/min. ● Trolley travel speed up to 325 m/min.

However, these specifications will not fulfil the demands from vessels of type II (15 000 up to 18 000 TEU). Future demands may increase with the following specifications:

● Outreach 70–80 m from centre waterside rail. ● Lifting height above quay level up to 50 m.

Container handling in mainports 119

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

● Lifting capacity up to 125 tons (twin-lift, tandem-lift). ● Effective handling capacity 60–70 containers/hour, which asks for a

technical handling capacity of at least 100 containers/hour.

Related to this impressive upscaling, some aspects should be recognized:

● The enlarged cranes may require at least double the amount of power supply (redundant).

● The increased height of the crane structure and the enlarged struc- tural dimensions (Van de Bos and Rijsenbrij 2002) will increase the total wind load, but at the same time the crane base will remain almost the same as the vessel hatch spacing is still designed for 40–45 ft containers and so the preferred maximum crane width will remain 25–28 m (resulting in a stability base of 16–18 m). Corner loads may well increase towards 800 tons.

● The increased corner loads (and resulting wheel loads) and wind loads will require much stronger quay wall designs, real heavy-duty rail tracks and appropriate provisions for parking the cranes during storms or hurricanes.

● Larger crane dimensions and no changes in trolley travel and main hoist speed will result in larger cycle times for increased vessel sizes, due to the longer trolley travel and hoist and lowering distances. The number of handlings for a complete unloading or loading of one vessel bay will increase from 300 lifts (Panamax vessel) to more than 800 lifts (ULCVs); however the technical crane productivity will decrease from about 60 cycles to only 48 cycles (that is, lifts) per hour (Luttekes and Rijsenbrij 2002).

● To compensate for the longer crane cycle times, single trolley cranes are provided with increased drive speeds, to compensate for the longer trolley travel or hoist distance. In order to minimize the add- itional requirements for horsepower it is recommended to optimize maximum speeds and maximum acceleration rates. An example is shown in Figure 7.4.

● Another means to increase the effective crane productivity is the use of twin-lift operations, which will result in a design load of about 75 metric tons (on the hoist cables). Further increases can be obtained by the application of tandem-lift allowing the handling of two 40 ft containers (and even four 20 ft containers). Figure 7.5 shows the result of a research project of Stinis and Delft University of Technology, based on a split head block and two long-twin spreaders.

It is doubtful whether beefed-up single trolley cranes will ever realize a sustained average operational productivity of 45 moves/hr. Surely, the

120 Design and modelling

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

application of twin-lift, tandem-lift and dual cycling (that is, combined dis- charge and load operation) will increase this figure to 60–75 boxes/hour. However, only a part of the vessel handling volume can be operated with these special handling techniques.

A quantum leap in crane productivity will ask for new crane concepts. The first steps in this direction have been made through the introduction of second-trolley systems (at ECT Rotterdam in 1979), a height-adjustable main girder and the application of separate waterside and landside hand- ling with a buffer in between for SATL handling and smoothing stochas- tics (see Figure 7.6).

Container handling in mainports 121

Figure 7.4 Optimization of speeds (Stinis/TUD)

30,0

trolley speed (m/s)

hoist speed (m/s)

1,0

1,6

2,2

3, 50

4, 00

5, 00

6, 00

3, 00

4, 50

5, 50

32,0 34,0 36,0 38,0 40,0 42,0 44,0 46,0 48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0 60,0

capacity (cont/hour)

Figure 7.5 Tandem lift spreader

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

More effective will be the use of special conveying provisions in the crane, but still within the existing portal structures (Tax 1989).

Some concepts go even further: a crane structure adapted to innovative new functionality to satisfy the need for 100 lifts/hour technical handling capacity (see Figure 7.7).

The Carrier Crane is another recent development using two waterside trolleys (rope-driven) which position containers onto moving carriers. In addition, traversing motions in the trolley avoid crane gantry travel for small positioning displacements and to handle 20 ft containers in 40 ft cells (see Figure 7.8). The carriers provide a buffer function integrated into the crane cycle and the landside trolley can even be designed for a double-hoist capability.

In fact these types of cranes must be considered as the combination of two cranes in one stable structure. The operational performance can be 75 moves/hour and even higher when using twin-lifts. The quiet and controlled way of operation will result in a steady flow of containers, being an advantage for the connecting transport system to the stacking yard.

The arrival of much larger container vessels (type I or even type II) will require a doubling of the net average productivity and that is impossible with the single trolley cranes presently in use.

122 Design and modelling

Figure 7.6 Separated crane functions, including a buffer (CTA Hamburg)

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

The above consequences of increased scales have not yet been fully evalu- ated. A substantial increase in container vessel capacity will have a tremen- dous impact on the required investments in ports and terminals and could well result in higher operating costs for the overall transportation chain.

7.4 DEVELOPMENTS IN TERMINAL HANDLING SYSTEMS

The introduction of post-Panamax vessels (4500–8000 TEU) took place in a very short period of time (between 1989 and 1996) and within five years around 50 ports and their terminals had to realize large investments, not only in quay walls, cranes, handling systems and terminal area, but also in the connecting infrastructure. A considerable number of cranes had to be replaced or extensively modified to cope with the new demands from these post-Panamax vessels. Ports and terminals had to absorb a lot of extra costs related to early replacement, well before the end of the technical life- time of the existing assets.

On top of that the larger volumes asked for more handling capacity and an increased performance at both the waterside and landside. In addition

Container handling in mainports 123

Figure 7.7 Gottwald Port Technology RCE Jumbo Crane

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

all the partners in the transport chain expected cost reductions as a basic driver from the introduced economies of scale in liner services. Many ter- minals struggle with the balance between performance and cost. Moreover, the dominance of waterside operations diminished and nowadays there is much more focus on landside operations.

The introduction of large scales has resulted in various developments in terminal handling systems for waterside and landside operations.

Waterside Operations

Here the larger vessels have caused larger peaks in hourly handling capac- ities (moves per hour over the entire quay wall) and the following develop- ments can be recognized.

The longer transportation distances between quay cranes and enlarged stack areas (more stochastic) and the increased quay crane handling pro- ductivity has resulted in a demand for more transport capacity connected to the cranes (Rijsenbrij 1979). In some mainports five to seven terminal trac- tors per crane are required and that is an expensive operation. Some ter- minals use straddle carriers for the transport (and stacking) between quay

124 Design and modelling

Figure 7.8 Carrier Crane designed for 100 lifts/hr

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

crane and stack and for those operations dynamic order control systems were introduced. In these order-planning systems the transport equipment is directed to cranes based on algorithms referring to crane demand, mini- mized transportation distance, minimized waiting and so on. Basically the order processing is focused on a guaranteed waterside performance with minimized costs.

It is expected that such control systems for the pooling of equipment will be further developed to attain better equipment (and manning) utilization.

The increased stacking height at the vessel decks made labour unions and safety boards decide to reject container-lashing activities on board. The introduction of semi-automated twist locks (SATLs) indeed supported safer handling. However, it also caused extra complexity in the waterside handling process, including additional labour. This SATL handling and the related handling of storage bins will remain a major hindrance to further productivity improvement of waterside operations.

Stacking operations will be further focused on improved area utilization, easy response to last-minute changes, and cost-effectiveness. Pioneering terminals like ECT Rotterdam, HIT (Hong Kong), Thamesport (UK) and PSA Singapore started the introduction of rail-mounted gantry cranes (RMGs) and overhead bridge cranes (OBCs) and this trend will cer- tainly continue. Rail-mounted cranes (RMGs and OBCs) can be auto- mated with proven technology and can be electrically powered (to avoid pollution). A proper load control (sway control) and reliable automated positioning are essential requirements for these cranes. Present and future technology can fulfil these requirements and thus this type of equip- ment is attractive for increased stacking demands. The higher initial invest- ments can be compensated for by their longer lifetime and automation potential.

Automation is becoming an attractive approach in the design of hand- ling systems to control the increased scales at reduced costs. Since ECT started its robotization project at the Delta Terminal in 1988 a number of terminals have implemented robotized yards (Rijsenbrij 1996). However, only ECT Delta Terminal (commissioned in 1993) and Container Terminal Altenwerder (commissioned in 2002) operate a completely automated system for both the waterside transportation and stacking of containers (see Figure 7.9 and Figure 7.10). The experience with automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and automated stacking cranes (ASCs) is promising for further developments in this field. Some terminals and manufacturers con- centrate on the automation of straddle carriers and shuttle carriers. However, straddle carriers are less attractive for high-density stacking (nec- essary for increased throughputs) and automated shuttle carriers still have to prove the same reliability as shown by AGVs today. The development of

Container handling in mainports 125

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

126 Design and modelling

Figure 7.9 Automated container handling ECT Rotterdam, 1993

Figure 7.10 Automated container handling CTA Hamburg, 2002

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

control software is a major issue for automated operations and here the support from simulation models will become a valuable tool in the design of efficient control algorithms that can cope with the dynamics of terminal handling operations.

Further scale developments will definitely change the terminal handling systems towards more automation and an increased application of control software and communication technology.

Landside Operations

Services to the landside terminal connections are getting more attention. The truckers’ turnaround time and the maintenance of schedules for barges and trains are becoming more important when volumes are growing and inland transportation costs must be controlled.

Mainport terminals are confronted with a variety of influences beyond their control, such as:

● liaison activities from agents, brokers, shipping lines and so on; ● the average dwell-time of containers: often more than four days for

full containers and even 14 days for empty containers; ● stochastic arrival patterns (especially for trucking); ● insufficient (or no) information on connecting modes, expected deli-

very date; ● daily peaks caused by priorities in rail networks and trucking pat-

terns; ● late arrivals and last-minute changes; ● a short closing time (for export cargo) and a demand to deliver con-

tainers 1–2 hours after landing the box at the terminal; ● many non-standard containers (reefers, OH, OW, odd-size); ● Customs regulations and directives for hazardous cargo; ● security checks for containers, which might contain illegal cargo.

Nevertheless the operator should deliver an agreed service level and that boils down to three major issues: sufficient storage capacity in the yard, a flexible handling capacity to support landside operations and a proper gate complex.

The selected landside terminal handling system and its characteristic average cycle times and cycle time distribution for the handling equipment determine the service level offered to landside operations. The application of RMGs and OBCs requires a proper balancing between stack sizes and numbers of cranes per stack. When using straddle carriers or reach stack- ers it enables the operator to put in more equipment under peak conditions

Container handling in mainports 127

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

(which may occur daily, for example in the afternoon), but the equipment and operators to drive it must be available.

For larger operations it is recommended to create simulations for these landside operations in order to determine the required amount of equip- ment and to analyse influences from interference of waterside priorities, filling degree in the stack, stacking equipment characteristics (speeds, accel- eration or deceleration) and stack layout. For manually operated stacking systems it should be noticed that in general the performance per stacking machine decreases when more machines are working in the same area. The service times from stacking equipment are influenced by the number and locations of interchange areas. Here the advantage of many interchange areas (close to the location of the stacked container) results in more con- necting infrastructure and that may cause unacceptable extra cost (or some- times the land is not available). A final selection for a stacking system should be based on a total cost approach and a quantitative definition of the required service levels.

Some developments in landside operations are focused on a faster pro- cessing of large volumes per hour and with less labour involved. The fol- lowing ones are of interest.

Gate Operations with Increased Automation

Especially for terminals dominated by trucking at the landside (the US East Coast, the Far East, the Mediterranean) gate handling is of growing importance. Gate design includes sufficient parking and traffic lanes, a con- trolled processing time in gate lanes, exception handling of truckers with incomplete documentation, the integration of Customs and security acti- vities, and dedicated lanes for special functionality (empty containers (MTs) and trucks without chassis (Bob Tails)).

It is well known from queuing theory that the demand for waiting (parking) is largely determined by the processing time in a lane. The gate process comprises: container identification (ID) (ID number, type-size code, CSC plate), checking of the container weight (a questionable activ- ity due to many uncertainties), checking of tractor and chassis licence plate, seal checking and trucker’s identification. Security is a major item in the gate process. The terminal’s liability requires a 100 per cent certainty that the right container is picked up by the right trucker. In many places the driver is identified by checking his face and driver’s licence (meanwhile respecting his privacy) or by checking some unique characteristics like hand shape or iris. When truck drivers have to come to an office before entering the gate this security check can be centralized, and after checking the presented documentation, the truck driver may receive a unique

128 Design and modelling

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

process ID card (magnetic or chip), which can be used as a process trigger during the entire receival or delivery process through the gate and in the terminals.

The application of tag readers, digital cameras and sensors has been initi- ated to automate gate processing (Maher Terminals, PSA, ECT, Hessenatie, see Figure 7.11).

Some terminals have already reduced their gate processing time to less than 30 seconds. Further progress can be obtained when the shipping world decides on more standardization for tags at the containers (ID number, type-size code, operator) and electronic seals. The radio-frequency identi- fication (RFID) technology looks promising for these types of identity checks.

Automated Handling of the Truck Interface

The existing automation of stacking cranes and some trials with automated straddle carriers promise a further automation of landside pickup and deliveries to road trucks. Remote control is already used (Thamesport, PSA) and further applications are under development. In such applications one operator will be able to control (remotely) four or even more stacking cranes, and this is an interesting cost saving.

Container handling in mainports 129

Figure 7.11 Automated gate at Maher Terminals USA

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

The next step could be to include the truck driver himself in the process of lowering a container onto his chassis or connecting a spreader to his con- tainer. The simplicity of today’s crane control features and maybe some training could eventually result in a truck driver-operated crane. The first applications are already in use for internal movement tractors.

Automation of the landside handling will not be limited to large-scale operations. Some manufacturers have developed downscaled automated stacking systems, which will be attractive for medium-sized and small ter- minals with high labour cost (see Figure 7.12).

Partnership Between Trucking and Terminals

A further cooperation between large trucking companies and terminals will allow for a better exchange of information and the announcement of an estimated time of arrival in advance. In this respect gates for public traffic control and/or road pricing stations could be used to process data from truckers to the terminals in advance.

Another challenge is to integrate the logistics from shippers and truck- ers in the landside stack planning. There are some examples in the indus- try where truckers plan their next day’s workload based on the consignee’s

130 Design and modelling

Source: Gottwald Port Technology.

Figure 7.12 Automated handling at landside interface

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

demands and on the terminal stack layout and this helps to prevent false moves.

Gate Process Redesign with Reduced Inspection Activities

Shipping lines are increasingly aware of the tremendous costs related to the frequent inspection of equipment (container, chassis). Equal to develop- ments in the rent-a-car business, the future might bring less physical inspec- tions. Digital imaging from containers and storing such images over a two-month period should be sufficient to have proof in case of severe damage (under liability clauses).

Cooperation with Satellite Terminals

The increased inland container flows have supported the introduction of daily shuttles (by barge and/or rail). A partnership between deep-sea ter- minals and some major inland satellite terminals will allow the movement of containers directly after discharging or one day before loading. This will improve the dwell-time at the deep-sea terminals, will decrease transporta- tion cost (through high utilization of transportation equipment) and will give better service to truckers (faster turnaround) and shippers (who can order the delivery of containers at shorter notice and with a better pre- dicted time of arrival at their plant). The full benefit of satellite terminals for the improvement of landside operations can only be obtained when there is a strong operational coordination and a 100 per cent information exchange between deep-sea and satellite terminals.

Train Shuttles, Every Hour on the Hour

The tendency to shift towards rail transportation will probably continue. Larger volumes require more trains which must fulfil proper train scheduling. Train shuttles between mainport terminals, satellite ter- minals and other inland destinations can be run efficiently when the train is operated as a fixed set of wagons with minimal requirements to con- tainer weight and so on (to ease the planning of trains). Increasingly, ship- ping lines, terminals and logistic service providers operate such shuttles and a further privatized rail network will support better and faster rail services.

Obviously the above-mentioned trends, developments and influences will be affected by increasing volumes and peak demands. Mainports are in the process of reconsidering their service products, but the uncertainty about the future scales in operations hamper their decision-making.

Container handling in mainports 131

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7.5 THE DILEMMA

Since 1995, the rapid introduction of much larger container vessels forced ports and terminals to invest in new facilities, although the old ones were still in good shape and not fully depreciated at all. And again, a new wave of investments will be required to accommodate container vessels of 12 500 TEU capacity, now introduced to the market.

At the waterside, access channels, water depth before the quay wall, quay wall strength, container cranes and handling system must be enlarged or increased, but will there be sufficient volume and revenue for a sound payback period?

On the landside, gate systems must be improved, the arrival of three- TEU or four-TEU trucks need redesigned interchange areas, and the larger and more frequently arriving shuttle trains ask for larger shunting yards and on-dock rail facilities with more handling capacity. Again, where is the profit from these investments?

That is the dilemma for ports and terminals. Their long-term continua- tion requires a profitable operation but the competition between shipping lines, terminal operators, shippers and consignees, and inland transporta- tion companies is increasingly asking for more services with eroding margins. Basically, ports and terminals can follow two alternatives: a service-driven or a cost-driven approach.

Service-Driven Approach

In this philosophy the focus is on berth performance, fast turnaround times and maximum flexibility, regardless of the size of vessels, trains, or barges and the stochastic nature of arrival patterns and port capacity demands. Vessel arrival and truck arrival are the most difficult to cope with. The ability of peak handling will result in underutilized (costly) handling capac- ity. Last-minute changes, fluctuations in flow density and frequent delays in arrivals will cause extra costs for the operator. Service guarantees, fixed time slots, guaranteed hourly productivities under all circumstances and related penalties for non-performance will result in a surplus of available capacity and thus increased costs.

Cost-Driven Approach

Observations using activity-based costing have revealed that ports and ter- minals should strive for a sound cost–service ratio at both waterside and land- side. In this case the terminal operator is looking for predictability, a spread of the workload over the day and a 100 per cent quality of information to

132 Design and modelling

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

allow pre-planning and avoidance of false moves. Waterside and landside operations are carefully balanced (waterside peak demands are marginally compensated by landside capacity) and flexibility and guaranteed service are limited to support a smooth cost-effective operation with a maximum uti- lization of manning and assets.

So, What is the Choice for Mainports?

Should they follow every scale development and remain attractive for ship- ping lines and transportation companies, but with a severe risk of financial losses from under utilization and uneconomic depreciation, or should they strive for maximum profitability with fully utilized assets and no asset replacements before the end of the technical economic lifetime, although this may result in the loss of customers and thus financial losses as well?

This dilemma can be conquered with a partnership between the major participants in the door-to-door transportation chain. Scale steps should be scheduled well in advance (release planning), to allow a slow, prepared growth in the size of facilities. Required services should be quantitatively specified and peak demands should be reasonably rewarded. All parties involved should support a 100 per cent exchange of quality information and reliable forecasting.

Finally, what is the optimal size of scales? In transportation it is definitely not the unilateral approach of one participant (for example the shipping line) to the detriment of all the others in the chain. Mainports are currently in the process of preparing and adjusting their handling systems for the 15 000 TEU vessel, an effort that will take 2 to 5 years; hopefully the next step in vessel size will not be one bridge too far from a total cost point of view for the entire door-to-door logistic chain.

REFERENCES

Bos, W. van de and J.C. Rijsenbrij (2002), ‘Design optimization of space frame structures’, World Class Crane Management Seminar Europe, Marriott Hotel Amsterdam, 27–29 May.

Luttekes, E. and J.C. Rijsenbrij (2002), ‘Ship shore handling of ultra large contain- erships: a design concept for the cranes’, World Class Crane Management Seminar Europe, Marriott Hotel Amsterdam, 27–29 May.

Rijsenbrij, J.C. (1979), Terminal Productivity: A Variety of Factors, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Rijsenbrij, J.C. (1996), ‘Terminal automation: challenges and threats’, Proceedings of ICHCA Biennial Conference, April, Jerusalem, Israel: ICHCA.

Saanen Y.A., A. Verbraeck and J.C. Rijsenbrij (2000), ‘The application of advanced simulations for the engineering of logistic control systems’, in K. Mertins and

Container handling in mainports 133

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

M. Rabe (eds), The New Simulation in Production and Logistics: Prospects, Views and Attitudes, Proceedings of 9th ASIM Fachtagung Simulation in Produktion und Logistik, Berlin 8–9 March, Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, pp. 217–31.

Tax, H. (1989), ‘Specifying quayside cranes for operations in the year 2009’, Terminal Operators Conference, Singapore.

134 Design and modelling

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .