Advertisement

Planning Container Terminal Layouts Considering Equipment Types and Storage Block Design

  • Jörg WieseEmail author
  • Leena Suhl
  • Natalia Kliewer
Chapter
Part of the Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series book series (ORCS, volume 49)

Abstract

Currently, several container terminals are being expanded, redesigned or newly built. In all those cases the layout of the container terminal has to be designed. We discuss different technologies which can be used for container terminal operation and describe their impact on the terminal layout. Different container terminal layout categories are defined. For a layout which is typical for the use of automated rail-mounted gantry cranes we propose a procedure to calculate promising storage yard configurations. The results show that smaller block widths lead to higher yard performances, but also to higher cost. Using the proposed block design problem, we are able to calculate all non-dominated solutions, which enables terminal planners to choose a solution for their specific situation. Moreover, we analyze the impact of the reefer racks distribution on the yard performance. The results show that an equal distribution of reefer racks over the existing storage blocks allows the best workload distribution.

Keywords

Container Terminal Quay Crane Horizontal Transport Transfer Point Layout Planning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Annala I (2007) Shuttle applications offer mega results. Kalmar around the world (3):4–5Google Scholar
  2. Asef-Vaziri A, Khoshnevis B, Rahimi M (2008) Design and analysis of an automated container handling system in seaports. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management 3(1/2):112–126Google Scholar
  3. Brinkmann B (2005) Seehäfen Planung und Entwurf. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Chu CY, Huang WC (2005) Determining container terminal capacity on the basis of an adopted yard handling system. Transport Reviews 25(2):181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ficke S, Schütt H (2008) ConRoCAPS – Modelling Intermodal Terminals to Calculate their Capacity. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Harbour, Maritime & Multimodal Logistics Modeling & Simulation, DIPTEM Press, Genova, pp 246–250Google Scholar
  6. Froyland G, Koch T, Megow N, Duane E, Wren H (2008) Optimizing the landside operation of a container terminal. OR Spectrum 30:53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hu YH, Huang SY, Chen C, Hsu WJ, Toh AC, Loh CK, Song T (2005) Travel time analysis of a new automated storage and retrieval system. Computers & Operations Research 32(6):1515–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hu YH, Zhu ZD, Hsu WJ (2008) As/rs based yard and yard planning. Journal of Zhejiang University – Science A 9(8):1083–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kalmar Industries (2010) KALMAR E-DRIVE® ESC W STRADDLE CARRIERS. www.kalmarind.com/show.php?id=1020636, accessed August 25, 2010
  10. Kim KH, Park YM, Jin MJ (2008) An optimal layout of container yards. OR Spectrum 30(4):675–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu CI, Jula H, Ioannou P (2002) Design, simulation, and evaluation of automated container terminals. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 3(1):12–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu CI, Jula H, Vukadinovic K, Ioannou P (2004) Automated guided vehicle system for two container yard layouts. Transportation Research Part C 12:349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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), CD-ROM Publication, pp 117–127Google Scholar
  14. Petering MEH (2009) Effect of block width and storage yard layout on marine container terminal performance. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 45:591–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Petering MEH, Murty KG (2009) Effect of block length and yard crane deployment systems on overall performance at a seaport container transshipment terminal. Computers & Operations Research 36(5):1711–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roodbergen KJ, Vis IF (2009) A survey of literature on automated storage and retrieval systems. European Journal of Operational Research 194(2):343–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saanen YA, Valkengoed MV (2005) Comparison of Three Automated Stacking Alternatives by Means of Simulation. In: WSC ’05: Proceedings of the 37th Conference on Winter Simulation, Winter Simulation Conference, pp 1567–1576Google Scholar
  18. Stahlbock R, Voß S (2008) Operations research at container terminals: a literature update. OR Spectrum 30(1):1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vis IFA (2006) A comparative analysis of storage and retrieval equipment at a container terminal. International Journal of Production Economics 103(2):680–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wiese J, Kliewer N, Suhl L (2009a) A Survey of Container Terminal Characteristics and Equipment Types. Technical Report 0901, DS&OR Lab, University of Paderborn, PaderbornGoogle Scholar
  21. Wiese J, Suhl L, Kliewer N (2009b) Mathematical programming and simulation based layout planning of container terminals. International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling 5:313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ZPMC (2009) Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co.Ltd – ZPMC’S Ten Technology Achievements of RTG. http://www.zpmc.com/view.php?cid=26&tid=105&page=5, accessed August 25, 2010

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Support & Operations Research Lab – University of PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Information Systems – Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations