1. CONTAINER Terminals Modeling
Nam-Kyu Park
Professor
Tongmyong University,
Department of Logistics
Management
Branislav Dragović
Associate Professor
University of Montenegro,
Maritime Faculty

2. Necessity of Simulation in Terminal Planning
Container terminal is critical node for logistics flow, but sometimes it does not follow shipping company request like more berths, deep sea, tandem QC, automation and quick administration etc.
The crucial terminal management problem is to optimize the balance between the shipowners who request quick service of their ships and economic use of allocated resources.
Proper performance measurement of terminal is vital issue in modern container terminal planning
Simulation modeling technique
widely used in the analysis of port and terminal planning process and container handling system
used as an important tool for decision-making in planning a ship-berth linkage design and modeling

3. Table 1: Literature review of a container port and
ship-berth link planning by using simulation
Considered problems
Approaches
References
Simulation of container terminals (CT) and ports
Modsim III
Object oriented programming, C++
ARENA
ARENA, SLX
Visual SLAM
AweSim
Witness software
Taylor II
GPSS/H
Extend-version 3.2.2
Scenario generator
Gambardella et al., 1998;
Yun and Choi, 1999;
Tahar and Hussain, 2000;
Merkuryeva et al.;
Legato and Mazza, 2000;
Nam et al., 2002; Demirci, 2003;
Shabayek and Yeung, 2002;
Kia et al., 2002;
Pachakis and Kiremidjian, 2003;
Dragovic et. al. (2005a and 2005b);
Sgouridis et al., 2003;
Hartmann, 2004;
Overview concept
Quantitative models for various
decision problems in CT
Logistics processes and operations
in CT – optimization methods
Vis and Koster, 2003;
Steenken, et al., 2004.
There are few studies dealing with ship-berth link planning. Researches related to a container port and particularly ship-berth link planning, which use simulation, are summarized in Table 1.

4. Model development approach
The simulation model covers both the quay and CY, thus becoming a integration model between the quay and CY.
The operation unit in the quay is a ship, but the operation unit in the CY is a container.
Accordingly, author has developed independently both a quay performance analysis model and a CY performance analysis model with ARENA, and then has combined these two models into an integrative simulation model.

5. Figure 1. Operation procedure on ship-berth link
Ship-berth link is complex due to different interarrival times of ships, different dimensions of ships, multiple quays and berths, different capabilities of QC and so on. The modeling of these systems must be divided into several segments, each of which has its own specific input parameters. These segments are closely connected with the stages in ship service presented in Figure 1.

6. Flow of quay simulation model
C/C assignment by berth
Ship arrival
LPC by ship
Berth allocation
Loading and unloading
CY allocation
Ship departure

7. CY Simulation Model
3 types of container cargoes: export container cargo, import container cargo, and transshipment cargo.
At the time of ship berthing, first of all, import container cargoes is to be unloaded, and followed by the unloading of transshipment cargoes.
If the unloading is over, then loading of export cargoes is to be done, and followed by the loading of transshipment cargoes.

8. Input and Output Variables for Simulation
Items
Variables
Description
Quay
Input
Vessel
Time Interval on Ship Arriving
Distribution on Time Interval
Amount
Distribution on LPC
Berth & Time
Number of Berth
Berths by the port type
Working Time
Working days and hours
Quay Crane
Number of allocated crane
For each LPC
Capability per hour
Crane productivity
Output
Capability
Quay Capability
Annual throughput
Berth
Berth occupancy rate
Berth Occupying Time/Total Operating Time
Ship waiting ratio
Berth waiting Time/Total Service Time
Time of staying in the port
Duration time from arriving to leaving
Yard
Size
TGS
TGS by the type of cargo
Average stacking height
By the type of cargo
Period
Dwell Time
Inbound & Outbound
In/Outbound status by the type of cargo
Occupancy
Yard Density
Occupancy against total equipment capacity

9. There is no crane available!
LOGIC OF ALGORITHM FOR SIMULATION MODEL
Second come
Berths are not available! Wait in queue!
First class prioritiy
Compare priorities
Higher
Berth 4 available!!!
Berths are not available! Wait in queue!
First come
Second class prioritiy
Cranes are available!!!
Service completed
There is no crane available!
Wait for crane!
Service completed
Service completed
Berth 1
Berth 2
Berth 3
Berth 4

10. (based on total work hour)
Quay Simulation Results
Simulation Input Values by Port Type
Type
Ship’s arrival time
Distribution
LPC
No. of container
handling
(based on total work hour)
No. of
berth
No. of crane
per berth
JCT
35*BETA
(0.931, 4.75)
20 + WEI (797,
1.58)
LOGN
(1.07, 0.435) 5 3
SCT
* BETA(0.937, 7.67)
* BETA(2.16, 1.32)
* BETA(0.991, 1.18)
1e * BETA(0.896, 1.33)
1.5e e+003 * BETA(0.946, 2.69)
TRIA(1.8,2.6,3.4) 4

11. Container terminal performance (berth)
Type
Current performance
Recommended
Proper capacity
Average
berth
occupancy
(%)
Throughput
per berth
(TEU)
Optimal
throughput
No. of
crane
per ship
service
time
(hr.)
Ship’ s
Stay time
Container
Handled per
hour per ship
berthing
ship
JCT 50
430,000 62
630,000
3.09
15.1
16.6 84
1,441
SCT 59
510,000 60
520,000
2.94
13.9
15.9
100
1,475

12. Proper throughput calculation table (container yard)
Type
Quay CY
No of
berth
Length
TGS
Occupancy ratio (%)
Throughput
Occu-pancy(%)
JCT 57
490,000 60
470,000
Total: 5
1,447m
10,484 62
530,000 67
580,000
SCT 55
480,000
400,000
Total: 4 berths
1,200m
10,950
520,000 65
567,000
Legend: O - Occupancy ratio (%); T - Throughput (TEU); Nb - No. of berths; L – Length in m; TGS - Total ground slots

13. Economic Implication of Proper Throughput:
Cost strategy analysis
The proper service level should be decided by considering the combined costs of both the operating costs of port system and ship’s waiting costs. This leads to a proper throughput calculation.
Total Cost
Cost
Service Cost
Waiting Cost
Level of Service
Optimal
Service
Minimum

14. Service cost*
Service cost items: wages, construction cost of various facilities, additional cost for yard equipment purchase, maintenance cost, depreciation, insurance (other service-related costs)
Facilities: the length and number of berth, CY area and TGS, the number of gate access lane, and level of facility.
Equipment: the number and capacity of Q/C, the number and capacity of T/C, the number and capacity of Y/T, the degree of equipment automation.
Manpower: the number and skill of employees, operator’s ability to make use of resources (management and control capability)
* However, cost accounting needs careful calculation, i.e. the idle time in providing services should be considered in the cost analysis. (If the level of service increases, the idle time of both service providers and service facilities is likely to increase.)

15. Waiting Cost
It is not easy to exactly calculate how much cost the queuing system causes.
Waiting cost items: ship’s waiting cost, cargo backlog cost, and hinterland traffic congestion cost.
Costs at the wharf: THC (terminal handling charge), wharfage, dockage, D/O fee, container cleaning fee, tariff, value-added tax, customs clearance charge, carriage, stevedoring fee, forklift fee, ODCY expenses (rehandling fee, shuttling charge)
Congestion cost: charge for cargo handling beyond capacity, cost for extended service hours.

16. Minimise: TC (S) = (I x C1) + (W x C2)
Quantitative Model
The problem of decision-making (minimization) based on a queuing system hangs on how to balance between the waiting cost and the service level. It can be calculated on the basis of the following formula:
Minimise: TC (S) = (I x C1) + (W x C2)
where,
TC (S) = total system cost based on the service level (S)
I = service provider’s total hours during a specific period
C1 = cost per unit hour in the hours
W = total waiting hours during a specific period
C2 = cost per unit hour in the waiting hours

17. Case Study: SCT terminal
If a container terminal throughput > its proper throughput capacity -> increase ship waiting/backlog-related costs and the social costs
additional construction of ODCY (off dock container yard)
traffic congestion of hinterland roads
increasing contamination
wages increases stemming from additional deployment of workforce
increasing depreciation of various facilities and equipment
risk taking coming from overtime or night work
Nevertheless, many container terminals sometimes try to pursue growth-oriented management in order to improve their productivity, thus causing the problem of lowered service and quality.

18. Cargo Congestion Cost ($) Ship Congestion Cost ($)
In case of 400,000 TEU
(Waiting ratio: 0.09, LPC ratio: 0.165, product cost: US$17.81)
TEU
Capital Cost + Fuel ($)
No of Ship per Day
Weight
Waiting Ratio
Days
No of Cntrs
Total Product Cost ($)
Cargo Congestion Cost ($)
Ship Congestion Cost ($)
1,000
20,482
4.0
0.13
0.09
365
2,819
50,198
857,483
349,873
2,700
28,487
0.23
13,464
239,792
7,246,996
860,945
4,024
35,614
0.21
18,321
326,303
9,003,993
982,745
5,300
46,851
0.17
19,535
347,911
7,771,633
1,046,557
6,400
55,637
23,589
420,119
9,384,614
1,242,810
8,400
71,263
0.08
14,570
259,485
2,727,708
749,119
9,000
70,856
573
10,214
3,944
27,363
10,000
73,446
159
2,837
274
7,091
Sum
93,030
1,656,859
36,996,645
5,266,504

19. Cargo Congestion Cost ($) Ship Congestion Cost ($)
In case of 450,000 TEU
(Waiting ratio: 0.18, LPC ratio: 0.165, product cost: US$17.81)
TEU
Capital Cost + Fuel ($)
No of Ship per Day
Weight
Waiting Ratio
Days
No of Cntrs
Total Product Cost ($)
Cargo Congestion Cost ($)
Ship Congestion Cost ($)
1,000
20,482
4.0
0.13
0.18
365
5,637
100,396
3,429,930
699,746
2,700
28,487
0.23
26,928
479,584
28,987,985
1,721,890
4,024
35,614
0.21
36,643
652,605
36,015,973
1,965,491
5,300
46,851
0.17
39,069
695,822
31,086,534
2,093,114
6,400
55,637
47,178
840,238
37,538,456
2,485,620
8,400
71,263
0.08
29,139
518,970
10,910,831
1,498,239
9,000
70,856
1,147
20,428
15,778
54,727
10,000
73,446
319
5,675
1,096
14,183
Sum
186,059
3,313,717
147,986,582
10,533,008

20. Cargo Congestion Cost ($) Ship Congestion Cost ($)
In case of 700,000 TEU
(Waiting ratio: 1.8, LPC ratio: 0.165, product cost: US$17.81)
TEU
Capital Cost + Fuel ($)
No of Ship per Day
Weight
Waiting Ratio
Days
No of Cntrs
Total Product Cost ($)
Cargo Congestion Cost ($)
Ship Congestion Cost ($)
1,000
20,482
4.0
0.13
1.80
365
56,371
1,003,960
342,993,026
6,997,457
2,700
28,487
0.23
269,278
4,795,842
2,898,798,458
17,218,898
4,024
35,614
0.21
366,426
6,526,051
3,601,597,258
19,654,909
5,300
46,851
0.17
390,692
6,958,218
3,108,653,363
20,931,141
6,400
55,637
471,779
8,402,376
3,753,845,570
24,856,196
8,400
71,263
0.08
291,393
5,189,703
1,091,083,142
14,982,388
9,000
70,856
11,470
204,275
1,577,758
547,267
10,000
73,446
3,186
56,747
109,581
141,827
Sum
1,860,594
33,137,172
14,798,658,156
105,330,082

21. Ship and cargo congestion costs of ‘S’ terminal
Cargoes Handled (TEU)
Turnover per berth
Total turnover
Variable cost
Fixed cost
Ship congestion cost
Cargo congestion cost
Total congestion cost
Total cost
350,000
22,020,250
88,081,000
3,676,050
84,236,000
2,925,836
11,418,718
14,344,553
102,256,603
400,000
25,166,000
100,664,000
4,201,200
5,266,504
36,996,645
42,263,150
130,700,350
450,000
28,311,750
113,247,000
4,726,350
10,533,008
147,986,582
158,519,590
247,481,940
500,000
31,457,500
125,830,000
5,251,500
15,799,512
332,969,809
348,769,321
438,256,821
550,000
34,603,250
138,413,000
5,776,650
20,480,849
559,517,168
579,998,017
670,010,667
600,000
37,749,000
150,996,000
6,301,800
33,939,693
1,536,502,655
1,570,442,349
1,660,980,149
650,000
40,894,750
163,579,000
6,826,950
51,494,707
3,537,061,999
3,588,556,706
3,679,619,656
700,000
44,040,500
176,162,000
7,352,100
105,330,082
14,798,658,156
14,903,988,238
14,995,576,338

22. Relationship between turnover and ship waiting/backlog-related costs

23. Shippers' cost + Cargo congestion cost
Corporate profit and social costs of ‘S’ terminal
TEU
Total turnover
Total
congestion cost
Total cost
Social gain
Terminal gain
Shippers' cost
Shippers' cost + Cargo congestion cost
350,000
88,081,000
14,344,553
102,256,603
-14,175,603
168,950
99,499,718
400,000
100,664,000
42,263,150
130,700,350
-30,036,350
12,226,800
137,660,645
450,000
113,247,000
158,519,590
247,481,940
-134,234,940
24,284,650
261,233,582
500,000
125,830,000
348,769,321
438,256,821
-312,426,821
36,342,500
458,799,809
550,000
138,413,000
579,998,017
670,010,667
-531,597,667
48,400,350
697,930,168
600,000
150,996,000
1,570,442,349
1,660,980,149
-1,509,984,149
60,458,200
1,687,498,655
650,000
163,579,000
3,588,556,706
3,679,619,656
-3,516,040,656
72,516,050
3,700,640,999
700,000
176,162,000
14,903,988,238
14,995,576,338
-14,819,414,338
84,573,900
14,974,820,156

24. Relationship between corporate profit and social costs of ‘S’ terminal

25. CONCLUSION
The obtained results have revealed that simulation modeling is a very effective method to examine the proper throughput of container terminal including berth side and yard side.
The proper throughput is to be identified in terms of both operational and economic view
In a result, it is necessary to recognize the the capability of infrastructure is dependent on many factors like operation systems, policy, equipment and infrastructure.
On the context, the regular check will be needed for improving service and reducing cost, as proper throughput varies on situation.

26. THANK YOU
for Listening