Automated Container Terminals Will they ever catch up…?

Automated Container TerminalsWill they ever catch up…?

Presentation

Joppe Burgers

29 May 2008

Busan, Korea

2 / 27


Introduction

Conventional Terminals

Automated Terminals

Examples Automated Terminals

Case study

Conclusion

Contents of presentationIntroduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion

3 / 27

Introduction

Three types of container terminals:

Conventional

Semi automated

Automated

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


4 / 27

Quay Terminal yard Land sideWaterside

Introduction

Vessel(un-)loading

Truck / train(un-)loadingStorage

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


5 / 27

Conventional TerminalWaterside handling equipment

Ship To Shore gantry craneMobile harbour craneWide-span gantry

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


6 / 27

Conventional TerminalYard handling equipment

Straddle carrierRubber tired gantryRail mounted gantry

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


7 / 27

Conventional TerminalInternal transport

Port Tractor TrailerShuttle Carrier

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


8 / 27

Automated Terminals Conventional vs. Automated container terminal?

Higher capital investment? Lower operational costs? Labour Costs? Technical skills? Predictable productivity? Experience? Increase reliability? Environmental issues? Energy prices? Regulations? Health & Safety?

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


9 / 27

Automated TerminalsWaterside handling equipment

Ship To Shore gantry Dual Hoist STS gantry Wide-span gantry

Yard handling equipment

Straddle carrier Rubber tired gantry Rail mounted gantry (Overhead grid cranes) (Conveyor belt)

Internal transport

Automatic Guided Vehicle Shuttle carrier

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


10 / 27

Examples ECT Rotterdam

Single hoist Cranes, AGV’s and ASC’s Thamesport

ASC’sHamburg CT Altenwerder

Double hoist Cranes, AGV’s and ASC’s Nagoya Port Terminal - Nagoya

Semi automated RTG Wan Hai lines - Tokyo

Semi automated RMG during day Automated house keeping during night

Euromax Rotterdam Double hoist Cranes and ASC Remote control desk

EMC-Kaohsiung Partly automated

Taipei Container Port Terminal Semi automated

Busan New Port 2-1 Double hoist Cranes and ASC

PNC 1-2 Double hoist Cranes and ASC

Antwerp Gateway Started with Straddles, transition to auto RMG

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


11 / 27

Brisbane: Fishermans IslandsApron area AutoStradsStacks AutoStradsTransfer area Autostrads

ExamplesIntroduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


12 / 27

Hamburg: CT Altenwerder

Berth Semi automated double hoist

Apron area AGV

Stacks Passing ASC

ExamplesIntroduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


13 / 27

Examples Posport CTS – Busan New Port

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


14 / 27

MSc project Wieger Rademaker (TU Delft & Royal Haskoning)

Is automation of container handling on small terminals feasible as a commercial investment?

Hurdles High investments Uncertain future development No development budget High technical level of personnel required Proven technology preferred

Advantage Lower operating and labour costs High level of services

Case StudyIntroduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


15 / 27

Approach

Preliminary design of an automated container terminal

Estimate of required investments

Cash flow analysis

Comparison with conventional alternative



Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


16 / 27

Risavika CT Stavanger, Norway Modern container terminal Site: 350 x 500 m 4 other ports in Region



Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


17 / 27

Case Study

Design conclusions (KPI’s and Posport CTS) 2 Quay cranes 6 AGVs per quay crane 6 RMGs

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


18 / 27

Terminal layout


19 / 27

Cost estimate

Civil works : € 38,000,000

Equipment : € 39,000,000 +

Total investment : € 77,000,000



Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


20 / 27

Operational costs

Benchmark operating costs (conventional terminals) Per TEU : € 70

Operating costs automated Per TEU : € 55

Labour costs savings (automation) On basis equipment operating hours Per TEU : € 13 Annually : € 2,500,000



Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


21 / 27

Cash flow analysis

Discounted Cash Flow model

Net Present Value

Terminal income Throughput : 200,000 TEU by year 3 Handling charges : 100 €/TEU



Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


22 / 27

Net present value - Leased quay wall

-80.00

-70.00

-60.00

-50.00

-40.00

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

Year

€ 1

,00

0,0

00

Cash flow (automated)

Cash flow (conventional)

NPV (automated)

NPV (conventional)



Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


23 / 27

Is automation of container handling on small terminals feasible as a commercial investment? Terminal not feasible as a commercial investment due to

Size of initial capital outlay Investment risk from long investment period Public sector involvement is required!

However results show that Automation is catching up!!!

ConclusionsIntroduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


24 / 27

Questions?


Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion

Container terminal automation

Cost estimate civil works

Sub-total quaySub-total terminal areaSub-total buildingsSub-total facilities

Sub-totalPeliminaries (15%)

Sub-totalContingency (15%)

Total

32,810,937.50€ 4,921,640.63€

37,732,578.13€

28,531,250.00€ 4,279,687.50€

11,381,250.00€ 6,517,000.00€ 2,833,000.00€ 7,800,000.00€


Cost estimate equipment Lifetime price (€) units cost (€)Quay cranes

STS gantry cranes 20 5.000.000,00 2 10.000.000,00 Spreaders 4 140.000,00 3 420.000,00

Yard cranesAutomated RMG cranes 20 2.500.000,00 6 15.000.000,00 Spreaders 4 140.000,00 8 1.120.000,00

Terminal transportAGV 10 400.000,00 12 4.800.000,00

Miscellaneous equipmentEmpty handler 8 400.000,00 2 800.000,00 Tractor unit 10 130.000,00 2 260.000,00 Chassis 4 25.000,00 3 75.000,00 Service vehicles 4 15.000,00 2 30.000,00 Service van 4 30.000,00 1 30.000,00

Sub-total equipment 32.535.000,00

Contingency 20% 6.507.000,00 +

Total 39.042.000,00

27 / 27


Automated concept Note Present value (€)

Investment costs

Civil works Investment made in first year 37,732,578.13 Equipment Investment made in second year 39,042,000.00

Replacement costs 2% price inflation and 20% contingency every 5 years Spreaders, chassis and service vehicles 1,645,000.00 every 10 years AGVs, empty handlers and tractors 5,890,000.00 every 20 years Quay and yards cranes 25,000,000.00

Operating costs Calculated per TEU (3.0% annual increase) 55.00 Handling charges Calculated per TEU (1.5% annual increase) 100.00

28 / 27


Conventional concept Note Present value (€)

Investment costs

Civil works First year, est. @ 80% of automated design 30,186,062.50 Equipment Second year, 8 RTGs and 14 PTTs 27,450,000.00

Replacement costs 2% price inflation and 20% contingency every 5 years Spreaders, chassis and service vehicles 2,225,000.00 every 10 years RTGs, empty handlers and tractors 10,650,000.00 every 20 years Quay and yards cranes 10,000,000.00

Operating costs Calculated per TEU (3.0% annual increase) 70.00 Handling charges Calculated per TEU (1.5% annual increase) 100.00

29 / 27

Functional requirements

Waterside handling capacity Quay length : 250 m Handling capacity : 50 moves/hour

Storage capacity Average : 3,900 TEU Peak : 5,000 TEU

Landside handling capacity Gate / Yard handling : 77 moves/hour



Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


30 / 27


Investigate possibilities of public sector involvement

Follow development of Autostrad concept Many operational advantages Maintenance requirements have to improve

Determine lower boundary of feasibility Studied terminal is at lower boundary of studied

segment. Find lower limit of scale advantages

Verify assumed throughput development

Recommendations

31 / 27

Service requirements Throughput 200,000 TEU/yr

Maximum vessel 2,000 TEU Average vessel 720 TEU High service level

2 cranes per berth 15% waiting time 24 / 7 waterside operations 12 / 6 land side operation



Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


32 / 27


BOT-structure

-80.00

-70.00

-60.00

-50.00

-40.00

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

20082009

20102011

20122013

20142015

20162017

20182019

20202021

20222023

20242025

20262027

20282029

Year

€ 1

,00

0,0

00



NPV (automated)

NPV (conventional)

Net present value

33 / 27


Financed with outside capital

-80.00

-70.00

-60.00

-50.00

-40.00

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

20082009

20102011

20122013

20142015

20162017

20182019

20202021

20222023

20242025

20262027

20282029

Year

€ 1

,00

0,0

00



NPV (automated)

NPV (conventional)

Net present value

34 / 27


Outside investments reduce payback period

Investment in terminal infrastructure

Outside financing

BOT-structure will not achieve 8% return in 20 years

Conclusions DCF analysis

35 / 27


Vessel dimensions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

100 1000

TEU

(m)

LOA

Beam

Draft

36 / 27


Container handling process

STS

MHC / Wide-span gantry

Quay Storage yard Land sideWaterside

Chassis / AGV / Shuttle

Straddle Carrier / AutoStrad

Yard gantry cranes: RTG / RMG / OBC

Waterside handling equipment

Ship to shore gantry crane Mobile harbour crane


Straddle carrier Rubber tired gantry Rail mounted gantry

Internal transport

Port tractor trailer AGV Shuttle carrier

A B

A

B

37 / 27


Vessel arrival Vessel(un-)loading

Vesseldeparture

Truck / trainarrival

Truck / train(un-)loading

Truck / traindeparture

Yard

containers

containers

Terminal

Terminal functions

38 / 27

Queuing theory


Vesselloading / unloading

Quayhandover

Yardhandover

Quay crane AGV

Road vehicletransfers

RMG

LSWS

System design

Selectioncriteria

Conceptselection

Simulationstudy

Systemcalculations

Systemdesign

Posport CT simulation study

39 / 27


Quay handling Ship-to-shore gantry crane

Yard handling AGV / RMG terminal

Automated handling concept

Selectioncriteria

Conceptselection

Simulationstudy

Systemcalculations

Systemdesign

Selection criteria Flexibility Proven technology Reliability Area requirements

40 / 27


How can automated container handling be implemented on small terminals with “off-the-shelf” technology?

Research question

41 / 27

Conventional TerminalWaterside handling equipment

Ship To Shore gantry crane Mobile harbour crane Wide-span gantry


Straddle carrier Rubber tired gantry Rail mounted gantry

Internal transport

Port Tractor-Trailer Shuttle carrier

A B

A

B

A B

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


42 / 27

Automated Terminals Aids to increase human (in)efficiency

Anti Collision System, Anti Sway Stack positioning aids, Efficiency improvement, Automatic number recognition, Etcetera

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


43 / 27

Automated Terminals Eliminate dependency on human intervention

(Semi-) Automated STS Cranes Automatic Guided Vehicles Auto Strads/ Shuttle Carriers Auto RMG/ RTG Conveyor belt system Etcetera

Introduction


Automated Terminals

Examples

Case Study

Conclusion


Documents

Automated Container Terminals Will they ever catch up…?