Container terminal planning Experiences & lessons learnt

Container terminal planning Experiences & lessons learnt Port Finance International TBA 2015 / Remmelt Thijs

Contents 1. Terminal Master planning Reasons why terminal master planning Typical approach for terminal planning 2. Automation today Process Automation Automated Decision-making Robotization 3. Case of comparing RTG and C-RMG technology Introduction into operations Financial comparison Overall evaluation 4. Experiences & lessons learnt Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 2

Terminal Master Planning The approach to better rationalization and performance!

Why a Container Terminal Master Plan? A container terminal master plan should create an integrated plan of the future operation with steps of how to get there. A terminal master plan should create a balanced plan in handling capacity, storage capacity and operating costs with maximum flexibility for future changes. A master plan of the final development is created first to prevent costly changes later. Handling capacity Storage capacity Operating costs $$$$$ Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 4

Definition of Objectives General terminal planning approach CONTRAINTS ASSUMPTIONS DESIGN ALTERNATIVE TARGETS RESULTS Definition of objectives & operational scenarios Throughput: 2,000 TEU/m quay QC productivity: 35 mph (gross) 150,000 lifts/yr Vessel productivity: 250 mph Truck turn time: 45 min Terminal dim.:?? acre TEUratio: 1.7 QC work hrs: 4,000 Filling rate: 85% Dwell time: 5.0 days Overall peak: 1.20 RMG capacity: 17 bx/h (WS) 13 bx/h (LS) Yard crane: Twin-lift ARMG Yard orientation: Perpendicular QUAY Volume: 6.0 M TEU/a YARD No. of modules: 50 EQUIPMENT No of deepsea QCs: 23 GATE/RAIL LS Peak load: 800 bx/h WS peak load 800 bx/h (gross) Dimension (L x W): 42 x 8 TEU No of ARMGs: 100 Throughput: 2,000 TEU/m Height & max filling: 5 high & 85% Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 5

Evaluation of berth capacity General terminal planning approach Definition of objectives & operational scenarios Quay capacity (berth simulation) Can the berth handle the targeted volume? How many QC are required to deliver the targeted service? What is the peak handling demand on the yard? What is the yard inventory over time? Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 6

Conceptual design for feasible operating modes General terminal planning approach Definition of objectives & operational scenarios Quay capacity (berth simulation) Pre selection Conceptual layouts Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 7

Comparing various modes of operation by simulation analysis General terminal planning approach Definition of objectives & operational scenarios ASC + Shuttle carrier Quay capacity (berth simulation) Pre selection Conceptual layouts Terminal simulation Selected alternatives C-RMG + TT operation RTG + TT operation Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 8

Comparing various modes of operation by financial KPIs General terminal planning approach Net QC productivity (bx/h) Definition of objectives & operational scenarios Quay capacity (berth simulation) Pre selection Conceptual layouts 45 40 35 30 25 20 26.6 29.8 31.7 Quay crane productivity Port Transtec & Terminal conference Technology 2012 2012 QC productivity (bx/hr) QC Productivity Target 36.0 36.4 33.9 32.8 33.3 30.4 35.9 37.3 37.0 Terminal simulation Selected alternatives 15 10 5 0 2.5 ShC/QC 3.0 ShC/QC 3.5 ShC/QC 4.0 ShC/QC 2.5 ShC/QC 3.0 ShC/QC 3.5 ShC/QC 4.0 ShC/QC 2.5 ShC/QC 3.0 ShC/QC 3.5 ShC/QC 4.0 ShC/QC Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 1 does not meet performance target due to insufficient stacking cranes Plans 2 & 3 can meet the target using 3.5 & 3.0 ShC per QC Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 9

Evaluating OPEX and CAPEX General terminal planning approach CAPEX / OPEX (x1,000,000) Definition of objectives & operational scenarios Quay capacity (berth simulation) Pre selection Conceptual layouts 300 250 200 150 153 M$ 163 M$ 198 M$ 235 M$ 238 M$ CAPEX / OPEX comparison Port Transtec & Terminal conference Technology 2012 2012 Total investment (+ other expenses) 147 M$ 154 M$ 191 M$ 228 M$ 231 M$ Yearly OPEX 157 M$ 168 M$ 204 M$ 242 M$ 247 M$ Terminal simulation Selected alternatives Cost analysis (OPEX & CAPEX) 100 50 0 17 M$ 18 M$ 22 M$ 25 M$ 26 M$ 16 M$ 18 M$ 21 M$ 24 M$ 25 M$ 16 M$ 18 M$ 21 M$ 24 M$ 25 M$ 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plans 2 & 3 have similar operating costs, however plan 2 requires 16 M$ less investment Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 10

Evaluating gate capacity General terminal planning approach Definition of objectives & operational scenarios Quay capacity (berth simulation) Pre selection Conceptual layouts Terminal simulation Selected alternatives Cost analysis (OPEX & CAPEX) Detailing of preferred option Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 11

Automation today

Types of automation Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 13

Process Automation: Gate operations 1. Truck appointment, including container number 2. LPR + OCR 3. OCR read + known appointments >99.9% quality 4. X-ray / radiation scan 5. Pedestal for driver ID + ticket 6. Routing advise Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 14

Process automation TOS Location of container Container weight Location of road truck Location of RTG Location of Prime Mover Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 15

Automated decision making Automated vehicle dispatching (using Prime Route) Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 16

Automated decision making Automated stow planning of vessels, based on optimizing the #rehandles, and well as the flow to the QC Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 17

Automated decision making Automated container decking (position assignment) based on algorithms & parameters Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 18

Automated yard cranes and automated horizontal transport Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015

Automation globally Abu Dhabi Algeciras Antwerp Barcelona Brisbane Dubai Hamburg (2) Kaohsiung Lazaro London (2) LA / LB (2) Nagoya New York Pusan (4) Rotterdam (4) Sydney Tokyo Norfolk Semarang Surabaya Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 20

Case of comparing RTG and C-RMG technology Typical planning choice for African ports

Introduction RTG + TT system: can be difficult to operate efficiently Conventional terminals when controlled properly results in: High and reliable waterside performances Reasonable landside performances Limited effects due to breaks and disturbances Conventional terminals when not controlled properly result in: Truck queues at the landside Long travel distances for waterside traffic and influenced by landside queues Operations halted by breaks on a regular basis Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 22

Introduction cantilever RMG operation Two cantilevers allow for separation of waterside and landside Terminals of similar type: Busan PECT & Hanjin 2-1 & PNC 1-2 Tokyo - Wanhai Taipei - TPTC Kaohsiung Evergreen & Yang Ming Jebel Ali CT2 Dubai - UAE Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 23

Case background of Terminal L 613,000 waterside moves / year (1M TEU) 30% Transhipment / 70% gate TEU factor 1.63 20% MT s Dwell time full / MT: 5.2 / 8.9 days Quay length: 600m 6 Super Post Panamax quay cranes Terminal depth: variable per system Two labour cost scenarios: Low Cost is 10$ USD per Hour High Cost is 50$ USD per Hour 24

RTG / TT layout Yard Density (peak, NCY): 730 TEU / ha Land use for 1M TEU: 27 ha 4,480 TGS for full RTG 1 over 5 1,160 TGS for empty (ECH 1 over 6) Parallel to quay wall Block length: 35-45 TEU MTs: separate FLT stack Roadways 4 TEU wide Middle highway Flexible equipment deployment Insensitive to container flow High performance potential Mixed traffic internal / external Requires reasonable degree of yard management Training of RTG drivers Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 25

RTG / TT operation Optimized traffic flow Well aligned lanes under QC s Free aisles for safe turning Back2back layout with 3 lanes Middle highway for cross traffic avoiding the apron Single direction in stacks 16 wheeler RTG Back2back layout with 3 lanes Minimized crossings due to alignment with preferred mooring direction and gate location(s) Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 26

RTG / TT operation 1 over 4 / 1 over 5 / 1 over 6 Performance benchmarks RTG: 10 14 bx/h (waterside) RTG: 8 12 bx/h (landside) TT: 4 6 bx/h Yard Density (peak): 730 TEU / ha Land use for 1M TEU: 27 ha Service level waterside Service level landside Relative high OPEX @1M TEU Relative low CAPEX for 1M TEU Safety Environment: 6.0L / container Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 27

C-RMG / TT layout Yard Density (peak, NCY): 900 TEU / ha Land use for 1M TEU: 23 ha 3,200 TGS for full C-RMG 1 over 6) 1,160 TGS for empty (ECH 1 over 6) Parallel to quay wall Block length: 35-45 TEU MTs: separate FLT stack Roadways 4 TEU wide Separated sides for internal / external traffic Separation of internal and external trucks High density High performance potential Insensitive to container flow RMG s can be automated Electrical equipment Less flexible equipment deployment Higher CAPEX than RTG Traffic density in yard Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 28

C-RMG operation 1 over 5 / 1 over 6 Performance benchmarks RMG: 14 18 bx/h (waterside) RMG: 10 15 bx/h (landside) TT: 4 6 bx/h Yard Density (peak): 900 TEU/ ha Land use for 1M TEU: 23 ha Service level waterside Service level landside Relative low OPEX @1M TEU Relative high CAPEX for 1M TEU Safety Environment: 2.5L / container Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 29

Comparison in operational costs per container for two labor rates C-RMG is manual and thus has driver on crane Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 30

Observations for RTG and C-RMG system The C-RMG system has a number of interesting characteristics: Separation of landside and waterside traffic at the crane to allow for prioritization Relative high productivity levels due to speed and system High storage density compared to RTG Relative low maintenance costs due to steel-on-steel versus rubber tires Lower operational costs in both high as low labor costs cases Electric equipment reducing local emissions Possibility to have remote operators to increase labor productivity Some of the more negative characteristics include: Higher investment costs in equipment and beam support structure higher risk Lower operational flexibility in assigning equipment to blocks Lower system flexibility with changing cargo flow characteristics (dwell time) This system could be of interest to more terminals across the world, including larger terminal developments in Africa. Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 31

The right concept for the circumstances: how to? There is no single best terminal solution for any location The optimal solution is the one that: Satisfies throughput objectives (quay, yard, gate) Satisfies handling performance objectives Provides the most cost-efficient mode based on cost / move Provides acceptable characteristics in terms of environment, safety, timeline and risk Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 32

Remarks on terminal master planning Master planning is important: To identify the best handling system for the local circumstances To find a balance in storage, handling and costs Create an integrated plan with flexibility in mind To prevent later expensive changes Simulation modeling should be an integral part of Terminal Planning: Holistic approach considering the complete system Provides insight in the operation, equipment fleet size and possible terminal bottlenecks Is found to be accurate when comparing simulation to actual operations for new systems Besides conventional RTG and SC systems, also other modes of operation could be of interest: Depending on the site specifics, the higher density of (C-)RMGs might be very valuable Other criteria (separation of traffic, safety) could be an advantage in comparison to other systems as well. Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 33

Contact Details Thank you TBA b.v. Company registration number NL27197330 Karrepad 2A 2623 AP Delft The Netherlands Internet www.tba.nl Company board: Ir. Martijn Coeveld CEO / Managing Director Dr. ir. Yvo Saanen COO / Managing Director Office +31 (0) 15 3805775 Fax +31 (0) 15 3805763 info@tba.nl Container terminal planning experiences and lessons learnt / Port Finance International / (c) TBA 2015 34