104166_final51x - WikiLeaks

peaceshiveringΤεχνίτη Νοημοσύνη και Ρομποτική

24 Οκτ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 9 μήνες)

558 εμφανίσεις

i


S
OME
S
TUDIES

ON THE
P
RINCIPLES AND

M
ECHANISMS
FOR

L
OADING AND
U
NLOADING

A
thesis

Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

(
In
Mechanical Engineering
)

By

Mudar Dayoub


Under the Supervision of

Prof. Rasheed Ahmad Khan

Dr. Mohammed Sharif

&

Dr. Mohammed S
u
haib








Department of Mechanical Engineering

Faculty of Engineering and Technology

Jamia Millia Islamia

New Delhi

2009


ii

Abstract

Containerization of general cargo has been increasing steadily over the last three
decades. The world container
turnover

increased from
76

million TEU in year 19
8
8 to
544

million TEU in year 200
8
. As a result of substantial increase in world conta
iner
turnover
, container terminals have become an important component of the global
transportation network. Container terminals serve the function of delivering containers
to consignees and receiving containers from shippers, loading containers onto and
un
loading containers from vessels, trains, trucks, and then
temporarily
storing the
containers
in the storage yard
. The productivity of container terminals is often
measured in terms of the time necessary to load and unload containers by cranes and
trucks, w
hich are the most important and expensive equipment used in ports. Most
container terminals have either initiated or in the process of initiating measures to
increase their throughput and capacity by introducing new technologies,

reducing
equipment dwell t
imes
, and increasing storage density.

Transportation of containers between the quayside and the
storage
yard can be divided
into a number of sub
-
processes according to the type of equipment involved. In most
container terminals, trucks are commonly used fo
r transporting containers between the
quayside and the
storage
-
yard
. Determining the sequence of containers to be handled
by trucks is one of the major issues in terminal operations. The operation efficiency of
container terminals is directly impacted by t
he container sequencing decisions.
Therefore, the major objective of this research is to develop generic models that can be
used to solve truck scheduling
problem that

is the problem of scheduling a fleet of
trucks to handle a set of non
-
preemptive jobs wi
th sequence
-
dependent processing
times and different arrival times. This objective is achieved through optimizing the
makespan for loading and unloading containers in the container terminal using
mixed
integer programming
and greedy search algorithm
s
. The intent behind optimizing the
makespan is
(1) to reduce the waiting time of the trucks, (2) to cut down the operation
costs,

(3) to find the optimal number of trucks to be used for loading
and
unloading
containers to and from trains and (4) to contrib
ute towards improvement in the national
economy.

iii

In this research, development and implementation of several
studies has been
carried
out
for optimal scheduling of loading and unloading operations in contai
ner terminals
.
A generic model based on mixed inte
ger programming (MIP) has been developed and
its effectiveness in scheduling container loading and unloading operations has been
studied. In addition to MIP model, four generic models based on different scheduling
algorithms have been developed in this res
earch. The performance of these models has
been evaluated in terms of the quality of solution achieved by them. Comparison of the
performance of MIP model with that of other models has revealed that although MIP
model is able to produce optimal solutions b
ut its execution time is quite high. Due to
the high execution time requirements, it was concluded that MIP model has limite
d
practical applicability to

real world problems.

Major achievements of the research carried out in this thesis may be summarized as

follows:



A comprehensive review of literature related to application of optimization
techniques for improving container terminal operations has been carried out with a
view to provide ready reference for any future work.



A comprehensive review of processe
s being followed, and equipment being used in
container terminals has been carried out in order to put the work carried out in this
research in context.



Real
-
world data pertaining to processing time and travel time for each container has
been procured from

CONCOR, and has been used to test the developed models



A generic MIP model that is transportable to any other container terminal with
minimal changes has been developed for the truck scheduling problem



Analysis of several computational experiments carried

out using the MIP model has
revealed that the execution time requirements are quite high for solving even
moderate size problems, thereby ruling out the application of MIP model to large
real
-
world problems

iv



Four generic models based on STF, LTF, FAT, and
LBT scheduling mechanisms
have been developed and their practicality in solving complex problems has been
demonstrated through application to four real
-
world problems.



It has been demonstrated that the application of recommended models for unloading
differ
ent number of train could lead to substantial savings in the cost of operations



A distinct practical advantage of the model developed in this work are that they are
transportable to any other container terminal without any difficulty



Models developed in th
is work can be used by terminal operations managers for
optimizing container terminal processes



Models recommended in this work provide a
wider

choice to the terminal managers
as well as to customers



Finally, implementation of models developed in this work

is straightforward due to
the ease of interfacing




v

Declaration of Originality


This
work reported in this
thesis
entitled “
Some Studies on the Principles and
Mechanisms for Loading and Unloading

was
conducted
entirely by
me

in the
Department of Mech
anical Engineering at the Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, I
ndia
.

The matter embodied in this thesis has not been
submitted in part or full to any other University/institution for the award of any degree
or diploma
.



M
udar Dayoub

01 J
uly

2009



vi


Certificate

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “
Some Studies on the Principles and
Mechanisms for Loading and Unloading
” submitted in fulfilment for the requirement of
award of degree of Doctor of Philosophy is a
record of bonafide work carried out by
Mudar Dayoub under our supervision and guidance.

To the best of our knowledge the matter embodied in this dissertation has not been
submitted in part or full to any other University/institution for the award of any
degree.



(R
asheed

A
hmad K
han, Ph.D)

Professor

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Faculty of Engineering and Technology

J
amia
M
illia Islamia

New Delhi
-
110025

(Mohammed Sharif, Ph.D)

Associate Professor

Department of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Engineeri
ng and Technology

Jamia M
illia Islamia

New Delhi
-
110025



(Mohammed Suhaib, Ph.D)

Associate
Professor

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Faculty of Engineering and Technology

Jamia
M
illia Islamia

New Delhi
-
110025







vii

Acknowledgements

I am extremely grateful to
my thesis supervisor

Prof. R A Khan who has provided
valuable guidance for accomplishing this project work. He has been benevolent enough
to take time out from his busy schedule for this project and supported me in every
respect.


I am deeply indebted to my thesis
co
-
supervisor

Dr. Mohammed Sharif for his
continuous support, stimulating suggestions and patience. It would not have been
possible to complete this thesis without his encouragement and trust. I have learned a
lot from h
is broad and profound knowledge during the long hours that we have spent
together.

I am

also grateful to
my co
-
supervisor
Dr Mohammed Su
haib

for
his whole hearted
support
,
who has guided me at the start

of this thesis work and

in
troduc
ed

me to the
ICD, Tu
ghlakabad
, a
uthorit
ies
, where
i
deas for this Thesis work all got started.

In researching container terminals,
loading

and loading operations, I have met many
colourful and interesting people from academia and industry that have helped
tremendously.
Mr. A.
K. Mishra, operat
ion Manager ,

Mr. Tomar, Supervisor of the
Container Corporation of India Ltd., Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi
for their valuable suggestion and support.

And
Mr. Leela Dhar Kala, IIT
Delhi,



In the course of the working on this
thesis
, I had the fortune of meeting

many
fine
friends
who assisted me in various forms. I would like to thank all of them
.


Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their unceasing love and support of my
endeavour,
in particular, my mother my brothers and my

sister
.
There is no way I have
could have done

this without their tremendous sacrifice.


Mudar Dayoub

Date
:
01
, July

2009

Place: New Delhi



viii

Contents

Abstract

ii

Declaration of Originality

v

Certificate

vi

Acknowledgements

vii

Contents

viii

List of Figures

xii

List of Tabl
es

xv

List of Abbreviations

xviii

1.

INTRODUCTION

1

1.1

General

1

1.2

World containerized trade

1

1.3

Port scenario in India

4

1.
3.1

Performance of Indian ports

5

1.4

Containers

7

1.4.1

Types of

containers

9

1.4.2

Advantages and disadvantages

12

1.4.3

Identification system

13

1.5

Container terminal structure and handling equipment

14

1.5.1

Processes at container terminal

15

1.5.2

Technologies for movement of containers

17

1.5.3

Container handling equipment

19

1.6

Recent technologies for container loading
-
unloading

2
3

1.6.1

Automated guided vehicles

24

1.6.2

Automated lifting vehicle

25

1.6.3

Linear motor conveyance system

26

1.6.4

Overhead grid rail technology

27

1.6.5

Automated storage/retrieval system

27

1.6.6

Assisting systems

28

1.7

Participants at container terminals

29

1.8

Problem statement

29

ix

2.

LIT
ERATURE REVIEW

32

2.1

General

32

2.2

Optimization techniques

32

2.2.1

Mathematical model

33

2.2.2

Linear programming

35

2.2.
3

Non
-
l
i
near programming

36

2.2.4

Mixed integer programming

37

2.2.5

Simulation

38

2.2.6

Branch and bound algorithms

39

2.2.7

Heuristic models

41

2.3

Literature review of container terminal processes:

41

2.3.1

Arrival of containers

42

2.3.2

Loading and unloading of containers

44

2.3.3

Transport of containers from quayside to stack and
vice versa

47

2.3.4

Stacking of containers

49

2.3.5

Inter
-
terminal container transport

53

2.3.6

Complete container terminals

54

3.

CONTAINER TERMINAL O
PERATIONS

56

3.1

Operations at Singapore port

56

3.2

Operations at container terminals in India

58

3.2.1

Container corporation of India

59

3.2.2

Financials

60

3.2.3

Physic
al performance

61

3.3

Case study at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi

62

3.3.1

Facilities and Equipment

63

3.3.2

Loading
-
unloading operations at ICD, Tughlakabad

65

3.3.3

Rail Side operations

65

3.3.4

Storage yard operation

67

3.3.5

Gate operation

68

3.3.6

Summary of operations at ICD, Tughlakabad

68

4.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL F
ORMULATION

70

4.1

Introduction

70

4.2

Problem
description

70

4.3

Truck dispatching model formulation

72

4.4

Solution of truck dispatching problem

75

x

5.

SOLUTION MECHANISMS

78

5.1

Introduction

78

5.2

Greedy algorithm

79

5.2.1

Elements of a GA

79

5.3

Types of GA

82

5.3.1

Greedy algorithm and scheduling problems

83

5.4

Solution using GA

83

5.4.1

Assumptions

84

5.4.2

GA f
or unloading container operation

86

5.4.3

Greedy algorithm for loading container operation

91

5.4.4

Reverse greedy
algorithm for loading container
operation

92

5.4.5

Solution using shortest job time first scheduling
algorithm

96

5.4.6

Solution using large
st job time first scheduling
algorithm

98

6.

MODEL APPLICATION TO

REAL WORLD CASE STUD
IES

101

6.1

Case study 1

102

6.1.1

Makespan for unloading operations

103

6.1.2

Computation of makespan for loading operations

104

6.1.3

Cost of unloading operations

105

6.1.4

Cost of loading operation

106

6.1.5

Waiting time of unloading operation

107

6.1.6

Waiting time of loading operation

108

6.2

Case

study 2

109

6.2.1

Makespan for unloading operations

111

6.2.2

Makespan for loading operations

112

6.2.3

Cost of unloading operations

113

6.2.4

Cost of loading operations

114

6.2.5

Waiting time for unloading operations

115

6.2.6

Waiting time for loading operations

116

6.3

Case study 3

117

6.3.1

Makespan for unloading operations

120

6.3.2

Makespan for loading operations

121

6.3.3

Cost for unloading operations

122

6.3.4

Cost for loading operations

123

xi

6.3.5

Waiting time for unloading operations

124

6.3.6

Waiting time for loading operations

125

6.4

Case study 4

126

6.4.1

Makespan for unloading operations

129

6.4.2

Makespan for loading operations

130

6.4.3

Cost for unloading operation

131

6.4.4

Cost for loading operation

132

6.4.5

Waiting time for unloading operation

133

6.4.6

Waiting time of loading operation

134

6.5

Summary of loading and unloading results

135

6.6

Analysis of models results

139

6.6.1

Optimal number of trucks

139

6.6.2

Optimal makespan

141

6.6.
3

Optimal cost

143

6.6.4

Optimal waiting time

145

6.7

Recommended Models

148

7.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTU
RE WORK

153

7.1

Achievement of the thesis

154

7.2

Limitations of the research

157

7.3

Recommendations for further research

157

References

159

Appendix A

176

Appendix B

180

Appendix C

183

Appendix D

184

Appendix E

204

xii

List of
Figures

Figure 1.1 Growth of world container turnover from 1988 to 2008

2

Figure 1.2 Continent
-
wise turnov
er of containers

2

Figure 1.3 Growth rate of real GDP in India

5

Figure 1.4 Traffic handled at major and minor ports of India

6

Figu
re 1.5 Share of principle commodities handled at major ports: 2005
-
2006

6

Figure 1.6 Growth of world maritime trade versus containers 1987 to 2004

8

Figure 1.7 Forty feet
normal, forty feet high cube, and twenty feet containers

10

Figu
re 1.8
Example of container ID

14

Figure 1.9 view of containership

15

Figure 1.10 Process of loading

unloading containers

16

Figure 1.11
Different types of handling equipment and their stacking capacity

18

Figure 1.12 Strad
dle carrier at Singapore port

19

Figure 1.13 Reach Stacker at ICD, Tughlakabad

20

Figure 1.14 Multi
-
trailers at the port of Rotterdam

21

Figure 1.15 Rail mounted gantry crane at CONCOR, Tughlakabad, New Delhi.

22

Figure 1.16. Quay crane at por
t of Paranaque, Brazil.

23

Figure 1.17 Automated guided vehicle used at Rotterdam port.

25

Figure 1.18 Linear motor conveyance system

26

Figure 2.1 View of container terminal.

41

Figure 2.2 (a) Single cycling unloading (b) Double cycling unloading and l
oading.

46

Figure 2.3 Yard crane and a container block

50

Figure 3.1 Container throughput at Singapore

56

Figure 3.2 Total traffic handled at CONCOR terminals

61

Figure 3.3 ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi

62

xiii

Figure 3.4 Schematic of ICD, Tughlakabad.

64

Figure 3.5 Rail mounted gantry crane

66

Figure 3.6 Truck used for transhipment of containers

66

Figure 3.7 Part of storage yard in CONCOR served with TMGC.

67

Figure 4.1Layout of ICD, Tughlakabad

76

Figure 5.1 Flow chart of scheduling mechanism

78

Figure 5.2 The greedy algorithm for an unloading job sequence using FAT principle
90

Figure 5.3 GA for an loadi
ng job sequence using FAT principle

91

Figure 5.4. Reverse greedy algorithm for loading containers using LBT principle

96

Figure 5.5 STF scheduling algorithm for unloading containers

98

Figure 5.6 The LTF scheduling algorithm for unloading containers

100

Figure 6.1
Comparison of makespan for unloading one train

103

Figure 6.2
Comparison of makespan for loading one train

104

Figure 6.3

Comparison of cost of unloading one train

106

Figure 6.4
Comparison of cost of loading one train

107

Figure 6.5
Comparison of waiting time for unloading one train

108

Figure 6.6 Comparison of waiting time for loading one train

109

Figure 6.7
Comparison of makespan for unloading two trains

112

Figure 6.8
Comparison of makespan of unloading two trains

113

Figu
re 6.9
Comparison of cost for unloading two trains

114

Figure 6.10 Comparison of cost for loading two trains

115

Figure 6.11
Comparison of waiting time for unloading two trains

116

Figure 6.12
Comparison of waiting time for loading two trains

117

Figure 6.13
Comparison of makespan for unloading three trains

120

Figure 6.14
Comparison of makespan for loading three trains

121

Figure 6.15
Comparison of cost for unloading three trains

122

xiv

Figure 6.16
Comparison of cost for loading three trains

123

Figure 6
.17
Comparison of waiting time for unloading three trains

124

Figure 6.18
Comparison of waiting time for loading of three trains

125

Figure 6.19
Comparison of makespan for unloading four trains

130

Figure 6.20

Comparison o
f makespan for loading three trains

131

Figure 6.21 Comparison of cost of unloading four trains

132

Figure 6.22
Comparison of cost for loading four trains

133

Figure 6.23
Comparison of waiting time for unloading four trains

134

Figure 6.24
Comparison of waiting
time for loading four trains

135

Figure 6.25 Number of trucks versus number of trains in unloading process

140

Figure 6.26 Number of trucks versus number of trains in loading process

140

Figure 6.27 Number of trucks versus number of trains in loading
-
unloading process
141

Figure 6.28 Makespan versus number of trains in an unloading process

142

Figure 6.29 Makespan versus number of trains in a loadin
g process

142

Figure 6.30 Makespan versus number of trains in loading and unloading process

143

Figure 6.31 Cost versus number of trains in unloading process

144

Figure 6.32 Cost versus number of trains in loading process

144

Figure 6.33 Cost versus number o
f trains in combined loading
-
unloading process

145

Figure 6.34 Waiting time versus number of trains in an unloading process

146

Figure 6.35 Waiting time versus number of trains in loading Process

146

Figure 6.36 Waiting time versus number of trains in combined loading
-
unloading
process

147




xv

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Busiest ports in the World in 2004 versus 2007

3

Table 1.2 Average allocation of funds in the Indian public transport sector

7

Table 1.3 Dimensions f ISO and non
-

ISO containers

10

Table 1.4 Types of containers

11

Table 2.1
Categorization of optimization techniques

33

Table 3.1
Characteristics of Singapore Container Port (2007)

57

Table 3.2 Summary of loading/unloading ope
rations at ICD, Tughlakabad

68

Table 4.1 Input data for truck dispatching problem

75

Table 4.2 Output from MIP model

75

Table 4.3 Computational time requirements for combinations of number of trucks and
containers

77

Table 5.1 Performance Compar
ison of GA and MIP

90

Table 5.2 Schedule obtained using STF algorithm

98

Table 5.3 Schedule obtained using LTF algorithm

99

Table 6.1 Four different real world case studies

101

Table 6.2 Input data for case study 1

102

Table 6.3
Minimum makespan and the corresponding number of trucks
of unloading
operation

104

Table 6.4
Minimum makespan and the corresponding number of trucks for loading
operation

105

Table 6.5

Comparison of costs for unloading operations

106

Table 6.6
Comparison of costs for loading operations

107

Table 6.7
Co
mparison of waiting time for unloading operations

108

Table 6.8

Comparison of waiting time for loading operations

109

Table 6.9 Input data for case study 2

110

xvi

Table 6.10 M
inimum makespan and the corresponding number of trucks for unloading
operations

112

Table 6.11

Minimum makespan for loading two trains

113

Table 6.12
Operation cost for unloading two trains

114

Table 6.13
Operation cost for loading two trains

115

Table 6.14
Waiting time for unloading two trains

116

Table 6.15
Waiting time for loading two trains

117

Table 6.16 Input data for case study 3

118

Table 6.17
Minimum Makespan for unloading three trains

121

Table 6.18
Minimum makespan for loading three trains

121

Table 6.19
Operation cost for unloading three trains

122

Table 6.20
Operation Cost for loading three trains

123

Table 6.21
Waiting time for unloading three trains

124

Table 6.22
Waiting Time for loading three trains

1
25

Table 6.23 Input data of case study 4

126

Table 6.24 Minimum makespan

for unloading four trains

130

Table 6.25
Minimum makespan for loading four trains

131

Table 6.26 Comparison of o
peration cost for unlo
ading four trains

132

Table 6.27 Operation cost

of for loading four trains

133

Table 6.28
Waiting time for unloading four trains

134

Table 6.29
Waiting time for loading four trains

135

Table 6.30 Summary of
minimum makespan for loading
-
unloa
ding operations

136

Table 6.31 Summary of cost corresponding to the minimum makespan for loading and
unloading operations

137

Table 6.32 Summary of waiting time corresponding to the minimum makespan for
loading and unloading operations

138

xvii

Table 6.33 Recommended models for loading and unloading one train

148

Table 6.34 Recommended models for loading and unloading two trains

149

Table 6.35 Recommended models for lo
ading and unloading three trains

150

Table 6.36 Recommended models for loading and unloading four trains

151

Table 6.37 Computations for savings in cost for one train

152

Table 6.38 Computations for time savings for unloading one train

152

Table 6.39Computations for resource savings for one train

152




xviii

List of Abbreviations

AGVs

Automated Guided Vehicles

AISC

A
ll India shippers Council

A
LV


Automated lifting Vehicle

AS/RS

Automated Storage and Retrieval S
tructure

ASCs


Automated Stacking Cranes

BAP


Berth Allocating Problem

BARSYL

Balaji Railr
oad Systems Limited

CFSs

Container Freight Stations

CONCOR

Container Corporation of India, Ltd

CT


Container Terminal


DGS


Directorate General of Shipping

ECT


European Container Terminal

EDIFACT

Electronic Data Interchange For Administration,
Commerce and Transport

ESCAP

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

EXIM

Export


Import

FAT


First Available Truck

FEU


Forty
-
feet E
quivalent
U
nit

xix

GA


Greedy Algorithm

GDP


Gross Domestic Product

HC


High Cubic

INFORMS

Institute for Ope
rations Research and the Management Sciences

ICD


Inland Container Depo
t

ID


I
dentification
Details

I
T
CT


Inter
-
Terminal Container T
ransport

INSA

Indian National Ship
-
owners Association

ISO


International Organization for
S
tandardization

KMI


Korea
Maritime Institute

KPMG

Knowledge Partner Management

LBT


Last Busy Truck

LMCS

Linear Motor Conveyance System

LP


Linear programming

LTF


L
argest Time First

MBPP

Master Bay Plan Problem

MIP


Mixed Integer Programming

MT


Million
T
onnes

xx

MTS


Multiple
Trailer System

NLP


Non
-
Linear P
rogramming

OHBC

Over
-
Head Bridge Cranes

PPT


Pasir Panjang Terminal

PSA


Port of Singapore Authority

QC


Quay Crane

RMGC

Rail
-
Mounted Gantry Crane

RTGC

Rubber Tired Gantry Crane

SCI


Shipping Corporation of India

SC


Stradd
le Carrier

SKU


Stock Keeping
-

Units

STF


Shortest Time First

T


Tonne

TEU



Twenty feet Equivalent Unit

TKD

Tughlakabad

UNCTAD

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

YC


Yard Crane

YoY


Year on Year

1


1.

I
NTRODUCTION

1.1

General

The loading and unloading of material
s

is a human activity which has been
performed since time immemorial.
D
ue to rapid globalization of trade, many trade
barriers have broken d
own dur
ing the last
the
few years. Loading and unloading of
materials have

become an impo
rtant and specialized function in
all trade
activities
.
The

importance of port handling and transportation systems has increased due to
globalization of trade. Port ha
ndling and transportation systems include a network of
terminals around the globe that allow manufacturers and shippers to deliver goods
quickly to their customers. Increasing global trade has created the need for efficient
container ports wherein the goal

is to move containers as quickly as possible and at
the minimum cost. Goods that are delayed at the port are inevitably tardy when
delivered to the customer, and often incur late delivery charges. Two key activities in
the port are (i) unloading of contai
ners from truck and then storage in the export area,
and (ii) removal of containers from storage
area
and then loading onto the trucks.

Container terminals

(CT)

primarily serve as an interface between differen
t modes of
transportation, such as

domestic rail or truck transportation
and deep sea maritime
transport
. Worldwide container trade is growing at
an annual rate of 9.5%.
P
ercentage of containerized trade in the world sea borne trade has increased from
5.8% in 1988 to 14.9% in 2006 and it i
s expected to
go up to 35% by 2020
(
Sabonge
,

2006
)
.
It is anticipated that the growth in containerized trade
will continue

as more and more
cargo is

transferred from break
-
bulk to containers.

1.2

World containerized t
rade

The use of container as a universal ca
rrier for various goods has increased rapidly
during the last century. It has become a standa
rd in worldwide transportation
due to
rapid increase in containerization operations over the recent years. As result of

2

increasing world trade, new containe
r termi
nals are being built and
existing ones are
ex
panded
.


Figure
1
.
1

G
rowth of world container turnover

from 1988 to 2008


Figure
1
.
2

Continent
-
wise turnover of

containers

Figure
1
.
1

shows the growth of world container turnover.

Over the
last two decades
(1988

-

2008)
, the use of containers for intercontinental maritime tran
sport has
rapidly

increased. Starting with 76 million twenty feet equivalent unit (TEU) in year
1988, world container turnover ha
s reached more than

544

Million TEU

in year 2008

(
Drewry
,
2007a
)
. A further continuous increase
in container turnover
is expected in
the upcoming years, especially
in

Asia and Europe.

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Million TEU

Year

The Growth of world container turnover

Container Turnover
3

Figure
1
.
2

s
hows

the container turnover of different
continents.

Containerized t
rade
in 2008 has sho
wn
growth

of the container turnover more than 5
times since

the year
1989

(
Etzelmueller
,

2006
)
.

The world’s top 20 container ports handled 166.7
million TEU in 2004, accounting for 49.6 per cent of the world’s container port
throughput
,
which is defined as

t
he average number of
containers being loaded and
unloaded per hour per quay crane (QC).

Table
1
.
1

Busi
es
t ports in the World in 2004 versus

2007

Rank
2004

Rank

2007

port

C
ountry

2004

(TEU)

2007
(TEU)

Percentage
change

1

3

Hong Kong

China

21,984,000

23,881,000

+8.6%

2

1

Singapore

Singapore

21,329,000

27,932,000

+31%

3

2

Shanghai

China

14,557,000

26,150,000

+79.6%

4

4

Shenzhen

China

13,615,000

21,099,000

+55%

5

5

Bussan

South Korea

11,430,000

13,270,000

+16%

6

8

Kaohsiung

Taiwan

9,714.000

9,774,670

+0.62

7

6

Rotterdam

Netherlands

8,281,000

10,790,600

+30.3%

8

-
*

Los Angels

US

7,321,000

7,702,000


9

9

Hamburg

Germany

7,003,000

8,861,454

+30.3%

10

7

Dubai

United Arab
emirates

7,702,000

8,923,456

+15.9%

*
It

indicates
the

port of
Qingdao

in China which
had a

rank
of
10 in the year 2007
(Source:
Drewry
,

2007b
)

4

Table
1
.
1

presents the volume of container traffic in TEU for the most busy container
terminals in the world in the year 2004 versus year 2007.
The world’s top
3

container
ports in terms of container t
hroughput were Singapore
,
Hong Kong, and Shanghai.

The port of Si
n
gapore is described in chapter 3 of this thesis.
In the Asian and Pacific
region, the concentration of port throughput is even more prominent, with the 10
busiest ports handling 110 million
TEU or 61.3 percent of the regi
on’s total
throughput in 2004.
The world’s six busiest container ports are located in the

United
Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

(ESCAP) region,
handling 27.4 per cent of world container throughput
amounting

to

51.1 percent of
the
ESCAP
total.

Within

the South and South
-
West Asia sub
-
region, container
throughput growth for Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka has been strong. Growth in
Bangladesh

reached nearly 20

per
cent per annum during the second half of the
1990s. While Bangladesh and India suffered only a modest slowdown in 2001, the
Sri Lankan transhipment port of Colombo was severely affected, recording a small
absolute decline in

container throughput. However, in 2003 Bangladesh recorded a
comparatively strong growth rate of 19.1 per cent.

The port

scenario
in India
is
briefly discussed in ne
x
t section.

1.3

Port scenario in I
ndia

India is one of the wo
rld’s fastest
-
growing economies w
here the

gros
s domestic
product (GDP) showed a growth
of 9.2% in 2006
.
India

has shown
an
average
growth of 7.6% in the 10
th
five year plan

(2002
-
2007)

compared to a global growth
rate of 3.7%.
(
Lahiri
,

2006
)
. But due to global financial crisis, this growt
h slowed
down in

India from 8.9 % to 7%
(
Vos
,

2008
)

Figure
1
.
3

shows that GDP in India has
grown at a fast pace from 4.5 percent in the year 2001 to 11.5 percent in the year
2005. However, the pace of growth has shown a decline in the recent years (2006
-
2009). O
ne of the fields where India has made a significant progress is the
transportation and ports facility.
Over 95 percent of India's international trade by
volume takes place through ports
.

However, due to the fast growing rate of the global
container

trade, Indian major ports are under the pressure of meetin
g the international
demand.

5

The concept of ocean going containers was introduced in India for the first time in

1968 in a seminar held jointly by the Indian Nation
al Ship
-
owners Association
(INS
A),

Directorate General of Shipping

(DGS)
, the Shipping Corporation of India
Ltd. (SCI) and the All India shippers Council (AISC) at Bombay.


Figure
1
.
3

G
rowth rate of real GDP in India

The
7517

km long Indian coastline has 12 major ports and 18
7

minor/ intermediate
ports out of which 139 are operable

(
Banger
,

2007
)

Ports serve as the gateways to
the international trade in India
and are handling over 90% of foreign trade.

The major
ports are loca
ted at Calcutta/

Haldia
, Chennai, Cochin, Ennore, Jawaharlal Nehru
Port at Nhava Sheva, Kandla, Mormugao, Mumbai, New Mangalore, Paradip,
Tuticorin and Vishakhapatnam
, and Mundra port in Gujrat.

1.3.1

Performance

of

Indian ports


The 12 major Indian ports, which

are managed by the Port Trust of India under
Central Government
J
urisdiction,
have handled 463.84 MT (million
tonnes) of cargo
in 2006
-
2007, a growth of 9.1% against the same period of the previous year
(
Ravi,
2007
)
.

A
s on 13
-
3
-
2007, these ports
handled 509 MT of cargo with an average
growth
rate of
10%.
Figure
1
.
4

shows the performance of major and minor ports
in
India in terms of traffic
handled
between
199
0

and
2007
.

The major ports handled
5.541 million TEU out of which the share of the principle commodities was 12%.
The
187

minor ports are under the jurisdiction of the respective State Governments
,

4.5

4.5

7.3

7.1

11.5

7.3

8.9

7.5

7

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
GDP

Year

Annual Growth Rate of Real GDP (%) in India

GDP
6

and have handled 195 MT (million tonnes) of cargo in 2006
-
2007
.
The capacity of
minor ports in India has a capacity of 228 MT as on 13
-
3
-
2007 with an average
growth rate of 12.6 %,

(
Banger, 2007
)
.
During 2005
-
06, major ports handled a
record traffic of 423.41 million tonnes with a growth rate of 10.3 percent ove
r the
previous year, which was higher than the growth in GDP.



Figure
1
.
4

Traffic handled at major and minor p
orts of India



Figure
1
.
5

Share of principle commodities handled at major ports: 2005
-
2006

Of the total traffic handled at major ports, petroleum products have the largest share
of about 33 percent; iron ore, 20 percent; coal, 14 percent; containers, 14 percent;

fertilizer, 3 %
a
nd the rest is shared by general cargo

16 percent

as shown in
Figure
1
.
5


0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
1990
1993
1996
1997
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Million TEUs

Year

Traffic handled at Minor and Major Port in India between 1990
-
2007

Minor Ports
Major Ports
Total
33%

3%

14%

14%

20%

16%

POL
Fertilizer
Container
Coal
Iron Ore
Others
7

The performance of Indian ports does not compare favourably with that of efficient
international ports. On three important parameters
-

capacity, productivity and
efficiency, Indian ports lac
k in comparison to some of the major international ports.
In international terms, labour and equipment
,

productivity levels are still very low
due to the
use of
outdated equipment, poor training, low equipment handling levels
by lab
our, uneconomic labour p
ractices,
idle time at berth
,
and time

loss at shift
change
. Containerization is curr
ently at 18%
largely due to
healthy EXIM (export


import) growth of 15
-
20%

(
KPMG
,

2006
)
. However, this is still very low
comp
ared
to the levels of 70% in
other countries
,

primarily
due to the lack of adequate
infrastructure in terms of port
s, roads, and railways.

Table
1
.
2

Average

allocation of funds in the
Indian
public transport

sector

Railways

Roads

Ports and

Shipping

Aviation

Others

52%

32%

6%

6%

4%

Table
1
.
2

presents the average allocation of funds in the public transport sector
during the

five year plan

(2002
-
2007)
. W
ith the globalization of the Indian economy
and spurt in imports and exports, t
he container traffic is
expected to grow
exponentially.

It has been
estimated

that the growth will
be of the order of 15 %
(
Prasad
,

2005
)
.
The Government of India decided to set up Inland Container Depots
(ICDs) which are also called dry ports and Container Freight Stations (CFSs).
ICDs
which

are constructed
away from the ports and
provide all facilities for effecting
contain
eriz
ed
shipments;

CFSs are

smaller than ICDs and
constructed

near the ports,

limited only for stuffing into and de
-
stuffing of cargoes from the containers

(
BARSYL
,

2009
)
.
Indian ICDs perform many functions include stuffing, de
-
stuffing,
loc
king, sealing,

providing trailer
s cha
s
sis, railway flats, repairs, handling
equipment, storage, 'facilities for reefer, customs examination and processing of
customs documents, issuance of combined transport documents by carriers.

1.4

C
ontainers

Containerization
has been defined by the Containerization Institute, USA as “the
utilizing, grouping or consolidating of multiple units into a larger container for more
8

efficient movement”

(
Agerschou et al., 1983
).

Containerization
is an important
element of the logistics
revolution that changed freight handling in the 20th century.

Use of containers or other large size boxes to protect the cargo as a single unit
th
roughout the journey is not new.

In 1955 a very important man came into this
business. His name was Malcolm M
cLean. He bought shipping company called “Pan
Atlantic Steamship Corporation”. Soon he found out that the loading and unloading
of trucks and ships took a lot of time and many people were needed to fulfil these
tasks. McLean came up to an idea that there m
ust be a special box/unit that can
contain goods from the shipper’s house to the receiving party without unloading and
loading again. This must result in less damage and must avoid steeling by thieves.
This concept also results in faster loading/unloading
trucks and ships and
large

packing materials

is not needed
(
Meers
mans
,
2002
)
.

Nowadays, colourful steel
containers can be seen in every major port.

An exclusive overview of h
istory of
containers is given by
Rath (
1973
)
.
Indian railways used the containers
for the first
time in 196
6 on the Bombay
-
Ahmadabad route.


Figure
1
.
6

Growth of
w
orld
m
aritime
trade versus

containers 1987 to 2004

A study of containerisation has shown that the saving in the cost of
freight to
shippers can be as high as 50% of the cost of freight without using the

container

(
Khanna
,

2005
)
.
As shown in

Figure
1
.
6
,
the strong growth in tonnage moved by
container has been increasing at a rate faster than total maritime trade over the period
betwen
1987

and

2006

(
Drewry Shipping Consultants
,

2007
)
.

9

Total
international maritime trade volumes grew at an average of 4.1 percent per
annum over the period

of 198
0

to 2004 with the result that by 2004

total seaborne
trade was almost

double
to that of
1990 volume
.

The growth of containers grew
seven times from 1980

to 2004. O
n the other hand, the

challenge with containers lies
in two areas: the mismatch between ISO (the International Organization for
standardizatio
n) standards
and un
-
standardized domestic container, and the prolific
growth
(highly
productive)

of
different types of contain
ers for cargos.

Global
production of container boxes in terms of annual output has increased by 76 times
from 40,000 TEU in the year 1966 with a cost of 1,500 US Dollars

(75000 Indian
Rupees)

to 3,050,000 TEU with a cost of 1,850
US Dollars

(92000 Indian Rupees)

per contai
ner
(
Raghuram
,

2007
)
.

1.4.1

T
ypes

of c
ontainers

There are three common standard lengths, 20 f
ee
t (6.1 m), 40

feet (12.2 m) and 45
feet (13.7 m). There are wide varieties of containers that are being used in practice.
Mo
st of the containers h
ave standard widths and heights,

with
standard

lengths
varying from 20 to 53 feet.

After several years of usage, some

containers might
lose
a few inches due to minor accidents
and
repairs
.
The dimensions of
ISO
and non ISO
containers
are presented
in
10

Table
1
.
3

(Source:

Kang
,

2006
)
.

Container capacity of ships and ports

is measured in twenty
-
foot equivalent units
(TEU)
.

Figure
1
.
7

shows 1 TEU, and 2 TEU normal, and 2 TEU high cube
containers
.

A twenty foo
t equivalent unit is a measure of containerized cargo equal to
one standard 20 ft (length)
× 8ft (width) × 8.5 ft (height) container
.

Most containers
today are
of the 40
-
ft variety and are
known as
2 TEU
.
Two TEU are referred to as
one FEU or
"
Forty foot

equivalent unit

. These two terms of measurement are used
interchangeably. "High cube" containers have a

height of 9.5 ft (2.9

m), and

half
-
height containers us
ed for heavy loads have a height of 4.25 ft (1.3 m).

The cost of a
20
-
fee
t container is
approximately
$2,000 to $3,000

(1
-
1.5 lakh Indian Rupees)

and a
40
-
foot container can be anywhere between $3,100 and $4,500

(1.6
-
2.25 lakh Indian
Rupees)
.

11

Table
1
.
3

Dimensions f ISO and non
-

ISO containers





Figure
1
.
7

Forty feet
normal,
forty feet
high cube
, and twenty
f
eet

c
ontainers


Containers are also classified on the basis of the type of cargo carried in them. As per
this classification, there are four
basic types of containers
;

dry cargos, liquid cargo
s,

bulk commodities, and special cargoes requiring protection from the environment.
A
ccording to their function containers are classified into gener
al purpose,
refrigerated
, high cube, open top,

flat top, and tank containers,
etc.

Table
1
.
4

shows
these types with their character and

applications.



20’ container
=
40’ container
=
40’ High Cube
c潮tainer
=
12

Table
1
.
4

Types of c
ontainers

Container
Type

C
haracter

Application

Figures


Standard


20'
-

Max. Payload:
28,23 Tonne(T)

40'
-

Max. Payload:
26,7 T

40' HC (High Cubic)
-

Max. Payload:
26,46 T

Suitable for any general
cargo.
Has v
arious
lashing devices on the
top and bottom
longitudinal rails and
corner post.


Hardtop

20'
-

Max. Payload:
27,
89T

40'
-

Max. Payload:
25,78T.

40'HC
-
Max.Payload:


25,58 T

Equipped with a
removable steel roof.
Especially for heavy
loads and over height
cargo. Loading through
roof opening and
doorway by swing
outdoor header


Open Top

20'
-

Max.
Payload:
28,13 T

40'
-

Max. Payload:
26,63 T

With removable
tarpaulin.
Used e
specially
for over height cargo.
Loading either from top
side or door side by
swing outdoor header.


Flat Rack

20'
-

Max. Payload:
31,26 T

40'
-

Max. Payload:
26,28 T

40'
HC
-
Max.Payload:

39,30 T

Especially for heavy
loads and over width
cargo.


Platform


20'
-

Max. Payload:
31,26 T

40'
-

Max. Payload:
39,30 T

Especially for heavy
loads and oversized
cargo.


Ventilated

20'
-

Max. Payload:
27,99 T

Especially for cargo
which needs ventilation.


Refrigerated

20'
-

Max. Payload:
27,45 T

40'
-

Max. Payload:
29,40 T

40' HC
-

Max.
Payload: 29,88 T

Reefer containers do
have their own
electrically operated
cooling

/

heating unit.
The power supply is
provided by ship's

13

electrical plant, by
terminal or by "clip
-
on"
diesel generator.

Insulated

20'
-

Max. Payload:
21,45 T

40'
-

Max. Payload:
26,63 T

These containers do not
have their own cooling
facility.

The cooling

/

heating is supplied by an
onboard plant, by
terminal

or by a "clip
-
on"
reefer unit.


Tank

24000 Litter

/Litter
Water

For the transport of liquid
food, e.g.: Alcohols,
Juices, Edible Oils, Food
Additives


1.4.2

Advantages
and
d
isadvantages

There are many advantages of using containers as a packaging unit
, some of which
are
outlined

below
:



U
se
of containers
reduces loss, pilferage and damage claims

significantly
.



It eliminates a
great deal of paper work related

to shipments.



It expedites door
-
to
-
door pick
-
up and delivery service of cargo by reducing
the t
ime for loading and unloading operations.



It eliminates multiple handling of cargo because a container is handled as a
unit.



The consolidation of small loads into a unit load is possible with a container,
lea
ding to economy in freight cost



Improvement rela
ting to handling, marketing and pattern of packaging is
made possibl
e by the container



It is possible to reduce the cost of packaging because of possibilities of
placing goods without heavy packaging inside the container without any risk
of damage in trans
it.



A container combines all the advantages of various mode of tran
sport by rail,
road and sea
.

14



Containerization has led

to improvement in the construction of boxes or
containers, and quick turn
-
round of modes of transport


whether ship, rail,
road
-

which

leads to economy in the cost of transport.


T
he main disadvantages
of using containers
are as follows



Containerization increases the fuel costs of transport and reduces the capacity
of the transport as the container itself must be shipped around not just
the
goods. For certain bulk products this makes containerization unattractive.



When transporting containers through railways, containers
cannot be stacked
in layers due to vertical height limitations. As a result transportation through
railways sometimes b
ecomes difficult



Containers

occasionally fall from the ships
during storms. It

is estimated that
over 10,000 containers are lost at sea each year.

1.4.3


Identification s
ystem

Like any vehicle, every container has a
n

identification system based
on a unique
regis
tration numb
er
.
The identification system for containers (ID) is based on a series
of letters and numbers that represent the owner’s code, the serial number and the
code for the country of origin.
T
he
registration number is given
on all four sides of
the c
ontainer
which makes it
possible to identify its owner
, and
to

identify the
contents of the container. Other
important information
about the container is also
provided by these
numbers
. All
containers are
, therefore,
required to have

th
ese

identification

n
umbers and letters
.

A system also been developed to check this
information, and details of the type and dimensions of containers is also expressed in
figures.

15


Figure
1
.
8

Example of container ID


The
container ID is composed of several fields

as shown in
Figure
1
.
8
, including the
following fields:

1. The shipping company (e.g., “UXX”)

2. The equipment category (a
lways “U” for freight containers, "Z" or "C" for chassis)

3. The serial number of the container (e.g., “423697”).

4. The check digit of the first 3 fields (e.g.,”0”)

5. The container type (e.g.,”SE4310”)

Only the first 3 fields are relevant to the identifi
cation of the container, and represent
a

unique identification number for each shipping container. In the above case, this ID
is

“UXXU 423687”.

The shipping company field ("UXX"in the example) is verified
against a pre
-
defined

list of known companies. Addi
tionally, the second field ("U") is
always verified.

The check digit is used in ord
er to verify the entire 10
-
character

identification number. If

the check digit is not identified, only the 10
characters

are
compared and reported. If it is

recognized and t
ested for correctness, it will also be
reported (a "0" in the above

case).

The container type (in the above
example,”SE4310”) is not part of the ID and is not

identified or transmitted.


1.5

Container

terminal structure and handling e
quipment

Container terminal is a facility for loading and unloading of containers from ships or
another means of transportation. In general terms,
a
container terminal is an area
16

designated for the stowage (see appendix A) of cargos in container, usually
accessible

by truck, railroad,
or
marine transportation.
At container terminals,
containers are picked up, dropped off, maintained, and housed.
Types of container
terminals and typical processes are given in the next section
.

1.5.1


Processes at container t
erminal

Co
ntain
er terminal can be classified
mainly into three types
:



Sea port container terminal



Rail container terminal
(Dry port)



Inland container terminal

Containerships as shown in
Figure
1
.
1
Figure
1
.
9

are nowadays unloaded and loaded
at large sea port container terminals. This loading and unloading of container process
can be divided into different sub
-
processes
as shown in
Figure
1
.
10
.


Figure
1
.
9

view of containership



17


Figure
1
.
10

P
rocess of loading

unloading containers

When a ship arrives at a
port, a berth is assigned for unloading. After the ship is
positioned under the quay crane(s) (QCs), the containers are unloaded by the QC and
are loaded to fleet of trucks and transported to yard area for storage
.
At the storage
area containers are stacke
d into blocks
.

Equipments, like cra
nes or straddle carriers
(SCs)
serve the blocks

.
O
n the berth, a necessary number of

quay cranes (QCs) are
allocated to unload the

containers. A straddle carrier can both transport containers
and store them in the stack.
It is also possible to use dedicated
trucks

to transport
containers. If a
truck

arrives at the stack, it puts the load do
wn or the stack crane
takes the
container off the
truck

and stores it in the stack
.

Containers are stored in blocks for certain period
until they are claimed by the
importer. When containers are claimed, containers are retrieved from the stack by
Return of empty container to depot

Delivering the container to a factory or distribution centre

Transporting the container to a consignee by truck, rail or inland waterway

Loading the container at a container yard

Unloading the container at a CFS and processing the container at the port

Moving the container over the ocean leg

Processing the container at the port and loading the container on a ship at CFS

Delivering the container to a container yard

Transporting the container to a port by truck, rail or inland waterway

Loading the container at a factory or warehouse

Delivering an empty container to a depot

18

cranes and transported by trucks to transportation modes like barges, deep sea ships,
trucks or trains. To load export containers onto a ship, t
hese processes are executed
in reverse order.

Figure
1
.
10

illustrates a summary of the main operations in a
container terminal. Every process is high
ly dependent on the previous one. Except
for arrival and departure of external trucks all the operations are under the control of
port’s personnel. A large number of highly dependent operations need continuous
coordination and high
degree of
efficiency.

A
complete description of various
equipment used, and the operations inside the
terminal
have been described by various researchers with a view to
facilitate decision
making

within the terminal
(see

Silberholz et al., 1991
;
Kozen 1997
;
Nevins

et al.,
1998
;

Lee et al., 2003
,

Linn, et al., 2003
,

Steenken et al, 2004
;

Murty et al.,
2005a
;

Murty et al., 2005b
;

Dekker et al., 2006
;

Petering, et al., 2006
;

and

Petering

20
07
)
.

Most of the terminals make use of manned equipments, like straddle carriers, cranes
and
multi
-
trailer
-
systems. However, a few terminals, like t
erminals in Rotterdam, are
semi
-
automated. At such terminals Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) are used for
the transport of containers. Furthermore, the stacking process can also be done
automatically
by Automated Stacking Cranes (ASCs). In practice, the number of

containers to be unloaded from or
loaded onto a ship is fairly large, rangi
ng from 500
to 2500 containers
(
Ioannou et al., 2000
)
.

1.5.2

Technologies for movement
of containers

Since containers are l
arge and heavy, specialized material handling equipment are
required for transporting them within the terminal. A container terminal provides the
location, mechanical devices, space and operating conditions under which the
container transfer take
s

place. C
ontainer yard is a materials handling/storage facility
used for completely unitized loads in cont
ainers and/or empty con
tainers
(
Dirk
,

et
al., 2004
).

A great variety of handling equipments are involved in container yard
operation
(
Ioannou et al., 2000
).

19


Figure
1
.
11

Different types of handling equipment and their stacking capacity

General information as well as particular details of technical equipment for container
handling are provided by engineering orie
nted journals as well as by specialized
outlets, brochures, or websites of suppliers of material handling equipment and
servic
es in the container sector (
e.g.,
PTI 2006
,
Kalmar 2006
,
Noell 2006
,
and

ZPMC 2006
)

Common equipment such as the chassis
-
based tran
spo
rter, straddle
carriers (SCs),
Reach Stacker

(RS)
, Rubber
-
Tired Mounted gantries (RTMG) crane,
Rail
-
Mounted Gantries (RMG) crane,

are compared in terms of the actual stacking
capacity in

Figure
1
.
11
.

(
source
:
Kalmar
,

2006
)

Over the last decade, technology and automation have been introduced into the
container business to
improve the efficiency, increase capacity, and meet future
demand
s
. Furthermore the explosive growth of freight volume has greatly increased
the
load on

cont
ainer terminal
s
.
Recent

advances in electronics, sensors, information
technologies and automation
have motivated
the port authorities to adopt advanced
technologies
to cope
with the booming growth
.

In

the next section
,

a

brief review of
some of

equipment used for moving the containers within the contai
ner terminal as
well as details of

recent technologies and
automation equipment

is presented
.

20

1.5.3


Container handling e
quipment

Most of
the terminals make use of
the
equipment
, like

lift truck (front end loader,
side loader or reach
-
stacker), straddle carrier, rail mounted
and
rubber tyred

gantry
crane
, etc.

quay crane at quayside.

Straddle Carrier

Straddle carriers (
SCs
)

are four wheeled vehicles that
are
able to pick and drop a
container by itself at high speeds. They are available for handling different sizes of
containers and with different vehicle
-
lifting ability.


SC
as

shown in

Figure
1
.
12

is

often used in medium size multi
-
modal facilities
where s
peed of operation is important. T
hey are the mo
st

common form used
for
manned inter
-
terminal

transport over short distances say, between the quay side

and
storage yard. SCs remain popular because of their relatively low purchase cost,
smaller yard development cost and their ec
onomic and flexible operations (
Ioannou
et al., 2000
)
.

However, SCs are

less space efficient,
have
lower operational capacity
and less suited to higher automation and
have

greater downtime and higher
maintenance

cost [for more technical information see
Siemens,

(
2007a
)
]
.


Figure
1
.
12

Straddle carrier
at Singapore port

21

Fork lifts

Fork trucks are sometimes used for container handling

for

s
mall capacity
up

to
5
tonnes
. T
hey are generally
considered u
nsuitable and not recommen
ded for
containers because of la
ck of visibility to the driver, as a result of which there is
possibility of damage to containers.
Fork
lifts cannot be used for
containers
that are
not
fitted with the pockets for fork truck.

Reach Stacker

A reach stacker (RS)
is a type of fork lift with
a telescopic boom and top
-
lift
attachment used for lifting and stacking containers. Its design enables it to reach
be
yond

the first row to pick up a
container
.
Figure
1
.
13

shows
a reach
-
s
tacker that
operates in the container terminal. Its main task is to stack containers and to load
them into trucks, tractors or trains. It is a road vehicle, with a high tonnage

capacity.

Its s
torage capacity
is
approx
imately equal to
500 TEU per hectare
. It can stack
containers up to 3 containers

high

and can reach a maximum height equivalent to 5
containers high. The capital cost for a RS is low as compared to other container
h
andling equipment. RS is recommended
for
small to medium size operations in
multi
-
purpose terminals.


Figure
1
.
13

Reach Stacker
at

ICD,

Tughlakabad

22

Multiple trailer s
ystem

A multiple trailer system (MTS) (also called multi
-
trailer system) is one where a
towing vehicle transports more than one container to and from the container yard.
It
is also
known as e
lephant trains
, and is shown in
Figure
1
.
14
.
It
can move eight
trailers loaded with container, whic
h

c
an
lead substantial reduction in operation and
labo
ur cost

(
I
oannou et al., 2000
)
.


Development of
Mu
l
ti
-
Trailer System
(MTS) has been
carried out by
the Technical
University of Delft
, Netherland
.

The demand for (MTS) is growing rapidly. For
example in a Kalmar delivery each
MTS

will be able to move eight 20ft containers
(or an equivalent mix of 20s and 40s) simultaneously, th
us providing

significant
benefit

over single trailer systems


Figure
1
.
14

Multi
-
trailers at the port of Rotterdam

Stacking c
ranes

Stacking cranes are used for p
lacing and retrie
ving of containers in stack. These

forms of stacking cranes are known

as

Rail Mounted Gantry Cranes (RMG) or
Rubber Tired Gantry Crane (RTGC)

[for technical
information
see
Siemens
,

(
2007b
)


and

Siemens
(
2007c
)
]
,
and
Over
-
Head Bridge Cranes (OHBC).

OHBC requires
huge initial investments in

erecting columns sustaining crane rail girds and ground
breaking works.

An RTGC moves on rubber tyres over containers and is able to
23

move among blocks. A RMG runs on rails normally serving a
single storage block
between the
rails
.
Figure
1
.
15

show
s

RMGCs

at
ICD
, Tughlakabad

terminal


The RTGC has the flexibility to change stack but in practice this is time consuming
and
cannot be
done often.
Being
harder to automate, they are less attractive for the
terminals trying to further increase
their
throughput
by

a
u
t
omization
. As a result ya
rd
cranes are space
-
efficient, fast in operation and more suited for automation
.
H
owever, they require higher developm
ent cost than SCs typically around 3 times
the price, because of their heavy body weight and wheel load
.
RTGs are typically
cheaper to install, more expensive to operate and more flexible than RMGs.

Comparison of OHBC, RMGC, and RTMC is given in Appendix B
.


Figure
1
.
15

Rail
mounted gantry c
rane at CONCOR, Tughlakabad, New Delhi.

Quay c
rane

Quay crane (QC) is manned
equipment;

the maximum capacity to
load and unload
containers from or t
o the ship is 50
containers per hour

(Evers
et al.,
1996)
.

QC
is
the most important determinant of the ship operation productivity at the terminal.
The number of quay crane




required to accomplish the proposed
task, can

be
calculated by

24






















Eq
1
.
1

Where
as,

N
containers

is the number of containers to be loaded and unloaded.

C
qc

is
the
maximum physical capacity of the quay cranes, T
ship

is the turnaround time

of the
ship
.

Figure
1
.
16

shows Quay crane
s (QCs) that have trolleys that

can move along
the crane arm to transport the container from the ship to the transport vehicle and
vice v
ersa. A spreader, a pick up device attached to the trolley, picks the containers


Figure
1
.
16
. Quay crane at p
ort of Paranaque, Brazil.

The QCs move on rails to the different holds to take/put containers
off/on the deck
and holds
.

Technical specifications of quay cranes can be browsed in
(
Ceres
Paragon,
(
2006)
;

Dubini

(
2007)
;
Corp,
(
2007)
;

ZPMC

(
2007a
)
;
ZPMC
(
2007b
)
;

and
ZMPC,
(
2007c
)
.
)

It can
happen

that at the same moment

one QC is unloading
containers while an
other QC is loading containers.
QCs are manned because
automation of this process encounters practical problems
. For example

exact
positioning of containers

may not be achieved
.

1.6

Recent technologies for container load
ing
-
u
nloading


Over the last decade, technology and automation have been introduced into the
container business to improve the efficiency of part operations

See
(
Dimitrijevic et
25

al., 2005
)

and
(
Asef
-
Vaziri

et al.,

2003
)
. S
om
e of these technologies include
:

Automated guided vehicles (AGV)
see
(Liu et al. 2002)

and
(
Liu et al., 2004
)
,

Automated lifting vehicle (ALV)
,

overhead grid rail system (OHGR), linear motor
conveyance system (LMCs), and high rise automated storage and retrieval structure
(AS/RS)
see
(
As
ef
-
Vaziri

et al.

2000
)

and

(
Chen
,

et al., 2003
)
.

1.6.1

Automated guided vehicles

Automated guided vehicle (AGV)
is driven by an automatic control system that
serves the role of the driver, and moves along guide
-
paths, which can be modified
easily.

AGVs are
considered to be the most flexible t
ype of material handling system

(Egbelu
,

1984)
.

Their size ranges from small load carriers of a few kilogram
s to over
125
-
ton transporters
AGV consists of the vehicle, onboard controller

management
system, c
ommunication
system and navigation system. AGVs are now becoming
popular in automated materials handling systems, flexible manufacturing systems
and container handling applications. In this concept the terminal configuration is
similar to that of conventional terminals

but instead of using manually operated
equipment,

AGVs
are
use
d

to transfer containers within the yard and automated
cranes
are used
for loading and unloading. AGVs are very well suited to be deployed
for terminal operations

due

to the repetitive nature of m
ovements within the
terminals.

The promise of deploying AGVs in container terminals lies in their
capability of achieving the following benefits: high container throughput, continuous
operation

for

24 hours a day, 365 days a y
ear, high controllability and reliability,
high safety standards, automated and consistent container handling operation,
reduced operational costs, especially labo
u
r costs, high position and heading
accuracy

(Evers et al. 1996)
.

U
nlike, straddle carrier, A
GVs are not able to load and
unload containers themselves. A crane is always needed to perform these operations.
However
,

the system is not cost effective because it does not permit high stacking
and
requires

wide road
s

to travel through the terminal.


The

European Container Terminal (ECT) in Rotterdam is the most advanced
container terminal in the world
. It uses

a fleet of AGVs

(as shown in
Figure
1
.
17

)
between the y
ard
-
cranes and ship
-
cranes at the

terminal
.
The system is
considered
26

successful but
the rate of success so far has been less than what was expected
. Other
ports considering this technology are watchful of ECT’s success
as

they r
ecognize it
has been a slow
process
. In
the recent years
, there have been substantial
improvements in speed of vehicle as well as in the navigation technology and
communications systems


Figure
1
.
17

Automated guided vehicle used at Rotterdam port.

1.6.2


Automated lifting vehicle

A
utomated lifting vehicle (
ALV
)

was

launched by
Seoho Electric Company and the

Korea Maritime Institute (KMI).
The design is a
hybrid

between a passive AGV and
a low
height
strad
dle

carrier

(Kim
,

2006)
.

It is a vehicle which can both load and
unload containers and travel from the ship to the stack during the unloading process
and from the stack to the ship during the loading process under its own power. These
vehicles are capable of lifting containers fro
m the ground by themselves and that is
in fact the main difference from AGV. By using lifting vehicle the loading and
unloading process at the crane and the transportation process can be decoupled. A
crane places a container on the ground and does not have

to wait for a vehicle to
place the container on. This last action is required in case
when

non lifting vehicle
s

are used
.

27

1.6.3


Linear
m
otor conveyance s
ystem

Another technological concept that has demonstrated significant promise for the
transfer of contain
ers to and from the yard is based upon linear motor
-
conveyance
system (LMCS).


Figure
1
.
18

Linear motor conveyance system

Linear induction motor operates on the same basic principles as a conventional,
rot
ary induction motor, except that instead of the coils being wound around a shaft,
the entire assembly is “unwound” into a linear configuration. Running current
through the unrolled, flattened stator moves a metal flat blank, which is placed above
the s
tato
r
(Ioannou et al. 2000)
.

B
y controlling an array of linear motors that are
placed underneath a platform, one can accurately move the platform

given that it is
on a sliding or rolling surface
. However, the technology is scalable to larger tasks. A
system
such as this could be ideally suited for port and terminal operations
.

Prototype of LMCS as shown in
Figure
1
.
18

has been constructed and successfully
tested in Eurok
ai Container Terminal in Hamburg, Germany

(Patrik et al.

2001)
.
Once the necessary infrastructure is in place and the shuttles to carry the
containers are constructed, the system could be operated autonomously without any
constraints on the hours of operati
on, and at a very low cost. Linear motor driven
systems could be proven to be more attractive than AGV systems for marine terminal
applications in term
s

of maintenance cost and
reliability
(Ioannou et al.

2000)

However, d
u
e to the fixed
guide
-
way

associated with linear motor systems, AGV
28

system could be much more flexible in terms of their ability to travel on numerous
paths
depending on the navigation conc
ept used.

1.6.4

Overhead g
rid rail technology

A concept known as

Overhead Grid rail technology
for

optimizing the use of space
and
improving

the
productivity of container terminals

(OH
GR
)

has been proposed by
Sea
-
Land and August Design, Inc
(Design
,

2005)
.

The
OH
GR consists of an
overhead rail, passive switches, shuttles, container buffers and a comput
er control
system. The contai
ner handling devices (shuttles)

can access any part of the container
yard, eliminating the need for ground vehicles in the terminal and, as a result, the
need for unproductive road areas

(Dougherty
,

2008)
.

The shuttles could ac
cess the
gate area to transfer containers, access a rail spur to transfer to and from trains, and
the shuttles could deliver cargo directly to quay cranes in order to improve
productivity. Alternatively the shuttles could be isolated to operations within t
he
OH
GR and yard vehicles can be used to transfer containers between the
OH
GR and
the

gate, ship, and train buffers
(Ioannou et al.

2000)
.

The key advantages of
OH
GR

are that it
provides high density of stacked containers
,
,

near random access to densely
stacked containers, reduction in crane “dancing”, reduction of in
-
hoisting time,

eliminati
on

of crane waiting time, valuable combination of high density and high
productivity, and ability to be modi
fied or moved from port to port

(Khoshnevis

et
al., 2000)
.

1.6.5

Automated storage/retrieval s
ystem

Automated Storage/Retrieval Systems (
AS/RS
) are

a storage system that uses fixed
-
path storage and a retrieval machine running on one or more rails between fixed