Advertisement

Container Terminal Environment

  • Filip Covic
Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

The three main operational areas of a container terminal, namely the waterside, yard and landside area, are briefly sketched in order to enable a basic understanding of the processes relevant for the analysis in subsequent chapters. Main planning problems, which occur in the three operational areas, are introduced and described, respectively. Coming from a general view on the entire terminal operations, a closer look is taken at the yard block level being the operational area relevant for the research statement of the work. Here, basic terminology is defined and different yard block layouts, the corresponding yard crane systems and the implications for handling operations and yard crane movement are described. Within this overview, the focus is put on automation leading to a brief statement and comparison of variants of automated stacking cranes with single and multiple cranes per block. As the work is motivated from the informational context of arrival and retrieval times of containers, the properties of time information about containers at the waterside and landside are identified and possible systems of vehicle arrival management for estimating the time information are conveyed. Following from this, the problem environment of the research study is formulated.

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 (3): 615–627Google Scholar
  2. Bierwirth C, Meisel F (2015) A follow-up survey of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling problems in container terminals. Eur J Oper Res 244 (3): 675–689Google Scholar
  3. Borgman B, van Asperen E, Dekker R (2010) Online rules for container stacking. OR Spectr 32 (3): 687–716Google Scholar
  4. Boysen N, Stephan K (2016) A survey on single crane scheduling in automated storage/retrieval systems. Eur J Oper Res 254 (3): 691–704Google Scholar
  5. Boysen N, Fliedner M, Jaehn F, Pesch E (2013) A survey on container processing in railway yards. Transp Sci 47 (3): 312–329Google Scholar
  6. Boysen N, Briskorn D, Meisel F (2017) A generalized classification scheme for crane scheduling with interference. Eur J Oper Res 258 (1): 343–357Google Scholar
  7. Brinkmann B (2011) Operations systems of container terminals: a compendious overview. In: Böse JW (ed) Handbook of terminal planning. Volume 49 of operations research/computer science interfaces series. Springer, New York, pp 25–39Google Scholar
  8. Carlo HJ, Vis IFA, Roodbergen KJ (2014a) Storage yard operations in container terminals: literature overview, trends, and research directions. Eur J Oper Res 235 (2): 412–430Google Scholar
  9. Carlo HJ, Vis IFA, Roodbergen KJ (2014b) Transport operations in container terminals: literature overview, trends, research directions and classification scheme. Eur J Oper Res 236 (1): 1–13Google Scholar
  10. Carlo HJ, Vis IFA, Roodbergen KJ (2015) Seaside operations in container terminals: literature overview, trends, and research directions. Flex Serv Manuf J 27 (2–3): 224–262Google Scholar
  11. Caserta M, Schwarze S, Voß S (2011) Container rehandling at maritime container terminals. In: Böse JW (ed) Handbook of terminal planning. Volume 49 of operations research/computer science interfaces series. Springer, New York, pp 247–269Google Scholar
  12. Chen X, Zhou X, List GF (2011) Using time-varying tolls to optimize truck arrivals at ports. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 47 (6): 965–982Google Scholar
  13. Chen G, Govindan K, Yang ZZ, Choi TM, Jiang L (2013) Terminal appointment system design by non-stationary M(t)∕E kc(t) queueing model and genetic algorithm. Int J Prod Econ 146 (2):694–703Google Scholar
  14. Choi HR, Kim HS, Park BJ, Park NK, Lee SW (2003) An ERP approach for container terminal operating systems. Marit Policy Manag 30 (3): 197–210Google Scholar
  15. Covic F (2017) Re-marshalling in automated container yards with terminal appointment systems. Flex Serv Manuf J 29 (3–4): 433–503Google Scholar
  16. Davis P (2009) Container terminal reservation systems. In: 3rd annual METRANS national urban freight conference, Long BeachGoogle Scholar
  17. Dekker R, Voogd P, van Asperen E (2007) Advanced methods for container stacking. In: Kim KH, Günther HO (eds) Container terminals and cargo systems.Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 131–154Google Scholar
  18. Dorndorf U, Schneider F (2010) Scheduling automated triple cross-over stacking cranes in a container yard. OR Spectr 32 (3): 617–632Google Scholar
  19. Eilken A (2017) Yard crane scheduling at maritime container terminals. Ph.D. thesis, University of HamburgGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia MD, González-Ramírez RG, Mar-Ortiz J (2017) The impact of lanes segmentation and booking levels on a container terminal gate congestion. Flex Serv Manuf J 29 (3–4): 403–432Google Scholar
  21. Giuliano G, O’Brien T (2007) Reducing port-related truck emissions: the terminal gate appointment system at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Transp Res D Transp Environ 12 (7): 453–528Google Scholar
  22. Goodchild AV, Daganzo CF (2006) Double-cycling strategies for container ships and their effect on ship loading and unloading operations. Transp Sci 40 (4): 473–483Google Scholar
  23. Günther HO, Kim KH (2006) Container terminals and terminal operations. OR Spectr 28 (4): 437–445Google Scholar
  24. Gupta A, Roy D, de Koster R, Parhi S (2017) Optimal stack layout in a sea container terminal with automated lifting vehicles. Int J Prod Res 55 (13): 3747–3765Google Scholar
  25. Hamburger Hafen und Logistik (HHLA) (2016) Vormeldepflicht fuer LKW-Transporte. https://hhla.de/de/trucker-info/vormeldepflicht.html. Hamburger Hafen und Logisitk AG. Accessed on 16 Mar 2017
  26. Hamburger Hafen und Logistik (HHLA) (2017a) Technische Daten Altenwerder. https://hhla.de/de/container/altenwerder-cta/technische-daten.html. Hamburger Hafen und Logisitk AG. Accessed on 21 Dec 2017
  27. Hamburger Hafen und Logistik (HHLA) (2017b) Technische Daten Burchardkai. https://hhla.de/de/container/burchardkai-ctb/technische-daten.html. Hamburger Hafen und Logisitk AG. Accessed on 21 Dec 2017
  28. Hamburger Hafen und Logistik (HHLA) (2017c) So funktioniert CTA. https://hhla.de/de/container/altenwerder-cta/so-funktioniert-cta.html. Hamburger Hafen und Logisitk AG. Accessed on 22 Dec 2017
  29. Harbor Department L.A. (2014, transmittal) Container terminal automation. Technical report, Harbor Department, Planning and Economic Development Division, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  30. Hartmann S (2004) A general framework for scheduling equipment and manpower at container terminals. OR Spectr 26 (1): 51–74Google Scholar
  31. Hendriks M, Laumanns M, Lefeber E, Udding JT (2010) Robust cyclic berth planning of container vessels. OR Spectr 32 (3): 501–517Google Scholar
  32. Hu L, Shi X, Voß S, Zhang W (2011) Application of RFID technology at the entrance gate of container terminals. In: Böse JW, Hu H, Jahn C, Shi X, Stahlbock R, Voß S (eds) Computational logistics, ICCL 2011. Volume 6971 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 209–220Google Scholar
  33. Huynh N (2005) Methodologies for reducing truck turn time at marine container terminals. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  34. Intersecretariat Working Group on Transport Statistics (IWG.Trans) (2003) Glossary for transport statistics. Technical report, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  35. Jin JG, Lee DH, Cao JX (2016) Storage yard management in maritime container terminals. Transp Sci 50 (4): 1300–1313Google Scholar
  36. Kalmar C (2015) Next generation Kalmar ASC system. https://www.kalmarglobal.com/globalassets/equipment/automated-stacking-cranes/the-next-generation-kalmar-asc-system.pdf. Product leaflet. Accessed on 08 Mar 2018
  37. Kalmar C (2017) New lease of life for HHLA Burchardkai. https://www.kalmarglobal.com/customer-cases/all-customer-cases/hhla-ctb-germany/. Customer case HHLA, CTB. Accessed on 22 Dec 2017
  38. Kemme N (2011) RMG crane scheduling and stacking: overview and implications on terminal planning. In: Böse JW (ed) Handbook of terminal planning. Volume 49 of operations research/computer science interfaces series. Springer, New York, pp 271–297Google Scholar
  39. Kemme N (2013) Design and operation of automated container storage systems. Contributions to management science, 1st edn. Physica, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  40. Lange AK, Schwientek A, Jahn C (2017) Reducing truck congestion at ports: classification and trends. In: Jahn C, Kersten W, Ringle CM (eds) Digitalization in maritime and sustainable logistics. epubli, Berlin, pp 37–58Google Scholar
  41. Maguire A, Ivey S, Golias MM, Lipinski ME (2010) Relieving congestion at intermodal marine container terminals: review of tactical/operational strategies. In: 51st annual transportation research forum, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. Monaco MF, Sammarra M, Sorrentino G (2014) The terminal-oriented ship stowage planning problem. Eur J Oper Res 239 (1): 256–265Google Scholar
  43. Morais P, Lord E (2006) Terminal appointment system study. In: Transport Canada publication TP 14570E, Transportation Development Centre of Transport Canada, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  44. Namboothiri R, Erea AL (2008) Planning local container drayage operations given a port access appointment system. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 44 (2): 185–202Google Scholar
  45. Peoples J, Talley WK (2004) Owner-operator truck driver earnings and employment: port cities and deregulation. Res Transp Econ 10: 191–213Google Scholar
  46. Petering MEH (2011) Decision support for yard capacity, fleet composition, truck substitutability, and scalability issues at seaport container terminals. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 47 (1): 85–103Google Scholar
  47. Petering MEH, Wu Y, Li W, Goh M, de Souza R (2009) Development and simulation analysis of real-time yard crane control systems for seaport container transshipment terminals. OR Spectr 31 (4): 801–835Google Scholar
  48. PierPass, PierPass Inc (2015) PierPass terminals embrace appointment systems at Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to control congestion. http://www.pierpass.org/appointment-systems/. Accessed on 09 Mar 2018
  49. Port of Antwerp, Port of Antwerp Community System (2014) PSA TAMS. http://www.portofantwerp.com/apcs/en/node/464. Accessed on 23 Jan 2018
  50. Port of Hamburg, Hafen Hamburg Marketing e.V. (2018) Expected vessels. https://www.hafen-hamburg.de/en/vessels/eta. Accessed on 19 Jan 2018
  51. Port Technology, Maritime Information Services Ltd (2017) Noatum terminal invests in rail-mounted gantry cranes. https://www.porttechnology.org/news/noatum_terminal_invests_in_rail_mounted_gantry_cranes. Accessed on 22 Dec 2017
  52. PSA Singapore, PSA International Pte Ltd (2018) Transhipment. https://www.singaporepsa.com/about-us/core-business. Accessed on 08 Mar 2018
  53. Ranau M (2011) Planning approach for dimensioning of automated traffic areas at seaport container terminals. In: Böse JW (ed) Handbook of terminal planning. Volume 49 of operations research/computer science interfaces series. Springer, New York, pp 179–193Google Scholar
  54. Roanoke Regional Partnership, Roanoke County, VA (2017) TMEIC signs world’s largest single automated-stacking cranes order. https://roanoke.org/2017/02/07/tmeic-signs-worlds-largest-single-automated-stacking-cranes-order/. Accessed on 22 Dec 2017
  55. Rotterdam World Gateway (RWG) (2018a) Operational information. https://rwgservices.rwg.nl/Information/OperationalInformation. Accessed on 23 Jan 2018
  56. Schwarze S, Voß S, Zhou G, Zhou G (2012) Scientometric analysis of container terminals and ports literature and interaction with publications on distribution networks. In: Hu H, Shi X, Stahlbock R, Voß S (eds) Computational logistics, ICCL 2012. Volume 7555 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 33–52Google Scholar
  57. Speer U, Fischer K (2017) Scheduling of different automated yard crane systems at container terminals. Transp Sci 51 (1): 305–324Google Scholar
  58. Stahlbock R, Voß S (2008a) Operations research at container terminals: a literature update. OR Spectr 30 (1): 1–52Google Scholar
  59. Stahlbock R, Voß S (2008b) Vehicle routing problems and container terminal operations: an update of research. In: Golden B, Raghavan S, Wasil E (eds) The vehicle routing problem: latest advances and new challenges. Volume 43 of operations research/computer science interfaces. Springer, Boston, pp 551–589Google Scholar
  60. Steenken D, Voß S, Stahlbock R (2004) Container terminal operation and operations research: a classification and literature review. OR Spectr 26 (1): 3–49Google Scholar
  61. TABS (Terminal Appointment Booking System) (2018) About. http://1-stop.com.ph/about/. 1-stop connections Pty Ltd. Accessed on 23 Jan 2018
  62. Tierney K, Voß S, Stahlbock R (2014) A mathematical model of inter-terminal transportation. Eur J Oper Res 235 (2): 448–460Google Scholar
  63. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (2017) Review of maritime transport 2017. UNCTAD/RMT/2017, United Nations, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  64. van Asperen E, Borgman B, Dekker R (2013) Evaluating impact of truck announcements on container stacking efficiency. Flex Serv Manuf J 25 (4): 543–556Google Scholar
  65. van Ham JC (2005) The feasibility of mega container vessels. Eur Transp 25–26: 89–98Google Scholar
  66. Verny J, Grigentin C (2009) Container shipping on the Northern Sea Route. Int J Prod Econ 122 (1): 107–117Google Scholar
  67. Vis IFA, de Koster R (2003) Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: an overview. Eur J Oper Res 147 (1): 1–16Google Scholar
  68. Voß S (2012) Extended mis-overlay calculation for pre-marshalling containers. In: Hu H, Shi X, Stahlbock R, Voß S (eds) Computational logistics, ICCL 2012. Volume 7555 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 86–91Google Scholar
  69. Wiese J, Suhl L, Kliewer N (2011) Planning container terminal layouts considering equipment types and storage block design. In: Böse JW (ed) Handbook of terminal planning. Volume 49 of operations research/computer science interfaces series. Springer, New York, pp 219–245Google Scholar
  70. Wu Y, Li W, Petering MEH, Goh M, de Souza R (2015) Scheduling multiple yard cranes with crane interference and safety distance requirement. Transp Sci 49 (4): 990–1005Google Scholar
  71. Zehendner E, Feillet D (2014a) Benefits of a truck appointment system on the service quality of inland transport modes at a multimodal container terminal. Eur J Oper Res 235 (2): 461–469Google Scholar
  72. Zhang C, Liu J, Wan Y, Murty KG, Linn RL (2003) Storage space allocation in container terminals. Transp Res B Methodol 37 (10): 883–903Google Scholar
  73. Zhao W, Goodchild AV (2010) The impact of truck arrival information on container terminal rehandling. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 46 (3): 327–343Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filip Covic
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Operations Research, HBS Hamburg Business SchoolUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations