Driven by IT: Innovations in Port Operations

Home , Altenwerder, Francop, Port of Hamburg, Waltershof

Terminal Operation optimized by Emulation and Simulation Technology Prof. Dr.-Ing. Holger Schütt

October 27th 2010

American Association of Port Authorities 703.684.5700 • www.aapa-ports.org 1 Agenda

• Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics

• Terminal planning and operation supported by simulation/emulation technology

2 Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics

ISL Bremen, Universitaetsallee

ISL Bremerhaven, t.i.m.e.Port II

3 Short Profile

Legal Form Independent, private non-profit foundation

Our Philosophy Research based consultancy institute Founded in 1954 Locations Bremen, Bremerhaven

Capacity 60 permanent staff members Prof. Dr. Hans-Dietrich Haasis

Prof. Dr. Manfred Zachcial Directorate Prof. Dr. Frank Arendt

Prof. Dr. Burkhard Lemper

Board of Trustees Decision makers from industry, science and politics

Scientific Advisory Experts from transport industry, commerce and science Board Companies and individual members from the maritime Sponsoring Body industry

4 Information Logistics Two special competence centers are located in Bremerhaven: Auto-ID and Security in Container Transport

Optimisation, Simulation and 3D-Visualisation of terminals

5 Containerterminal

• Simulation* : SCUSY, CAPS und CRASY • Various operation systems, terminals of different sizes, strategies • worldwide Consulting • Sale of simulation tools • Device-Emulator ViTO • Test bed for TOS (Terminal Operating System) • Operations Research in logistics • Order distribution • Stowage planning • Pooling • COSMA • Container Management System for small sized terminals • incl. Automation

* 6 Terminal planning and optimisation

29.10.2010 7 Simulation tools: Terminal Planning&Optimisation

8 Experiences with emulation technology

1989 1991

development of SCUSY head of division simulation - module based architecture at consultancy company - layout editor, input module within HHLA group - simulation module - emulation of high bay warehouse - evaluation module -simulation/emulation support of automated CT Altenwerder/Germany (1999-2002, emulators still in use) 2003

- concept of a SCUSY based emulation product Warsteiner yard/crane emulator - development of DeCoNet (comm. network) Siemens crane emulator - Eurogate group 1st client (for all terminals) Update warehouse emulator DHL - client may use ViTO ZPMC horizontal transp. emulator -configuration of terminal layout -assignment of devices and jobs - external emulators may be plugged to ViTO

9 Hinterland logistics

• Goods flow simulation • TRIPS (Port call strategies) • Hinterland terminal • Simulation of logistic processes using standard tools • Offshore wind farms • Operations Research in logistics • E.g. warehousing • 3D Visualisation • Animation toolbox • Specific tools • IYCAPS Simulation of intermodal Yards • ATIS AutoTerminal- Information and Management System • CRASY Crane Simulation System

10 Optimisation and Simulation – References

APM Terminals MTL, Hong Kong ASEAN Terminals, Philippines Nhava Sheva Terminal, India Bejaia Mediterranean Terminal, Algeria Noell Crane Systems, Germany Centerm Terminal, Vancouver, Canada NTB, Bremerhaven, Germany Contship, La Spezia, Italy P&O Headquarter, London, Europe CSX, Jacksonville, USA Port of Odessa, Ukraine DP World Terminal Antwerp, Europe Port of Tacoma, USA DP World, Australia PORTEK International Ltd., Singapore EUROGATE, Bremerhaven, Germany Ports America, North America EUROGATE, Hamburg, Germany Red Sea Gateway Terminal, Jeddah, UAE HHLA, Hamburg , Germany Sandwell Eng. Inc., Vancouver, Canada HPA Hamburg Port Authority, Germany SCT, Southampton, U.K. HIT, Hong Kong TRP, Buenos Aires, Argentina JadeWeserPort, Germany VTE, Genoa, Italy Kalmar Industries, Finland Warsteiner Brewery, Germany MCT, Gioia Tauro, Italy

11 Simulation tools: Terminal Planning&Optimisation

12 Data analysis Standard parameter

2500000 TEU throughput p.a. 66,67% % share of 40' boxes 1500000 boxes throughput p.a. 8,00% % peak factor 2,00% % shortsea

modal split throughput p.a. import export import export import export % % TEU TEU boxes boxes total 50,00% 50,00% 1.250.000 1.250.000 750.000 750.000 shortsea 2,00% 2,00% 25.000 25.000 15.000 15.000 transhipment 18,00% 18,00% 225.000 225.000 135.000 135.000 landside 82,00% 82,00% 800.000 800.000 480.000 480.000 gate 60,00% 60,00% 480.000 480.000 288.000 288.000 rail 40,00% 40,00% 320.000 320.000 192.000 192.000

Container flow p.a. total TEU MV FV 225.000

225.000

320.000

480.000 320.000 480.000 Gate Rail

13 Data analysis

container mix import transhipment gate railway empties 3,45% 45,00% 45,00% reefer 8,00% 5,00% 5,00% oversize 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% hazardous 0,00% 0,00% dwell0,00% time standard 88,55% 50,00% 50,00% import transhipment gate railway standard 7,00 9,00 9,00 empties 9,00 8,00 8,00 reefers 7,00 9,00 9,00 oversize 7,00 9,00 9,00 hazardous 7,00 9,00 9,00

average utilization [TEU in terminal]

MTY TEU in standard blocks TEU

transhipment gate railway add. landside incl. MTY/ import export import export import export movem. total standard standard 3.820,99 3.821,07 5.917,81 5.866,75 3.945,21 3.911,17 0,00 27.283,00 27.283,00 empties 191,40 191,31 4.734,25 1.856,57 3.156,16 1.237,71 0,00 11.367,40 11.367,40 reefer 345,21 345,21 591,78 631,23 394,52 420,82 0,00 2.728,77 2.728,77 oversize 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 hazardous 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

14 Static view

 no simulation needed

15 ISL Profil 16

29.10.2010 Terminal capacity

• 1,500 m quay length • 24/7 operation • Average vessel length 330 m (incl. safety distance) • Average throughput per vessel 2,300 TEU • Average service time 24 h

•  Theoretical capacity (1,500 / 330) * 365 *2,300 TEU ~ 3.8 MTEU pa ????

Static view is insufficient  Simulation is recommended

17 CAPS

Tool for determination of the maximum possible throughput of a container terminal Where is the bottleneck of the terminal? (Quay or stacking area) How much throughput does a terminal cope with the existing capacity?

Support and information concerning the questions quay utilisation no. of cranes required no. of stacking slots required yard utilisation

Main modules

20 Capacity planning

What will be the result if an other What‘s the impact vessel mix will of vessel‘s arrive? accuracy?

Terminal capacity : 2,85 MTEU pa

What will be the result if QC‘s ...... productivity decreases from 30 to 27 mv/h?

21 Simulation cycle

22 Reuse existing simulation models for sensitivity analysis and for getting a better understanding of the real terminal

23 Simulation tools:: Terminal planning and Optimisation

24 24 SCUSY

Tool for decision making processes on the strategic and design level planning of new terminals expansion or reorganisation of existing terminals

Support and information concerning the questions best type of equipment no. of facilities changes in layout test of different strategies for operation

25 © ISL 2010 25 Various layouts, which one is the best?

TandemStraddleDual hoist lift carrier cranes,cranes, 1o3 truck/chassisshuttle carrier, and RMG RTG

27 Layout definition

31 ... But what are Case study the ecological Comparison of operation systems selectedimpacts of the terminal? SC 1 over 3 RTG/TC RMG/AGV auto No. of STSCs 12 12 12 No. of SCs 45 X X No. of TCs/AGVs X 53 56 No.of RTGs/RMGs X 25 17 STSC operation hours 1130 1074 1057 equipment use SC operation hours 5016 X X TC/AGV operation hours X 5683 5300 RTG/RMG operation hours X 3141 2737 The decision from aver. an service economical time external trucksview is supported20 min 8 min 4 min based on operational averagecosts serviceand investmenttime 13.6 12 11.7 DS1000 aver. moves/hr (total) 147.0 167.0 171.0 aver. moves/hr per STSC 29.5 32.3 33.4 average service time 12.5 10.5 10.1 DS800 aver. moves/hr (total) 128.0 152.0 158.0 evaluation aver. moves/hr per STSC 29.3 31.5 32.9 average service time 4.5 4.3 4.1 production F120 aver. moves/hr (total) 53.0 56.0 59.0 centres aver. moves/hr per STSC 21.3 21.6 22.83 average service time 8.8 8.0 7.8 F250 aver. moves/hr (total) 57.0 62.33 64.0 aver. moves/hr per STSC 20.4 21.5 22.6 total berth operation time 218.0 195.0 189.0 costs costs per move [€] 143.36 157.44 132.76

32 32 Ecological impact

device type device definition noise parameter

EPSIC state/time EPSIC simulation acoustic - per device output - per sector calculations

simulation interface formulars climate layout corrections

terminalsimulation acoustic parameters noise analysis

33 SCUSY-EPSIC

• E mbedding an acoustic evaluation in the • P lanning programme • S CUSY to improve noise control regarding • I mmission and emission in planning and reorganisation of • C ontainer terminals

34 Use the results of simulation for economic aspects as well as for ecologic aspects

35 Handshakes during discharging, Straddle

No further handshake required

1. QC  SC handshake with buffer

Straddle carrier 1o3

36 Handshakes during discharging, AGV

2. AGV  YG direct handshake no buffer 1. QC  AGV direct handshake no buffer

37 Example horizontal transport

40 Example horizontal transport 1. QC  trolley 2. Trolley  v-crane direct handshake direct handshake no buffer no buffer

3. v-crane - trolley direct handshake no buffer

4. trolley - YG direct handshake no buffer

41 Direct handshake between devices requires synchronisation between devices

 the more direct handshakes are required the complexer the control software will be

42 Typical layout of automated terminals Technical: What may be QC: >40 mv/h terminals total Technical: productivity ? AGV à 12 mv/h

Technical: YG à 18 mv/h

43 Impacts to QC productivity

Technical P. (100%) Potential for optimisation Achievable (80- Increase no. of transport 90%) devices stowage plan Synchronise devices (TOS) Hatch cover m. Decoupled handshake Increase device utilisation Short distance algorithms Real P. (50-80%) Effective pre planning (yard and eqiupment) …

44 Equipment and Control

• Central control instead of decentral intelligence • Prevention of Collisions • Direct handshake requires synchronisation

•  Terminal Operating Systems are getting more and more complex

Within the first step the development of the IT for the fully automated Terminal in Altenwerder had cost 26 M€ (Interview with IT Director Michael Busch, Logistik Heute, 7-8/2004)

45 46 Virtual Terminal Optimisation Tool

What is ViTO? more science based

universal Vi rtual distributed open To olbox to plan, restructure or realize container terminals

Original ViTO screenshot

47 47 Emulation

Emulation definition: A model that accepts the same inputs and produces

the same outputs as a given system IEEE 610.3-1989 Emulation main concept: Use the same TOS and switch between real or virtual terminal

TOS Terminal Operating System

switch

Real Virtual

48 Benefits vs. costs Example for a study to optimise productivity

the study costs some 80 T€

operational cost (incl. personal) of the terminal (2.7 MTEU throughput) are some100 M€ p.a.

QC RTG TC FLT No. 14 50 60 13 Op. Hours 5.500 3.500 4.500 4.000 Fixcosts p.a 8.925.000 € 7.625.000 € 4.104.000 € 478.400 € Op. costs pa. 12.320.000 € 14.000.000 € 10.800.000 € 3.380.000 € Personal costs 23.100.000 € 13.125.000 € 20.250.000 € 3.900.000 € sum p.a. 44.345.000 € 34.750.000 € 35.154.000 € 7.758.400 € total p.a. 122.007.400 €

1% increase in productivity leads to some 1 M€ p.a.

52 Virtual Terminal Optimisation Tool

Main fields of ViTO what can you do with a virtual container terminal?

• Real-time 3D visualization of (planned and real) terminal operation • Planning and Reorganisation of container terminals via simulation • Development & testing of Terminal Operation Systems (TOS) • Validating the TOS functionality e.g. alternative strategies • On-the-job training of TOS • and more 

Original ViTO screenshot

53 53 Evaluation Module Virtual Terminal Optimisation Tool

ViTO main modules what programs can be used • Project Manager 3D Terminal Viewer • 2D Terminal Editor Emulation Manager • 3D Terminal Viewer

• Input Module (base data)

• Simulation Module (SCUSY simulation)

• Emulation Manager(with more than 10 further emulators) • Evaluation Module • Utilities Terminal Editor Project Manager Input Module Simulation

54 Virtual Terminal Optimisation Tool

Supported terminal areas what can you design with ViTO?

• Container stacks with single Containers

• Internal and external traffic network with one-way roads • Gates • Truck interchanges • Rail tracks • Berth (Quay) areas • Parking areas • (import of own 3D models is possible (e.g. in 3ds format) All supported areas in an unlimited quantity

Original ViTO screenshot

55 55 Virtual Terminal Optimisation Tool

Terminal devices in the standard package what can be moved with ViTO?

• Quay Cranes (movement and collision)

• Straddle Carrier (collision control at handling areas) • Forklifts and Reach Stackers • External Trucks

• Vessels (import of real Baplie files possible) • RMG and RTG *

• Terminal-Chassis and AVGs (collision control at handling areas) • All in an unlimited quantity and with customizable technical data & models (e.g. 3ds format)

* under development

56 Virtual Terminal Optimisation Tool

Individual features what can additionally be done with ViTO?

• Interface to TOS • Special logic of internal equipment handling (especially manned devices) • Import of terminal layout (direct import or comparison between TOS and ViTO) • Straddle Carrier, Terminal Chassis, AGVs: collision control in the traffic network • Import of external device emulators (also written in other languages, e.g. Java) •

* under development

57 ViTO – Emulation architecture

online offline

Device Communication Network

Quay Equipment Gate Emulator Emulator Emulator

3D realtime Yard and animation Emulator more..

online offline

58 ViTO – Virtual Container Terminal Optimising

Message exchange between clients = XML

Straddle Client 2 Client … Emulator

Device Communication Network

Emulation Logger Realtime 3D Animation Manager See also: ViTO Interface Specification

29.10.2010 5959 Example SC-Terminal

Film 120 VC

60 Example collision control

FILM 2 Krane 1 Block

61 Emulation

Benefits using emulators • Failures in the TOS are recognized before terminal implementation • • Bottlenecks and design errors are discovered in an early phase • Analyzing and evaluation of alternative strategies • Check TOS updates without interrupting the operation • Checks may be realized in wear-free and energy-saving manner • Testing can be much faster (up to 100 times faster as in reality) • 3D animation may be used for demonstration and training issues • Cost efficient solution over time 

Original ViTO screenshot

62 Innovative Solutions in maritime Logistics.

Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics [email protected]

Universitaetsallee 11-13 Barkhausenstrasse 2 (t.i.m.e.Port II) 28359 Bremen 27568 Bremerhaven Germany Germany Tel. +49/4 21/2 20 96-0 Tel. +49/4 71/30 98 38-0 Fax +49/4 21/2 20 96-55 Fax +49/4 71/30 98 38-55

PorTS

Logistics and Eco - PorTS

Port Traffic System

ShippingEconomics

of Institute Institute Institut für Seeverkehrswirtschaft und und Logistik InstitutSeeverkehrswirtschaft für PorTS

Forecast of Forecast of Fleet Development Throughput Development for Port of Hamburg for several Years - Handling percentage - Container - Number of units to be handled - Liquid Bulk - Multiple port calls - Dry Bulk - Multiple cargotype mix - General Cargo - Cruise/Passenger

ShippingSchiffsverkehr Traffic on the auf Lower der ElbeUnterelbe in 2015 im (2004) Jahr 2015 (2004) (Number of Ships) (Anzahl Schiffe) (23.603)Kiel-Canal (6.301) 26.590

9.339

(12.147) (11.456) (3.566) (2.735) 13.544 (23.603) 26.590 5.046 9.339 (6.301) 13.046 4.293 Sea 13.886 (11.366) Hamburg (23.702) 28.686 28.686 (23.702) 14.800 (12.366) Pilot Study, PorTS -Emission, (C) ISL 2008

67 Container Terminal Container Terminal Container Terminal Altstadt Eurogate Burchardkai Tollerort Port of Hamburg - Future Investments E L B E Logistikarea Dredging Southwest-Indiahafen 14,5 m

Waltershof Logistics Steinwerder Kleiner Finkenwerder Grasbrook

Logisticareaand Dradenau Bf Hamburg Süd 255 Veddel

Alte Süderelbe Areal Central Freeport A 252 Restructure Finkenwerder Traffic Container Terminal / Junction Altenwerder Freight Village Port of Hamburg Altenwerder Francop WilhelmsburgFuture Investments

Hafenerweiterungsgebiet Zone II Restructuring Expansionplanning (Finished)

ShippingEconomics 7 Logistic-Area 1 Altenwerder West present of Moorburg HABIS Hafenerweiterungsgebiet proposed Zone I Network Expansion (planned) „South Rail“ Connection CTA Rail Expansion „Hafenbahn“ Expressway/ Road

Border of ther Portarea Institute Institute Institut für Seeverkehrswirtschaft und und Logistik InstitutSeeverkehrswirtschaft für Option for Port Border between actual Port Area Expansions and Port Expansion Moorburg Port Rai (Hafenbahn)l Rail link Scandinavia / Baltic Rail (Deutschen Bahn AG) Harburg (TEN) Port Infrastructure Planning, PorTS -Emission, (C) ISL Quelle: HPA2008 111-5, 07101768 www.0 isl.org1 2 3 km Datei : Fol2286-a.ppt [email protected] © ISL 2010 Fol.Nr. : 2286-a Terminal Capacity Expansion

Port Infrastructure Planning, PorTSSource - :Emission, HPA 12 Fol.No.: 2444 (C) ISL 2008 69 69 Simulation/Animation

Sea to Elbe ports or Elbe ports to sea

Sea to Kiel Canal or Kiel Canal to Sea

Tide dependent vessel from/to Hamburg

Tide independent vessel from/to Hamburg Ship-Traffic: - Direct (Sea/ Kiel Canal, Kiel Canal/ Sea) - Origin/ Elbe ports/ Destination - Origin/ Hamburg/ Destination

Port Traffic Simulation, PorTS -Emission, (C) ISL 2008 70 70 Simulation/Animation: Port of Hamburg (Zoom)

segment- waiting occupied blocking turning circle vessel turning circle

waterway

handling area

Port Traffic Simulation, PorTS -Emission, (C) ISL 2008 71 71 Main Air-Emission in Maritime Transport

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

• Sulphure Oxides (SOX)

• Nitrogene Oxides (NOX) • Particulate Matter (PM)

Pictures http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Reducing-Air-Pollution-from-Ships-IMO00133728IN.html http://www.sustainableshipping.com/image/d/1106/25000.jpg; http://static.flickr.com/56/178991726_6d1c4905f3.jpg

Air-Emmission, PorTS -Emission, (C) ISL 2008 72 Greenhouse Gas Emission from Ships

Source: IMO, Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships – Report on the outcome of the IMO Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships, MEPC 45/8, (2000), London, (Figure 3-9)

Air-Emission, PorTS -Emission, (C) ISL 2008 73 73 Main factors of influence (Air-Emission)

VESSEL Time per Segment MAIN ENGINE Status Installed KW (Sea, Maneuver, Hotel) Service speed „ENGINE LOAD“ RPM Real Speed SFOC; FUEL-Type Per Segment

AUXILIARIES AIR- Installed KW CO2 EMISSION % of Power (Status) SOx PM SFOC; FUEL-Type

NOx FUEL BOILER HFO / MDO / MGO % of Main Engine Sulfure Content Power By Status RPM Rotations per REDUCTION (per Em.Group) minute SFOC; FUEL-Type SFOC Specific fuel oil % Share of Fleet consumption HFO Heavy fuel oil % Share of Reduction MDO Marine diesel oil AMP/Shore Side Electricity MGO Marine gas oil AMP Alternative maritime Berth-Time power

74 World wide marine engines details

• Selected View on Data collection from ISL-Engine Data-Base

75 Influence an Emission

Reduction (Examples) Modern Engines After Treatments AMP

Fuel -Destilates -Sulphur content

Pictures: Tiggers, Kay (Siemens AG Hamburg), Fuel Savings on Propulsion by Recovery of Thermal Energy – the Most Efficient Opportunity to Protect the Enviroment http://www.sjofartsdir.no/upload/18198/Viking%20Line%20Solstrand%20060307.pdf www.sam-electronics.de; www.gauss.org; PorTS -Emission, (C) ISL 2008 77 77 29.10.2010 Animation of Air Emissions

Emission SOx

Intervall Per Year

< 100 Tto

100-400 Tto

> 400 Tto

29.10.2010