1. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 Identification of Economically Promising Port Architectures via Enumeration and Capacity Evaluation Jonghoe Kim and James R. Morrison Industrial and Systems Engineering of KAIST

2. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 2 Presentation overview Motivation Overall process Enumeration of port architecture Capacity evaluation Result Concluding remarks

3. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 3 Motivation Port is a complex system Trade off between reducing cost and providing good service Berth One side vs two side Reclamation vs floating Transfer Unit Truck AGV Yard Equipment RTGC RMGC Method to identify economically promising initial design with reasonable service level

4. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 4 Overall Process Enumerate All feasible architecture Find cost of architecture for each market Identify best architecture for each market

5. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 5 Enumeration of port architecture It is impossible to find all feasible architecture by hand – Each part of system has several alternatives – Illogical combination Object Process Network(OPN)[1] is a tool for enumerating complex system architectures It automatically generates feasible architecture by using large number of options and relationship between options [1] B. H. Y. Koo, “A meta-language for systems architecting,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA,2005.

6. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 6 Enumeration of port architecture 1. Set the boundaries – Container transportation system between containerships and the inland yard Land berth Container ship Offshore Transfer Unit(TU) Land berth Traditional ModeOffshore Mode

7. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 7 Enumeration of port architecture 2. Functions of the system Traditional modeOffshore mode 1. Moor/Stabilize1. Moor /Stabilize (Ship & unloading unit) 2. (Un)load2. (Un)load ( Ship & unloading unit) 3. Provide space for berthing3. Transfer ((un)loading unit & travel unit) 4. Transfer(berth-yard)4. Travel 5. Store5. Moor/Stabilize (travel unit-Berth) 6. (Un)load (travel unit -Berth) 7. Form/unstack batch (at front berth->transfer unit) 8. Provide space for berthing 9. Transfer 10. Store

8. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 8 Enumeration of port architecture 3. Explore decision variables(DVs) and options of each function 4. Find logical constraints – Prevent the generation of illogical architectures FunctionDecisionOptions Provide space for berthingShapeparallel, perpendicular Structurefloating quay, reclamation # of Sideone, two A B C D1 E F D2

9. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 9 Enumeration of port architecture 5. Build OPN model to generate feasible architectures – All feasible architecture are enumerated by selection one options for DVs – Traditional mode (9 feasible architectures of 16 total combination) – Offshore mode (128 feasible architectures of 13824 total combination)

10. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 10 Enumeration of port architecture 5. Build OPN model to generate feasible architectures Ship unload resource Transfer Resource to TU Unit integration height adjust Berth Unload resource Unload Resourc e location Forming Batch Berth Shape Berth Structure Berth Side Berth Mixed Transfer To yard Arch #Remarks normalnoyes RailRoRoportsnoperpendicularreclamationoneSideN/ARailRoRO3MFP [2] normalnoyesnocraneunitsnoparallelfloatingoneSideN/Atruck23 Mid stream operation [3] normalinterfacenoyesRailRoRoportsyesparallelreclamationoneSideN/Atruck70HMFP [4] STS noyesTireRoRoportsnoparallelreclamationoneSideN/ATireRoRo86 normalinterfacenoyesTireRoRoportsyesparallelreclamationoneSideN/Atruck99B type option [5] STS noyesTireRoRoportsyesparallelreclamationoneSideN/Atruck109 [2] N. P. Suh (2008). Mobile Harbor to Improve Ocean Transportation System. Korean patent application No. 2008-41981, filed May 2008 [3] James Jixian Wang (1998). A container load center with a developing hinterland: a case study of Hong Kong. Journal of Transport Geography [4] James R. Morrison, Taesik Lee, Jong Hoe Kim, Minsung Kim, Kyuhyeon Shin and Inkyung Sung (2008). Hybrid mobile floating port. South Korean patent application, Filing number: 10-2008-0121984, Filing date: December 3, 2008. [5]Yongsan Yoon (2008). Fast Container Transfer Module. South Korean patent application, Filing number: 10-2008-0090655, Filing date: September 16, 2008

11. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 11 Capacity evaluation Method to evaluate generated port design – Criteria : throughput, cost and ship staying time Assumptions – Interarrival time and cargo volume/ship are deterministic and constant – Transfer unit conducts single cycle operation – Ship gets service right after entering port ( No waiting time ) – TU and berths make exclusive group to serve ship Some architectures are dominated by other architecture – One dominant architecture for traditional mode – Six dominant architecture for offshore mode

12. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 12 Capacity evaluation Ship service time approximation – To get average ship staying time of offshore mode with given number of resource – Three container flows of offshore mode Ship to TU at ocean( 1), TU at ocean to TU at berth( 2), TU at berth to berth( 3) – Maximum container flows of system (  – First order approximation for the SST

13. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 13 Capacity evaluation Contention for transfer unit resources – Queueing time of TU occurs when number of transfer unit > number of servers – It depends on the arrival pattern of TU to the berths and docking points – Average waiting time for TUs Nc: Number of customer Ns: Number of servers T: Service time

14. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 14 Capacity Evaluation Revised TU at ocean to TU at berth ( 2*) Approximated waiting time at berth and docking point Working time cTU : capacity of TU tL : time to load cargo tT : time to travel tU : time to unload cargo Twb : waiting time at berth(using equation for Tw & appropriate input values) Twd : waiting time at docking point(using equation for Tw & appropriate input values)

15. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 15 Capacity Evaluation Verification – Compare with result of simulation under same assumption – 154 systems and the average absolute gap between the SST approximation and the simulation was 6.49%. 15 # of berth # of TU SST(hours) Blue : Simulation Red : Approximation

16. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 16 Capacity Evaluation Algorithm to find cost of offshore architecture for a market 1. Select market information(IAT, cargo volume/ship) and architecture 2. Generate configuration list of architecture ( # of TU, # of berth, # of truck and etc.) 3. Calculate SST and remove configurations which do not provide service in < 24hours 4. If SST > IAT, multiple by the number of resource/ship 5. Find minimum cost configuration among feasible configuration

17. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 17 Result Cheapest configuration cost of architecture for 100 markets – 0.146 M TEU/year ~ 2.4 M TEU/year – IAT change 1.5 ~ 30 hours – Cargo changes 500~ 4100 TEU IAT(hour)Cargo/ship(TEU) Total cost (B KRW)

18. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 18 Result IAT (Hour) Cargo (TEU) Arch 1Arch 2Arch 3Arch 4Arch 5Arch 6 1.5500684579497.64492.88464.76459.28 2900882772649.32692.72617.64649.12 2.413001064936763.14785.5731.78759.06 317001216952811.8852.6780.12801 41700912714638.52625.1594.08582.1 62100760624534503.28513.68496.44 122500480356317.36310.6297.04297 243300366238243.52214.84232.38199.64 302100190163133.5125.82128.42130.2 (B KRW)

19. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 19 Concluding Remarks Method to finding proper initial design for a market – 9 and 128 feasible port architecture are enumerated – Ship service time approximation – Algorithm to find cheapest configuration of a offshore architecture – Minimum cost architecture and its configuration for 100 markets Future research – Multi criteria comparison – Simulation or queueing model for random data – Combination concepts with traditional and offshore mode

20. ©2010 – J. Kim, J. Morrison – LOGMS 2010 – September 15, 2010 - 20 Comparison between traditional mode and offshore mode – A traditional port in Korea is more cost effective – There is very expensive land rental cost and tax in Hong Kong Mid stream has 1/3 cost due to depth of berth – For collection of small market, having one MH is better than having each market have own crane Construction period1999~2007 Number of quay4 Length of quay1400m Total cost for quay327B Number of crane/quay3 Cost/crane6B Number of YT76 Main target ship4000 TEU Cost / yearly throughput406.6B/1,600,000 = 254,125 Won/TEU