Advertisement

Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 466–502 | Cite as

An analytical model for designing yard layouts of a straddle carrier based container terminal

  • Jörg WieseEmail author
  • Leena Suhl
  • Natalia Kliewer
Article

Abstract

In designing a yard layout for a container terminal several decisions have to be made. In this paper we propose a model which provides decision support for the design of yard layouts of terminals at which straddle carrier are used. We assume that straddle carriers are used for the horizontal transport and the stacking of containers. For the proposed model we develop estimates for the expected cycle distances of straddle carriers. In this case, we distinguish between cycles to landside facilities and to the quay. Numerical results are presented for several parameter settings. For instance, we present results for a comparison of layouts where the rows in the block are orientated parallel with layouts where the rows are orientated perpendicularly to the quay.

Keywords

Container terminal Yard layout Straddle carrier 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their useful comments on an earlier version of the paper.

References

  1. Bierwirth C, Meisel F (2010) A survey of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling problems in container terminals. Eur J Oper Res 202:615–627CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Böse J, Reiners T, Steenken D, Voß S (2000) Vehicle dispatching at seaport container terminals using evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, vol 2, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  3. Brinkmann B (2005) Seehäfen Planung und Entwurf. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Das SK, Spasovic L (2003) Scheduling material handling vehicles in a container terminal. Prod Plan Control Manag Oper 14(7):623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Günther H-O, Kim K-H (2006) Container terminals and terminal operations. OR Spectr 28(4):437–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. HHLA (2009) Respectable results despite serious economic crisis. http://www.hhla.de/News-Detail.269.0.html?&no_cache=1&L=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=563. Accessed 03.11.2009
  7. Kim KH (1997) Evaluation of the number of rehandles in container yards. Comput Ind Eng 32(4):701–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim KH, Kim KY (1999a) Routing straddle carriers for the loading operation of containers using a beam search algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 36(1):109–136CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim KY, Kim KH (1999b) A routing algorithm for a single straddle carrier to load export containers onto a containership. Int J Prod Econ 59(1–3):425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim KH, Park Y-M, Jin M-J (2008) An optimal layout of container yards. OR Spectr 30(4):675–695MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee BK, Kim KH (2010) Optimizing the block size in container yards. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 46(1):120–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu C-I, Jula H, Vukadinovic K, Ioannou P (2004) Automated guided vehicle system for two container yard layouts. Transp Res Part C 12:349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Muckelberg E (2009) Hafen Hamburg sieht Krise als Chance. Logistik für Unternehmen 10:24–33Google Scholar
  14. Petering MEH (2008) Parallel versus perpendicular yard layouts for seaport container transshipment terminals: an extensive simulation analysis. In: Proceedings of the international trade and freight transportation conference, Ayia Napa, Cyprus, pp 117–127Google Scholar
  15. Petering MEH (2009) Effect of block width and storage yard layout on marine container terminal performance. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 45:591–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Petering MEH, Murty KG (2009) Effect of block length and yard crane deployment systems on overall performance at a seaport container transshipment terminal. Comput Oper Res 36(5):1711–1725CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Saanen Y (2009) Positive conditions for investing during the economic downturn. http://www.porttechnology.org/_4390.1.positive-conditions-for-investing-during-the-economic-downturn. Accessed 06.08.2009
  18. Stahlbock R, Voß S (2008) Operations research at container terminals: a literature update. OR Spectr 30(1):1–52CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Steenken D (1992) Fahrwegoptimierung am Containerterminal unter Echtzeitbedingungen. OR Spectr 14(3):161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Steenken D, Henning A, Freigang S, Voß S (1993) Routing of straddle carriers at a container terminal with the special aspect of internal moves. OR Spectr 15(3):167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Steenken D, Voß S, Stahlbock R (2004) Container terminal operation and operations research—a classification and literature review. OR Spectr 26:3–49CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. UNCTAD (2007) Review of maritime transport 2007. UNCTAD, United Nations Publication. UNCTAD/RMT/2007. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/rmt2007_en.pdf. Accessed 14.04.2010
  23. UNCTAD (2008) Review of maritime transport 2008. UNCTAD, United Nations Publication. UNCTAD/RMT/2008. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/rmt2008_en.pdf. Accessed 14.04.2010
  24. Vis IFA (2006) A comparative analysis of storage and retrieval equipment at a container terminal. Int J Prod Econ 103(2):680–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vis IFA, de Koster R (2003) Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: An overview. Eur J Oper Res 147(1):1–16CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Vis IFA, Roodbergen KJ (2009) Scheduling of container storage and retrieval. Oper Res 57(2):456–467CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Watanabe I (2006) Container terminal planning—a theoretical approach. WoldCargo News, LeatherheadGoogle Scholar
  28. Wiese J, Kliewer N, Suhl L (2009) A survey of container terminal characteristics and equipment types. Technical report 0901, DS&OR Lab, University of Paderborn. http://dsor.upb.de/uploads/tx_dsorpublications/DSOR_WP_0901.pdf
  29. Wiese J, Suhl L, Kliewer N (2010) Mathematical models and solution methods for optimal container terminal yard layouts. OR Spectr 32(3):427–452CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Support and Operations Research LabUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.Department of Information SystemsFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations