Delft University of Technology
Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering
Transport Technology / Logistic Engineering



J.A.C. Hekman Key design factors maritime container terminals
Masters thesis, Report 2001.LT.5534, Transport Technology, Logistic Engineering.


Introduction
Global alterations have a tremendous influence on today and tomorrow's supply chain. The container terminal, a vital link in the supply chain, is highly affected by the changes that we are facing. One of the problems terminal designers and terminal operators encounter is the need to change their current terminal concept, because of these changes.

Due to the large investments that are required to built a new container terminal and the difficulty of changing the layout and equipment of an existing container terminal, the configuration of the terminal is of great importance. The involvement of many different stakeholders and possible configurations make terminal planning a complex thing. A number of trends encourage terminal operators to reconsider their current terminal concept:
  1. Volume increase leads to the need to reconsider the handling capacity and cost structure of a terminal.
  2. The ever-increasing demand for cost control within the supply chain has resulted in more emphasis on efficient terminal operations.
  3. Scarcity and cost of labour are fostering investigations in the area of terminal automation, making the cost balance for an automated terminal increasingly interesting.
  4. The shift from a traditional working pattern (Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm) to a 24-hour economy leads to more frequent supply / transport and different utilisation of infrastructure.
  5. Environmental considerations have an ever-growing influence on terminal layout and the choice of material handling principles.
  6. Global care for health and working conditions influences terminal layout and the choice of material handling principles.
Not only global trends affect the demands to container terminals, technological developments influence terminal design as well. This influence is twofold. From one hand, these technological developments are demanding better performance of both terminal and terminal equipment. On the other hand, technological developments can be used to improve terminal and terminal equipment performance. A number of technological developments encourage terminal operators to change their current terminal concept:
  1. The increasing vessel sizes affect the required terminal.
  2. The abilities of Information Systems and Communication Technology allow for increased intelligence in the control algorithms of automated equipment.
  3. E-commerce will generate and foster a global flow of consumer products.
Given the developments and trends described, two main questions arise:
  1. The first question is which design patterns - configurable standard solutions - apply in which operational, environmental, technical, geographical and logistic setting?
  2. The second question is to investigate which parameters determine a design pattern. In other words: what are the key determining factors in a container terminal design and how are they related to the setting on the site where the container terminal has to be realised?
The objective of this thesis is to discuss the design parameters that influence the layout of a maritime container terminal, and the way they are related to the configuration of the site. A method for rapid determination of a terminal layout, based on (rough) estimations of site settings is developed.

Configurable standard solutions
In order to anticipate the rapid developments in global transportation of goods, the question raised in what way terminal design could be paced. The ability to sketch a rough terminal configuration, based on a few site settings and terminal performance demands, can help to pace the terminal design. There exists a relation between the setting at a site and the terminal configuration. It appears that for medium and large container terminals, a limited number of terminal configurations can be found. By finding the relationship between site settings and terminal performance, these configurable standard solutions can be found. Configurable standard solutions can be used to sketch the terminal configuration and the applied equipment in a short period of time.

In order to fulfil the terminals most important function of transferring containers between different modes of transport, a storage system is indispensable. The layout of the marshalling yard and the applied yard equipment depends on site settings, such as the soil condition, the dwell time, the percentage of transhipment operations and the costs of land and labour. The configuration of the marshalling yard is considered the most distinctive for a container terminal. This is the reason that the configurable standard solutions are focussed on the configuration of the marshalling yard and the applied yard- and transport equipment. For medium and large container terminals, only three different types of yard equipment occur at the moment: the rubber tired gantry, rail mounted gantry and straddle carrier. However, serious efforts are made to implement overhead bridge cranes in container terminals. Therefore, the overhead bridge crane will also be considered as one of the options for a standard container terminal configuration.

From both a cost and performance point of view, the application of different types of yard equipment is undesired in most situations. The equipment characteristics rule out some configuration options. 'Only' twelve different configurable standard configurations can therefore be distinguished, based on the three types of yard equipment ( + OBC) and the applied transport equipment, illustrated in table 1.

 Configuration   Yard 
 equipment 		  Transport 
 equipment 		  Sub-stack orientation 
 to main quay 		  Separated / 
 non-separated stack 
1 RTG AGV Parallel Non-separated
2 RTG  Terminal trailer  Parallel Non-separated
3 RMG AGV Perpendicular separated
4 RMG AGV Perpendicular Non-separated
5 RMG SC Perpendicular Non-separated
6 RMG SC Perpendicular Separated
7 OBC AGV Perpendicular separated
8 OBC AGV Perpendicular Non-separated
9 OBC SC Perpendicular Non-separated
10 OBC SC Perpendicular Separated
11 SC - Parallel N/A
12 OBC AGV Parallel Separated
Table 1 Overview configurable standard solutions

The different configurations will be characterised by a few catchwords. Table 2 gives an overview of the situation in which the 12 configurations, illustrated in figure 1, apply. Of course, other site settings than the ones defined play an important role as well.

Configuration  Throughput 
 (minimum) 		  Terminal 
 type 		  Subsoil 
 conditions 
 (minimum) 		  Costs 
 of 
 labour 		  Costsand 
 availability 
 of land 		  Berth 
 productivity 
 (minimum) 		  Hinterland 
 transport 
1
low
OD
Good
High
Low
Low
 Rail / road / 
barge
2
low
OD
Good
Low
Low
Low
 Rail / road / 
barge
3
high
 Hub centre 
Low
High
Low
High
 Rail / road / 
barge
4
high
 Hub centre 
Low
High
High
High
 Rail / road / 
barge
5
high
 Hub centre 
Low
High
High
High
 Rail / road / 
barge
6
high
 Hub centre 
Low
Low
Low
High
 Rail / road / 
barge
7
high
 Hub centre 
Low
High
Low
High
 Rail / road / 
barge
8
high
 Hub centre 
Low
High
High
High
 Rail / road / 
barge
9
high
 Hub centre 
Low
High
High
High
 Rail / road / 
barge
10
high
 Hub centre 
Low
Low
Low
High
 Rail / road / 
barge
11
low
OD
Good
Low
Low
Low
 Rail / road / 
barge
12
high
Hub centre
Low
High
High
High
 Rail / road / 
barge
Table 2 Site condition of configurable standard solutions



Figure 1. Configurable standard configurations

Application of one of these twelve standard configurations occurs due to certain conditions at the terminal site (site settings). Some of the site settings have appeared to be of greater importance than others, and six of these site settings are considered crucial in the selection of one of the twelve standard configurable solutions. These six site settings are the terminal type (OD / hub centre), the subsoil conditions, the costs of labour, the costs and availability of land, the required berth productivity and the required hinterland transport modes (rail / road / barge).

In order to select one of the configurations, it is essential to know in what range the aforementioned site settings are (low / high). When a marshalling yard configuration is selected, the number of terminal equipment can be determined. First of all, the number of quay cranes will need to be determined. The number of quay cranes depends on the required number of waterside operations and the quay crane's capacity (in general 100,000 - 200,000 TEU/year). Research shows that the ratio of quay cranes to yard- and transport equipment is mainly depending on dwell time, peak factor (IEF), the truck arrival rate and the equipment capacity. Thus, after selecting the amount of quay cranes, the number of equipment can be determined based on the ratios.

Now the terminal configuration and the type and amount of terminal equipment are known the effect of changing parameters can be investigated (by hand or with the aid of simulation). The effect of changing dwell time, TEU-factor, transhipment percentage, ship size, call size and berth productivity is considered to be most relevant for the terminal performance. An increasing dwell time requires more stacking capacity and this leads to longer sub-stacks and lower yard crane capacities. The TEU-factor has the same effect, but will in practice be difficult to regulate because the containers are owned by (powerful) shipping companies. The transhipment percentage has an enormous influence on terminal performance. The higher the percentage, the lower the required number of container slots. Furthermore, the transhipment percentage leads to a higher berth productivity and better quay crane utilisation. Increases in ship size, call size and / or berth productivity affect the peak factor, resulting in more terminal equipment and more container slots. It is emphasized that this six parameters are not the only variables with an influence on terminal performance or terminal configuration.

Conclusions
In conclusion, this research showed: Recommendations From the conclusions followed that a few problems are worth to be examined in further detail. This is the case for the peak conditions, complexity and judgement of several terminal configurations and the validity of the ratio quay cranes / yard equipment. This chapter presents recommendations in order to improve these problem areas.

In the conclusions came up that the IEF (interlink efficiency factor) has a large influence on installed handling- and storage capacity. On the waterside, variation in ship- and call sizes asks for additional quay crane handling capacity. On the landside, the capricious truck arrivals are a major concern, especially in hub centre terminals. While waterside operations require a modest number of yard equipment, landside operations need a large number of yard equipment. The whole fleet of handling- and storage equipment is only required during peak conditions. Most of the time, a smaller number of equipment would be sufficient to perform the required operations. A few measures would help to decrease the effect of fluctuation in ship- or truck arrivals: Besides the requirement for more terminal equipment, peak conditions also have an influence on the minimum required marshalling yard area, as concluded in the previous chapter. A high peak factor asks for more empty container slots for possible re-handles and therefore requires a larger marshalling yard. In situations where this expansion is unwanted or impossible, the following measures would help to improve land-availability:

Reports on Logistic Engineering (in Dutch)
Modified: 2001.11.15; logistics@3mE.tudelft.nl , TU Delft / 3mE / TT / LT.