Planning and Operation of Container Terminals

By Kap-Hwan Kim

Planning and Operation of Container Terminals provides methodologies to optimize the design of container handling systems. The book offers various optimization models and details how to apply the models. In addition, it captures key points of academic research to provide a thorough and up-to-date guide on this rapidly changing field. Sections cover various aspects of terminal operation and propose key issues for their optimization. In addition, the relationships among various operational problems are described, along with tactics for the efficient utilization of resources. Students and professionals alike will find this a useful resource for getting up-to-speed in this dynamic field.

The efficiency of a container terminal highly depends on the design of handling systems and operation methods of the terminal. In recent decades, the development of ports has become large-scale, modern and automatic, so it is necessary to learn about the design and operation of modern ports quickly and to understand the research hotspots, research frontiers and research status in the current field, as well as the use and innovation of research methods.

• Provides a well-organized overview on the optimization of design and the operation of container terminals
• Covers nearly every issue related to terminal operation
• Includes algorithms that will be especially useful to those in industry, particularly those involved in the automation of terminal equipment

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Jan 21, 2024
• ISBN: 9780443138249

Kap-Hwan Kim

Kap-Hwan Kim is a Professor at Ocean College of Zhejiang University. Before joining Zhejiang University, he worked at the Department of Industrial Engineering of Pusan National University. He studied at the Seoul National University (Bachelor) and the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (Master, Ph.D.). He was the director of the Institute of Logistics Innovation and Networking at Pusan National University and the president of the Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers. He is a fellow of the Korean Academy of Science and Technology. His research is focused on the design and operational problems of container terminals. He has published many papers in international journals such as OR Spectrum, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Transportation Science, Transportation Research B, Transportation Research E, European journal of Operational Research, and more.

Book preview

Planning and Operation of Container Terminals

Kap-Hwan Kim

Ocean College, Zhejiang University, Zhoushan, Zhejiang, China

College of Engineering, Pusan, National University, Busan, South Korea

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Preface

1. Facilities, handling processes, and automation

2. Facilities planning

3. Designing a storage yard

4. Overview of operation planning and control

5. Berth and ship operation scheduling

6. Planning storage activities

7. Real-time locating, relocating, and re-marshalling containers

8. Managing storage space demand

9. Transport systems

10. Yard crane & operator scheduling

11. Collaboration with outside partners

12. Competition among container terminals

13. Logistics resource sharing

14. Epilogue

Index

Copyright

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

ISBN: 978-0-443-13823-2

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Mica Haley

Acquisitions Editor: Kathryn Eryilmaz

Editorial Project Manager: Aleksandra Packowska

Production Project Manager: Neena S. Maheen

Cover Designer: Vicky Pearson Esser

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Preface

Efficiency of a container terminal highly depends on the design of handling system and operation methods of the terminal. There are various types of container terminals with different layouts of the yard and different handling systems. In addition, recently, more and more automated container terminals are being developed and they are supported by advanced information technologies including a terminal operation system equipped with advanced optimization methods. This book covers various aspects of facility planning and operation of container terminals and discusses approaches to the related decision-making problems. In addition, the future direction of technological development to improve the efficiency of terminal operation is proposed.

This book attempts to provide methodologies to optimize the design of the container handling systems in container terminals and their operation. Various optimization models are provided and how to apply the models to practice is discussed.

1. This book will provide the readers a well-organized overview on various optimization problems for the design and the operation of container terminals.

2. This book covers a wide variety of issues related to the terminal operation and thus may be useful to those who study the port logistics.

3. Algorithms included in this book may be used to develop terminal operation software in practice.

This book consists of five parts. The first part introduces various facilities and handling processes in container terminals. In addition, a procedure to plan facilities is proposed. The second part introduces operation planning related to ship operation including the berth planning, the quay crane work scheduling, and the detail ship operation scheduling. Issues related to managing the storage yard are discussed in the third part. The fourth part addresses how to control horizontal transporters, yard cranes, and human operators of these types of equipment. The final part discusses how to improve the operational efficiency and the utilization of the resources in container terminals by understanding the results of the competition among adjacent container terminals, promoting the collaboration between a container terminal and outside partners and the collaboration among container terminals.

Preliminary materials on which this book is based have been evolved through the lectures in Pusan National University and Zhejiang University for many years. Major parts of the content in this book are from my research studies with former graduate students in the Department of Industrial Engineering of Pusan National University, which, first of all, I would like to thank for their effort. I would like to thank all the colleagues in Korea and China who did researches together on container terminals. I appreciate the support by Professor Paul Tae-Woo Lee at Zhejiang University for the publication of this book. I would like to express my gratitude to many people in practice, especially in Busan Port, who introduced me to practices and many interesting research issues on port logistics.

Finally, I would like to thank my family; without their support and encouragement for a long time, the publication of this book would never have been realized.

1: Facilities, handling processes, and automation

Abstract

This chapter introduces various flows and logistics processes of containers in seaport container terminals. Various types of equipment and layouts of the storage yard, which are being adopted for handling containers, are introduced. This chapter also introduces advanced container terminals all over the world and compares their handling equipment, layouts, and logistics processes. In addition, recent trends of automation in container terminals are explained with illustrations of real cases.

Keywords

Automation; Container terminals; Handling equipment; Logistics process; Storage yard

1. Introduction

The intermodal container may be considered to be one of the most important innovations in the 20 century. As international trade volume has increased rapidly, world container throughput has increased dramatically as shown in Table 1.1. It reached 759 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) in 2020. It is expected to reach 978 million TEUs in 2025.

Container terminals are connecting nodes among different transportation modes and different service lanes of vessels. A large portion of transportation time for cargo is spent in ports. Thus, it is important that a port has container terminals, which are efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly. Table 1.2 shows the top 10 container ports with the highest throughput in the world (Marine Department of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), n.d.). Seven of the top 10 container ports are in China in 2021. This reflects the current status of cargo flow concentration in Eastern Asia, especially China. As vessels have become increasingly larger, the overhead and operation costs of container vessels become higher. Therefore, it is important to reduce the turnaround time of vessels in ports.

Fig. 1.1 illustrates a container terminal with a block layout parallel to the quay (Park, 2003). It consists of the quay side where loading and discharging operations by quay cranes (QCs) are performed, the storage yard where containers are stored, and the gate through which road trucks are moving for delivering inbound and outbound containers (carry-in and carry-out operations). Note that containers are transferred at a (or two) side(s) of each block between yard cranes and trucks, which we call side-loading operation. Fig. 1.1 shows three types of handling equipment within the terminal: yard cranes (YCs), which transfer containers between internal or road trucks and storage block; QCs, which transfer containers between a vessel and internal trucks; internal trucks, which deliver containers between QCs and yard cranes.

Fig. 1.2 illustrates a terminal with a layout of blocks perpendicular to the quay (Lee, 2010). This layout is popular in automated container terminals, where automated QCs, automated stacking cranes (ASCs), and automated guided vehicles (AGVs) as internal transporters are usually used. Note that containers are transferred by ASCs to/from road trucks or internal trucks at transfer points located at both ends of each block, which we call end-loading operation.

Table 1.1

a Statistics were selected from (Placek, 2022) and (The World Bank, n.d.).

Fig. 1.3 describes various flows of containers at a container terminal. The handling operations in container terminals may be classified into three types: vessel operations associated with containerships, carry-in and carry-out operations for road trucks, and container handling and storage operations in the yard. Vessel operations include discharging operations during which containers are unloaded from the vessel and stacked in a marshaling yard, and the loading operation, during which containers are handled in the reverse direction of the discharging operation. During discharging operations, the QCs transfer containers from a ship to a transporter. Then, the transporter delivers inbound (import/discharging) containers to a YC (yard crane) that lifts and stacks containers in a specific position in the marshalling yard. For loading operations, the process is carried out in the opposite direction.

During a carry-in operation, when a container is delivered to a container terminal by a road truck, the container is inspected at the gate to check whether all required documents are provided to the terminal and whether the container has undergone any damage. Further, at the gate, information regarding the storage place where an export container is to be delivered or the location where import container is stored is provided to the driver. When the truck arrives at a transfer point of the yard, the yard equipment, a YC or SC (straddle carrier), receives the container from the truck and transfers the container to the stack. In a direct transfer system, which uses chassis for delivering a container, a road tractor moves the chassis with container from the gate to a specific slot or from a specific slot in the yard to the gate. The carry-in containers may be from road, a rail terminal, or an inland water terminal. The carry-out operation is performed in the opposite direction. A transshipment container is discharged from a vessel and then loaded onto other vessel. The discharging and loading operations occur in the same terminal (transshipment inside in other words) or they may happen in two different terminals in the same port which are called transshipment to outside or transshipment from outside depending on the direction of the container flow. Containers for transshipment from outside are discharged from a vessel in other terminal and delivered to this terminal and loaded onto a vessel in this terminal, while those for transshipment to outside are discharged from a vessel in this terminal and loaded onto other vessel in other terminal. Container flow for import and transshipment to outside will be called inbound flow, while container flow for export and transshipment from outside will be called outbound flow in this book. Some empty containers may be kept at the terminal, which are delivered to the terminal through the gate by road trucks and moved outside the terminal again to be delivered to shippers, which may be classified as land-to-land flow. In this case, the terminal plays the role of empty container depot.

Container terminals feature two different types of handling systems (Guenther & Kim, 2005). One is the indirect transfer system in which a container is moved between a QC and the yard by a relayed operation between two types of handling equipment in a terminal. In this system, yard cranes or straddle carriers are used for stacking containers in the yard and yard trucks (YTs) or AGVs are used for transporting containers between QCs and yard cranes. Table 1.3 shows the handling steps in this type of container terminal. Fig. 1.4 shows Yangshan Container Terminal, China, which is a typical example of the indirect transfer system.

The other type of handling system is the direct transfer system in which one type of equipment directly moves a container between a QC and the yard and is responsible for storage activities as well. Table 1.4 describes the handling steps of containers in the on-chassis system, which is one of the direct transfer system. Fig. 1.5 shows the yard in an on-chassis system. In this system, an outbound container is delivered by a road tractor and placed at a specific location with its chassis. When the container is to be loaded onto a vessel, an internal tractor pulls the chassis and brings it under a QC, and the chassis is returned to the yard after the loading operation. Table 1.5 shows the handling steps in a straddle carrier system, which is one of the direct transfer system. Fig. 1.6 illustrates a straddle carrier system in which straddle carriers are responsible for storing containers in the yard and moving them between QCs and the yard. In both on-chassis system and straddle carrier system, there is no yard crane for the storage operation. Generally, the indirect transfer system has a larger storage capacity than direct transfer systems for a given area of the storage ground, while it requires one more steps of handling for an inbound and an outbound container than the direct transfer system.

Figure 1.1  A container terminal with a layout of blocks parallel to the quay. Modified from Park, Y.-M. (2003). Berth and crane Scheduling of container terminals, Ph.D. Thesis. Pusan National University.

Figure 1.2  A container terminal with a layout of blocks perpendicular to the quay. From Lee, B.K. (2010). Optimal design of container yard considering throughput capacity of yard cranes, PH.D Thesis. Pusan National University.

Figure 1.3  Flow of containers in a container terminal.

Figure 1.4  Yangshan Container Terminal, China.

Figure 1.5  On-chassis system (Oakland, USA).

Figure 1.6  Straddle carrier system (Brisbane, Australia).

Table 1.2

From Marine Department of the Hong Kong SAR.

Table 1.3

Table 1.4

Table 1.5

2. Handling activities and facilities

This section introduces the handling facilities and operational procedure in container terminals. The most important infrastructure for a container terminal is berths where vessels are alongside at during the discharging and loading operations. As illustrated in Fig. 1.7, there are various types of berths: straight line berth, which is the most popular, cornered berth, pier type berth, and indented berth. In case of the indented berth, which is constructed in Amsterdam, it is expected that more QCs may be deployed to a vessel, which may reduce the turnaround time of a vessel. Different types of berths require different navigation flows of vessels and traffic patterns of trucks on the apron, which need to be considered in the design of berths. Fig. 1.8 shows the indented berth in Amsterdam.

Figure 1.7  Various types of quay with berths.

Figure 1.8  Indented berth at Ceres terminal, Amsterdam.

Fig. 1.9 shows a photo of a typical QC with a single trolley. There are two types of QCs: single-trolley QC (Fig. 1.10) and dual-trolley QC (Fig. 1.11). In the dual-trolley QC, the sea-side trolley delivers a container between the vessel and the buffer platform located between the sea-side trolley and the land-side trolley. The land-side trolley moves a container between the apron and the buffer platform, which results in dividing the cycle time of the QC into two parts and, thus, reducing the cycle time for the QC to handle a container. The part of a QC that directly grasps a container is called a spreader.

Figure 1.9  A single-trolley quay crane (QC).

Figure 1.10  A single-trolley quay crane (QC).

Figure 1.11  A dual-trolley quay crane (QC).

While a twin-lift spreader can lift two 20′ (20 feet) containers at a time (Fig. 1.12), the tandem spreader can lift up to four 20′ containers or two 40′ containers simultaneously (Fig. 1.13). These spreaders will increase the productivity of QC operation significantly.

There have been various improvements in water-side equipment for increasing the throughput capacity: (1) the operation cycle time of QCs has been reduced by dividing the operation cycle time into two parts; (2) multilifting function of a QC has been developed; (3) the more QCs are attempted to be deployed simultaneously, as in the case of indented berth; and (4) recently, QCs are controlled by human remote controllers who are staying in an office instead of cabins on the top of QCs, which made the QC operation not to be a labor-intensive task anymore.

Horizontal transporters in terminals are responsible for moving containers from one place to another. For example, from the yard to a berth; from a berth to the yard; from a rail station to the yard; from the yard to the rail station; from the yard to a container freight station; from a container freight station to the yard; from the yard to the custom office; from the custom office to the yard; from a berth to another; from a block in the yard to another block; and from a terminal to another terminal for moving transshipment containers.

Figure 1.12  Twin lifting spreader. With the courtesy of BROMMA.

Figure 1.13  Tandem lifting spreader.

There are two types of transporters: transporters that need synchronized handover of containers between QCs (or YCs) and transporters and those that do not need any synchronized handover of containers. For example, when a YT is used during the discharging operation, a QC with a discharging container has to wait until a YT arrives under the QC before the QC releases the container, for which we says that the handover operation needs to be synchronized. The former type of transporters includes YT and AGVs (Fig. 1.14), while the latter type of transporters includes automated lifting vehicle like straddle carrier (Fig. 1.15) and shuttle carrier. Lifting racks may be utilized so that AGVs can receive/deliver containers from/to a yard crane without synchronized handover with yard cranes (Fig. 1.16). Note that AGVs with lifting racks is the AGV system in which the AGV can place containers on the lifting rack and can leave the storage block without the support of a yard crane or a yard crane can leave a container on the lifting rack even when there is no AGV waiting. Instead of using lifting racks, AGVs with the capability of lifting and putting down containers on the rack may be used.

Figure 1.14  Automated guided vehicles that need synchronized handover of containers.

Figure 1.15  Straddle carriers that do not need synchronized handover of containers.

Figure 1.16  Automated guided vehicleswith lifting rack. With courtesy of Yan Wang.

Yard trucks are the most popular transporters and currently used in combination with YCs in many Asian countries. SCs are used in many European countries; they are not only used for transporting containers between the yard and the apron but also for storing/retrieving containers in/from the yard. Shuttle carriers are identical to SCs except they can only pass over single-tier container stacks. On the other hand, SCs can pass over stacks of two or three tiers. Thus, shuttle carriers are used only for transporting containers from one place to another on the ground, while SCs may be used not only for transporting containers on the ground but also for storing and retrieving containers into/from container stacks.

New designs of transporters have been proposed for delivering multiple containers at the same time. An example of multiloading and multitrailer system in which a trailer delivers multiple containers or a tractor pulls multiple trailers at the same time. Especially, the multitrailer system is useful for moving containers in a long distance like between a rail terminal and a sea port terminal. In addition, automated trucks are developed and are being used in practice (Refer to Fig. 1.31B).

Container storage in the yard may be classified as a block stacking system, where containers are stacked in a vertical direction in multiple tiers on the ground. The marshaling yard for storing containers usually consists of multiple blocks. Blocks in the marshaling yard are laid out in multiple rows of blocks (Gui, 2016). For example, Blocks 1 and 2 in Fig. 1.17 are included in the same row of blocks. A block consists of yard bays. A yard bay consists of multiple rows and tiers as shown in Fig. 1.17.

In the container storage yard, there are different types of YCs used for the handling of containers: rubber-tired gantry crane (RTGC), rail-mounted gantry crane (RMGC) (Fig. 1.18A), and overhead bridge crane (OHBC) (Fig. 1.18B). Rubber-tired gantry cranes can move containers between different rows of blocks. The movement ranges of RMGCs are limited because they are moving on the rail and their power cables for supplying the electricity to cranes have limited lengths. An OHBC moves on overhead rails, which are installed on a concrete structure and are being used for storing the transshipment containers in Pasir Panjang Terminal in Singapore (Fig. 1.18B).

Rail-mounted gantry cranes are the most popular yard cranes which have been automated, which are classified further into ACRMG (Fig. 1.18A) and ASCs (Fig. 1.19). ACRMG is a side-loading crane, while ASC is an end-loading crane. In some terminals, ACRMG is being used for both the end-loading and the side-loading.

Figure 1.17  Storage yard of containers. From Gui, L. (2016). Pre-marshaling inbound containers utilizing truck arrival information with uncertainty, MS Thesis. Pusan National University.

Figure 1.18  Automated cantilever rail mounted gantry crane (ACRMG) and over head bridge crane (OHBC) A: ACRMG at PNC, Busan; B: OHBC at Parsir Panjang Terminal, Singapore. (B) With the courtesy of Nguyen Vu Duc.

Figure 1.19  Various layouts of ASCs at a block in an end-loading layout A, B: Four different layouts; C: crossover ASCs at CTA.

In a block, one, two, or three ASCs may be installed, as illustrated in Fig. 1.19A and B. When, two ASCs move on the same rail, we will call them twin ASC, while, when they can cross over with each other moving on different rails, we will call crossover ASCs (Fig. 1.19C). When three ASCs are installed in the same block, which is a mixure of twin and crossover ASCs, we will call them triple ASCs. Fig. 1.19A and B shows four practical layouts of ASCs for the end-loading operation. The first type of yard crane system is the single ASC per block, which has been used in ECT, Rotterdam. In order to overcome the throughput limitation, two crossover ASCs were installed in CTA terminal, Hamburg. The crossover ASCs may crossover one another without interference during operations in the same block. After overcoming interference problems by using intelligent operation logics, twin ASCs moving on the same rail have been installed in some newer terminals (for example, BNCT, Busan). The crossover ASC system and the twin ASC system have evolved to the triple RMG system which features one crane with crossover functionality as well as twin cranes.

Storage yards can be classified into two categories (Lee & Kim, 2010) (Fig. 1.20) according to the positions in which the YCs transfer containers to/from transporters (transfer position). These categories include the end-loading layout in which transfer positions are located at the ends of each block and the side-loading layout in which transfer points are located at the sides of each block. In the former case, blocks are usually laid out perpendicular to the direction of the quay, while in the latter case, blocks are laid out parallel to the direction of the quay. The side-loading layout is usually applied in East Asian countries, while the end-loading layout is more popular in European countries.

In the side-loading layout, YCs can move between yard blocks, whereas in the end-loading layout, they cannot. This means that in the side-loading layout, there is more flexibility in the deployment of YCs than in the case of end-loading layout. During the ship operation, a QC tends to load many (for example, 10–50) containers, which are bound for the same discharging port, consecutively. In the side-loading layout, by storing loading containers bound for the same discharging port in the same yard-bay or neighboring yard-bays, the gantry travel distance of YCs may be minimized in the side-loading layout. However, in the end-loading layout, because a YC has to move back and forth between a handover point at the end of a block and a storage location within the block for transferring each container, which lowers the operational efficiency of yard cranes. However, in the end-loading layout, because the traffic of the internal transporters and that of road trucks are completely separated, unlikely from the side-loading layout, the automation of the internal transporters may be more easily implemented than in the case of the side-loading layout. Refer to Table 1.6 for the comparison.

The storage of the yard has become denser, and the stacks have become higher over time. The number of handling equipment deployed to the same area has been continuously increased. As the number of equipment (yard cranes) increases, the possibility of interference among equipment has increased too, which derived the development of intelligent operational algorithms. A typical example is the container terminal in Burcharkai, Hamburg (CTB), which shows the changes over time in container terminals. The first handling system was the reach stacker system, which has the storage yard of a single tier. The second one was the straddle carrier system in which containers were stacked up to two tiers. Currently, automated storage blocks with six tiers are installed, each of which is served by triple rail mounted gantry cranes.

3. Automations in container terminals

Automation is an important characteristic of modern container terminals. This section attempts to introduce various cases of automation in container terminals. The area where the automation has been implemented earliest is Europe. Thus, we start from introducing various automation cases in Europe. The first automated container terminal (ACT) (Fig. 1.21) is ECT terminal, which was constructed in Rotterdam in 1993. Blocks are laid out in the perpendicular direction to the quay and a single end-loading ASC is installed in each block (Fig. 1.21B). AGVs are used for delivering containers between the yard and the quay side (Fig. 1.21A). Container loading onto or unloading from road trucks is done by manned straddle carriers. This automation case has been one of the most popular model of automated container terminals. The advantage of this layout is that the automation area may be separated from manual operation area by the automated blocks, which provides an important advantage to the full automation of container terminals.

Figure 1.20  Two typical types of layouts A: side-loading layout and B: end-loading layout. (A and B) From Lee, B. K., & Kim, K. H. (2010). Optimizing the block size in container yards. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2009.07.001.

Table 1.6

Figure 1.21  ECT terminal in Rotterdam A: automated guided vehicle (AGV); B: ASC.

Figure 1.22  Loading and unloading containers for road trucks by remote control at London Thames Port.

In 1996, an automated container terminal was constructed at Thames port in UK (London Thames Port). Two ASCs were installed in a block: one for the road truck service and the other for the ship operation. Truck loading relies on the remote control by terminal operators at the end of each block (Fig. 1.22), while manned internal trucks are loaded/unloaded at the side of magazine zone for ship operation (Fig. 1.23), which is located at the other end of each block. The magazine zone is used for marshaling containers to be loaded onto a vessel and those discharged from the vessel. Once outbound containers arrive at the yard by road trucks, they are located at a block and then, when the time for the corresponding vessel to arrive at the terminal approaches, the outbound containers are moved to the magazine zone so that the loading time during the ship operation is reduced. When containers are discharged from a vessel, they are located at the magazine zone temporarily and then relocated to the storage bays close to the transfer points for road trucks. For the transfer of containers between ASCs and internal trucks, truck drivers use remote controller installed within each internal truck. The magazine zone concept is useful to speed up the ship operation, while it requires one more handling for each container.

In 2002, Container Terminal Altenwerder (CTA) in Hamburg attempted another type of full automation by installing ASCs and AGVs for ship operation. Compared with ECT terminal, they added one more ASC in the same block of different sizes in order to avoid the interference between two ASCs moving in the same block as shown in Fig. 1.19C, which is called crossover ASCs. They installed QCs with two trolleys: one in sea-side, which is manually operated; the other in the land-side, which is automatically operated. By utilizing two trolleys, the cycle time of QC operation could be reduced. Table 1.7 summarizes the specification of facilities in CTA.

Figure 1.23  Loading and unloading for manned internal yard trucks at the magazine zone of each block at London Thames Port.

Table 1.7

In 2007, DPW Gateway terminal (DPW-AGWT), Antwerp, was retrofitted by installing ASCs. They utilized manned straddle carriers for horizontal transport. The ASC, they installed, has the mast system for hoisting mechanism, which reduces the positioning time for the spreader during picking up and releasing containers.

In 2007, ECT Euromax Terminal, in Rotterdam (Fig. 1.24), started its operation, which is similar to the previous two automated terminals in Europe. Two ASCs moving on the same rail are deployed into each block, instead of utilizing crossover ASCs. This type of ASC system (Fig. 1.19A) is called twin ASC. More complicated operation rules have to be applied to consider the possibility of interference between two ASCs in the same block. The speed of AGVs was increased to 3–6 m per second, and a hybrid engine of diesel-electric was used to contribute to the environment improvement. However, a semi-automatic transfer of containers between ASC and road trucks was applied by a dock worker for the final handoff process at the site using a wireless operation unit.

Figure 1.24  ECT Euromax terminal, Rotterdam. With courtesy of Hutchison Ports ECT Euromax.

In 2009, Container Terminal Burchardkai (CTB), Hamburg, installed triple ASCs for redeveloping existing terminal. Because manned straddle carriers have been used in the existing terminal, they adopted manned straddle carriers as the horizontal transport system. Remote control operation was applied for loading containers onto or unloading them from road trucks. An important issue in the automation is how to convert exiting handling system gradually without substantially impairing the terminal's operation and capacity during the project implementation process. The triple ASC is a combined system of twin ASC and crossover ASC. That is, two ASCs are moving on the same rail, while the third ASC can cross over the remaining two ASCs as shown in Fig. 1.19B. Table 1.8 summarizes the specification of CTB terminal.

In 2010, Total Terminal International (TTI) Algeciras started its automated operation. Twin ASCs were installed and manned shuttle carriers, which can move container over container stacks of one tier. Manned shuttle carriers are used not only for the ship operation but also for the container transfer operation to/from road trucks. In 2012, Barcelona Europe South (BEST) terminal started its automated operation. They utilized twin ASCs and manned shuttle carriers, as in the case of TTI Algeciras. However, for the transferring containers onto/from road trucks, they utilized a remote control system. DP World London Gateway Terminal started its automated operation from 2012 and installed the same handling system as in BEST. However, the full automation system for transferring containers onto/from road trucks was applied, and 90% of the transferring tasks were performed automatically, while the remaining 10% were supported by the remote control.

AP Moller Terminal (APMT) and Rotterdam World Gateway (RWGT), which were built in Maasvlakte-2, Rotterdam, started their operation in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Twin ASCs were installed. AGVs were used not only for the ship operation but also for the barge and rail terminals. The remote-control-based automation was realized for the water-side trolley of QC. Note that the land-side trolley of QC was already fully automated. Road trucks were loaded fully automatically. In RWGT, in addition to twin ASCs, automated cantilever rail mounted gantry cranes (ACRMGs) were installed to support the transfer operation of containers from/to barge and rail terminals. Table 1.9 compares characteristics of automated container terminals constructed so far in Europe (International Association of Ports and Harbors, 2015).

Table 1.8

Next, automated container terminals were constructed in Australia. Patrick Container Terminal, Brisbane, was the first automated container terminal in Australia, which started its operation in 2005. The automated handling system in Patrick terminal is unique compared with those in European terminals. This terminal utilized automated straddle carriers (auto-STR) for stacking containers in the yard as well as delivering containers between the yard and the quay side, loading/unloading containers onto/from road trucks (Fig. 1.25). In 2014, the second automated container terminal was constructed in Brisbane, which is DPW Brisbane Terminal, whose handling system includes twin ASC and manned shuttle carrier. Loading/unloading operations onto/from road trucks are done by a remote control. In 2015, a container terminal with the same type of handling system as that in Patrick Terminal, Brisbane, was constructed in Sydney. Table 1.10 summarizes characteristics of three automated container terminals in Australia.

The development of automated container terminals in the United States was pursued 15 years behind than the first case in Europe. The first automated handling system in the United States was installed at Virginia International Terminal in Norfolk port, Virginia, in 2008. Twin ASCs were installed, and manned shuttle carriers move containers between the yard and the quay side. Remote control system was used for loading/unloading containers onto/from road trucks. Manned internal YTs are used for delivering containers between the yard and the rail terminal. In TraPac Terminal, Los Angeles, automated handling system was installed in 2014. For the ship operation, twin ASC and automated straddle carriers were used. For loading/unloading onto/from road trucks, the remote control system was used. For the rail terminal, automated straddle carriers deliver containers to the rail terminal and then Cantilever RMGs in the rail terminal receive the containers. In 2015, Long Beach Container Terminal installed automated equipment. Semiautomatic double trolley system was adopted for QC, and battery-driven AGVs were utilized for the ship operation. Twin ASCs are installed in the stacking yard and fully automated loading/unloading containers onto/from road trucks are performed. Manned internal YTs are deployed to transfer containers between the yard and the rail terminal. Table 1.11 summarizes the characteristics of ACT in the United States.

Recently, most active area in automation of container terminals is Asia. Many automated container terminals have been constructed and are under construction. However, until recent years, most of automation cases may be classified into semi-automation in which horizontal transport function relies on manually operated trucks, while yard cranes are automated.

In 1997, Parsir Pangjang Terminal (PPT) in Singapore installed OHBC for handling transshipment containers. It is well known that Singapore port has a high ratio of transshipment containers compared with inland cargos. Since the bridge crane is moving on the rail supported by concrete structure, the speed of the crane is relatively faster than gantry cranes, and the containers are stacked up to the sixth tier. Manned YTs deliver containers between the yard and the quay side. The aisle and transfer points for the YTs are provided in the middle of each block. Pickup and releasing of containers by OHBC are supported by remote controller in the office. For road trucks, manned cantilever rail mounted gantry cranes (CRMG) are installed.

Figure 1.25  Truck grid for loading/unloading onto/from road truck (Patrick Container Terminal, Brisbane).

Table 1.9

a New: new construction; Ret: Retrofit; (M) Manual operation.

Modified from International association of ports and harbors (IAPH). (2015). A study on the best practices of container terminal automation in the world.

Table 1.10

From International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH). (2015). A study on the best practices of container terminal automation in the world.

In 2005, Tobishima Container Berth (TCB) terminal in Nagoya, Japan, installed automated rubber-tired gantry crane and, in 2008, AGVs were deployed into the yard. The blocks are laid out parallel to the quay, and the transfer points are located at the side of each block. AGVs are loaded fully automatically, and road trucks are loaded by a remote-control system. An AGV-lane and a road truck lane are placed parallel to each other under auto-RTG (total of eight lanes; six stacking lanes, one AGV-lane, and one road truck lane). Traffic lights and crossing bars system were introduced to facilitate a safe and efficient traffic flow.

Figure 1.26  Side-loading of a container onto a road truck by ACRMG in Busan Port Terminal.

Table 1.11

From International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH). (2015). A study on the best practices of container terminal automation in the world.

In 2006, Busan Port Terminal (previously, Sinseondae Terminal) installed ACRMG at several blocks, which is the first case of automating CRMG in the side-loading layout. Manned internal trucks are used for the ship operation, during which containers may be loaded onto internal trucks fully automatically. Road trucks are loaded with the support of a remote-control system (Fig. 1.26). In order to realize the semi automatic operation by using ACRMG, various technologies have to be developed such as chassis positioning system, which helps road trucks to park at the right position for transferring containers and stack profile scanning system, which identify the stacking profile of containers in order to prevent collision between containers during the movement of a container by ACRMG, and container number identification system, which identify the container number automatically by ACRMG.

Utilizing the technologies developed for the automation in