Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 503–527 | Cite as

Strategies for improving a long-established terminal’s performance: a simulation study of a Turkish container terminal

  • Osman Kulak
  • Olcay Polat
  • Rico Gujjula
  • Hans-Otto Günther
Article

Abstract

Due to a long-lasting increase in global trade, only interrupted by the late-2000s economic crisis, container traffic has grown dramatically. As a result, new terminals have opened and existing terminals face much higher container handling than before. In order to meet these challenges, one of the biggest container terminals in Turkey has begun to reconsider its terminal operations and to achieve improvements of its overall logistics performance. Because the factors impacting the terminal’s performance are highly interrelated, a simulation model was developed to analyze the terminal operations, to identify potential bottleneck resources and to highlight directions for the future development of the configuration and the operational control system. For a long-established terminal like the one considered in this study the options for improving the overall performance are limited by the geographical dimensions and by the existing terminal equipment. By use of the simulation model the terminal operations are evaluated under different workload scenarios and alternative configurations are tested in order to support strategic decisions on the terminal’s development.

Keywords

Simulation Performance evaluation Seaport container terminal Maritime transport 

References

  1. Bae JW, Kim KH (2000) A pooled dispatching strategy for automated guided vehicles in port container terminals. Int J Manag Sci 6(2):47–67Google Scholar
  2. Briskorn D, Drexl A, Hartmann S (2006) Inventory-based dispatching of automated guided vehicles on container terminals. OR Spectr 28:611–630CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Celik M, Cebi S, Kahraman C, Er ID (2009) Application of axiomatic design and TOPSIS methodologies under fuzzy environment for proposing competitive strategies on Turkish container ports in maritime transportation network. Expert Syst Appl 36:4541–4557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cullinane K, Wang T-F (2006) The efficiency of European container ports: a cross-sectional data envelopment analysis. Int J Logist Res Appl 9:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duinkerken MB, Dekker R, Kurstjens STGL, Ottjes JA, Dellaert NP (2006) Comparing transportation systems for inter-terminal transport at the Maasvlakte container terminals. OR Spectr 28:469–493CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Egbelu PJ, Tanchoco JMA (1984) Characterization of automatic guided vehicle dispatching rules. Int J Prod Res 22:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grunow M, Günther HO, Lehmann M (2006) Strategies for dispatching AGVs at automated seaport container terminals. OR Spectr 28:587–610CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Günther HO, Kim KH (2006) Container terminals and terminal operations. OR Spectr 28:437–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Han Y, Lee LH, Chew EP, Tan KC (2008) A yard storage strategy for minimizing traffic congestion in a marine container transhipment hub. OR Spectr 30:697–720MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim J, Morrison JR (2011) Offshore port service concepts: classification and economic feasibility. Flex Serv Manuf. Available online: doi:10.1007/s10696-011-9100-9
  11. Lee LH, Chew EP, Tan KC, Han Y (2006) An optimization model for storage yard management in transshipment hubs. OR Spectr 28:539–561CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Legato P, Mazza RM (2001) Berth planning and resources optimisation at a container terminal via discrete event simulation. Eur J Oper Res 133:537–547CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu CI, Jula H, Ioannou PA (2002) Design, simulation, and evaluation of automated container terminals. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 3(1):12–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu C, Jula H, Vukadinovic K, Ioannou P (2004) Automated guided vehicle system for two container yard layouts. Transp Res Part C 12:349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Montgomery DC (1997) Design and analysis of experiments, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Murty KG, Liu J, Wan Y, Linn R (2005a) A decision support system for operations in a container terminal. Decis Support Syst 39:309–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murty KG, Wan Y-W, Liu J, Tseng MM, Leung E, Lai K–K, Chiu HWC (2005b) Hongkong international terminals gains elastic capacity using a data-intensive decision support system. Interfaces 35(1):61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nam KC, Kwak KS, Yu MS (2002) Simulation study of container terminal performance. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 128(3):126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parola F, Sciomachen A (2005) Intermodal container flows in a port system network: analysis of possible growths via simulation models. Int J Prod Econ 97:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petering MEH (2011) Decision support for yard capacity, fleet composition, truck substitutability, and scalability issues at seaport container terminals. Transp Res E 47:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Preston P, Kozan E (2001) An approach to determine storage locations of containers at seaport terminals. Comput Oper Res 28:983–995CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Shabayek AA, Yeung WW (2002) A simulation model for the Kwai Chung container terminals in Hong Kong. Eur J Oper Res 40:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stahlbock R, Voß S (2008) Operations research at container terminals: a literature update. OR Spectr 30:1–52CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Steenken D, Voß S, Stahlbock R (2004) Container terminal operation and Operations Research—a classification and literature review. OR Spectr 26:3–49CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Sun Z, Lee LH, Chew EP, Tan KC (2011) MicroPort: a general simulation platform for seaport container terminals. Adv Eng Inform (to appear). doi:10.1016/j.aei.2011.08.010
  26. Türklim (2010). http://www.turklim.org/en/index.php. Last Accessed 29 June 2010
  27. Vis IFA (2006) A comparative analysis of storage and retrieval equipment at a container terminal. Int J Prod Econ 103:680–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vis IFA, de Koster R (2003) Transhipment of containers at a container terminal: an overview. Eur J Oper Res 147:1–16CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Vis IFA, Harika I (2004) Comparison of vehicle types at an automated container terminal. OR Spectr 26:117–143CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Vis IFA, van Anholt RG (2010) Performance analysis of berth configurations at container terminals. OR Spectr 32:453–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yang CH, Choi YS, Ha TY (2004) Simulation-based performance evaluation of transport vehicles at automated container terminals. OR Spectr 26:149–170CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Osman Kulak
    • 1
  • Olcay Polat
    • 1
  • Rico Gujjula
    • 2
  • Hans-Otto Günther
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringPamukkale UniversityDenizliTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Production ManagementTU BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations