Evaluation of the Floaterm Concept via Simulation Dulebenets M., Deligiannis N., Flaskou M., Sarker A. Department of Civil Engineering and Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute, University of Memphis, TN Logistics, Trade, and Transportation Symposium 2014 Southeastern Opportunities and Challenges Gulfport, Mississippi February 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 Vehicle RTG: Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane 12,000 TEUs per vessel –Various container composition (import/export/transshipment) Item\TerminalCMTFMT Berth3 Vessel/berth1 QCs/berth32+1 ITVs/QC group1510 Yard blocks/storage area105 RTGs/storage area1510

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 Research 1)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”,, Accessed Feb. 14, 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 Simulation Dulebenets M., Deligiannis N., Flaskou M., Sarker A. Department of Civil Engineering and Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute, University of Memphis, TN Logistics, Trade, and Transportation Symposium 2014 Southeastern Opportunities and Challenges Gulfport, Mississippi February 26-27, 2014