Marine Container Terminals A brief introduction

Report
Evaluation of the Floaterm
Concept via Simulation
Dulebenets M., Deligiannis N., Flaskou M., Sarker A.
Department of Civil Engineering and Intermodal Freight
Transportation Institute, University of Memphis, TN
Logistics, Trade, and Transportation Symposium 2014
Southeastern Opportunities and Challenges
Gulfport, Mississippi
February 26-27, 2014
Introduction
• How to meet growing demand at marine container
terminals?
• Floaterm concept (Ashar, A. and Liftech, Inc. early
2000)
• Feasibility study by Delft University (the Netherlands)
– Concept originally applied at the Ceres Terminal
(Amsterdam, the Netherlands) in 2002
Study Motivation
• Quantify new concept benefits (if any)
• Savings in equipment
• Investment and operational costs
• Quay crane (QC) productivity and makespan
Conventional Marine Terminal (CMT)
Source: Portworker Development
Programme. International Labour
Office. Maritime Industries Team
Floaterm Marine Terminal (FMT)
Source: Liftech, Inc. (2007)
Data
• The main terminal characteristics:
Item\Terminal
Berth
Vessel/berth
QCs/berth
ITVs/QC group
Yard blocks/storage area
RTGs/storage area
CMT
FMT
3
1
3
15
10
15
2+1
10
5
10
ITV: Internal Transport Vehicle
RTG: Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane
• 12,000 TEUs per vessel
– Various container composition (import/export/transshipment)
Scenario Analysis
• 3 data sets varying:
- # of on-shore QCs (3, 4, 5);
- # of off-shore QCs (1, 2, 3);
- container composition
- Transshipment: 25%, 33%, 40%, 50%, 60%
- Import/Export: 50%-50% split of remainder
• QC productivity = F(ITV, GC)
– Function established via simulation
• 20-year economic analysis
Findings: FMT vs CMT
• 19.4% less Yard Trucks (YTs) and 24.0% less
Automatic Lift Vehicles (ALVs)
• 10.6% and 19.0% less Gantry Cranes (GCs) with YT
and ALV deployment (respectively)
• Lower costs for site development and operations
(especially with high transshipments)
• Higher cost for equipment
Findings: FMT vs CMT
• Average QC productivity
– With YT: 35.7 moves/hour (8.6% higher than CMT)
– With ALV: 38.2 moves/hour (1.0% higher than CMT)
• Average savings over 20-year
– With YT: $44.12 million
– With ALV: $17.27 million
• The FMT will facilitate handling of mega-containerships
EACH TERMINAL IS UNIQUE
Source: GOOGLE
Future Research
1) Effects of buffer area size at seaside/marshaling yard on the
terminal performance;
2) Sensitivity analysis for various ITV speeds, QC and GC
configurations;
3) Mixed ITV gang deployment;
4) Handling of import containers by off-shore QCs;
5) Model a mid-stream application of the floaterm concept;
References
• Ashar, A., 2013, “Long-term trends in container shipping – the
revised Forth Revolution, 2012”, <www.asafashar.com>,
Accessed Feb. 14, 2013.
• Liftech Inc., 2007, “The floaterm concept: reducing terminal
congestion with waterside cranes”, AAPA Seaports Magazine.
• UNCTAD, 2013, “Recent developments and trends in
international maritime transport affecting trade of developing
countries”, United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development.
THANK YOU
Q/A
Evaluation of the Floaterm
Concept via Simulation
Dulebenets M., Deligiannis N., Flaskou M., Sarker A.
Department of Civil Engineering and Intermodal Freight
Transportation Institute, University of Memphis, TN
Logistics, Trade, and Transportation Symposium 2014
Southeastern Opportunities and Challenges
Gulfport, Mississippi
February 26-27, 2014

similar documents