Evaluation of the Floaterm Concept via Simulation Dulebenets M., Deligiannis N., Flaskou M., Sarker A. Department of Civil Engineering and Intermodal Freight.

Evaluation of the Floaterm Concept via

SimulationDulebenets M., Deligiannis N., Flaskou M., Sarker

A.

Department of Civil Engineering and Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute, University of

Memphis, TNLogistics, Trade, and Transportation Symposium 2014 Southeastern Opportunities and Challenges

Gulfport, MississippiFebruary 26-27, 2014

Introduction• How to meet growing demand at marine

container terminals?

• Floaterm concept (Ashar, A. and Liftech, Inc. early 2000)

• Feasibility study by Delft University (the Netherlands)– Concept originally applied at the Ceres Terminal

(Amsterdam, the Netherlands) in 2002

Study Motivation• Quantify new concept benefits (if any)

• Savings in equipment

• Investment and operational costs

• Quay crane (QC) productivity and makespan

Conventional Marine Terminal (CMT)

Source: Portworker Development Programme. International Labour Office. Maritime Industries Team

Floaterm Marine Terminal (FMT)

Source: Liftech, Inc. (2007)

Data• The main terminal characteristics:

ITV: Internal Transport VehicleRTG: Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane

• 12,000 TEUs per vessel – Various container composition (import/export/transshipment)

Item\Terminal CMT FMTBerth 3Vessel/berth 1QCs/berth 3 2+1ITVs/QC group 15 10Yard blocks/storage area 10 5RTGs/storage area 15 10

Scenario Analysis• 3 data sets varying:

- # of on-shore QCs (3, 4, 5);- # of off-shore QCs (1, 2, 3);- container composition

- Transshipment: 25%, 33%, 40%, 50%, 60%- Import/Export: 50%-50% split of remainder

• QC productivity = F(ITV, GC)– Function established via simulation

• 20-year economic analysis

Findings: FMT vs CMT• 19.4% less Yard Trucks (YTs) and 24.0% less

Automatic Lift Vehicles (ALVs)

• 10.6% and 19.0% less Gantry Cranes (GCs) with YT and ALV deployment (respectively)

• Lower costs for site development and operations (especially with high transshipments)

• Higher cost for equipment

Findings: FMT vs CMT• Average QC productivity

– With YT: 35.7 moves/hour (8.6% higher than CMT)– With ALV: 38.2 moves/hour (1.0% higher than

CMT)

• Average savings over 20-year– With YT: $44.12 million– With ALV: $17.27 million

• The FMT will facilitate handling of mega-containerships

EACH TERMINAL IS UNIQUE

Source: GOOGLE

Future Research1) Effects of buffer area size at seaside/marshaling yard on

the terminal performance;

2) Sensitivity analysis for various ITV speeds, QC and GC configurations;

3) Mixed ITV gang deployment;

4) Handling of import containers by off-shore QCs;

5) Model a mid-stream application of the floaterm concept;

References• Ashar, A., 2013, “Long-term trends in container shipping –

the revised Forth Revolution, 2012”, <www.asafashar.com>, Accessed Feb. 14, 2013.

• Liftech Inc., 2007, “The floaterm concept: reducing terminal congestion with waterside cranes”, AAPA Seaports Magazine.

• UNCTAD, 2013, “Recent developments and trends in international maritime transport affecting trade of developing countries”, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

THANK YOU

Q/A

Evaluation of the Floaterm Concept via

SimulationDulebenets M., Deligiannis N., Flaskou M., Sarker

A.

Department of Civil Engineering and Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute, University of

Memphis, TNLogistics, Trade, and Transportation Symposium 2014 Southeastern Opportunities and Challenges

Gulfport, MississippiFebruary 26-27, 2014