AN ANALYSE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTAINERSHIP AND TRANSSHIPMENT HUB PORT

Generally speaking, the competitive environment for container ports has changed drastically in recent years. Particularly, in the area of container shipping, a port will gain a significant share of the business only when it can demonstrate a combination of rates, facilities, and inland connection that create a clear competitive advantage for an identified group of customers.

Figure 10 gives a visual impact of what has happened to ship-to-shore cranes (QC – quay crane), container ships and terminals in 45 years [6] and [7]. Structural engineers have had the task of keeping up with size, weight reduction, fatigue life, etc. The civil engineers keep driving more piles to support what the structural engineers develop. This figure is a base reference here for illustration and comparison. It shows three basic subsystems: QCs, container ships and terminals.

A way has been found to calibrate the combined effect of container shipping (ship development), port container terminal (terminal development) and ship service time with handling costs (average cost per ship service) on the main container port link (berth-ship including different layout of container yard for container storage) for main four generation of ship, terminal and container quay crane evolution, by making certain assumptions which are described in Figure 10. The relationship between ship size with average cost per ship served and terminal system costs is available from Figures 10-i and 10-l, while Figure 10-j shows that the shorter the route length, the flatter is the line graph showing total shipping cost per TEU (as one would expect, this implies that the economies of ship size are of greater benefit on longer routes (see, [3] and [4]).

FIGURE 10

The relationship between ship size, container quay crane and terminal layout development

Graphs 10-i,j,k and l provide quantified sets of curves for average ship cost in port, total port or terminal system cost, container ship cost per TEU related to size of ship in relation to a number of different lengths of voyages and ship service time in hours vs. lifts per hour. They are based from previous investigations [3], [4]

and [5]. Figure 10-a shows the layout of the New Basin Container Terminal, comprising four berths offering berthing space to four second-generation container ships or, alternatively, to three third-generation container ships. It can be seen from drawing that the port opted for a pier-type configuration.

Figure 10-a shows the layout of the New Basin Container Terminal, comprising four berths offering berthing space to four second-generation container ships or, alternatively, to three third-generation container ships. It can be seen from drawing that the port opted for a pier-type configuration. This type of terminal focuses attention to some areas of terminal performance for improvement of general layout from perspective continuous evolution of ship size. Consequently, Figures 10-b – 10-d give a visual impact of what has happened to terminal layout in 30 years. The new concept port layout regarding efficiency handling system can be explained in two variants (see Figures 10-c and 10-d). Container quay cranes can be either renovated or developed as new concept that are different from existing methods in order to facilitate improved productivity in berth (Figures 10-e – 10-h).

4.1. Effect on container terminals development

The results of this study imply that the economies of container ship operations are now, and are likely to be, such that terminal operators must provide excellent service guaranteeing safety, on-time service, and accuracy. To do that a hub ports facilitate adequate port facility, equipment, and handling system. In addition, average cost per ship service and any costs involved in transshipment must be minimized.

This subsection gives a ship-berth link modeling methodology based on statistical analysis of container ship traffic data obtained from the PECT. Implementation of the presented procedure leads to the creation of a simulation algorithm and analytical methodology that captures the ship-berth link performance well. The efficiency of operations and processes on the ship-berth link has been analyzed through the basic operating parameters such as average service time, average QC productivity and average number of QCs per ship. PECT is big container terminals with a capacity of 2008573 twenty foot equivalent units (TEU) in 2005. There are five berths with total quay length of 1500m and draft around 14-15 m, Figs. 11 and 12 [8]. Ships of each class can be serviced at each berth.

FIGURE 11 PECT layout, 2005

FIGURE 12 PECT layout, 2006

The input data for the both simulation and analytical models are based on the actual ship arrivals at the PECT for the ten months period from 1 January 2005 to 31 October 2005 (Fig. 11) and 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2006 (Fig. 12), respectively [8]. This involved approximately 1225 ship calls in 2005 and 1285 in 2006.

The ship arrival rate was 0.168 ships/hour in 2005 and 0.176 in 2006. Total throughput during the considering period was 1704173 TEU in 2005 and 1703662 TEU in 2006. Also, the berthing/unberthing time of ships was assumed to be 1 hour. The ships were categorized into the following three classes according to the number of lifts: under 500 lifts; 501 – 1,000 lifts; and over 1,000 lifts per ship. Ship arrival probabilities were as follows: 24% for first class, 40% for second and 36% for third class of ships in 2005 and 30% for first class, 38% for second and 32% for third class of ships in 2006 [8].

7.85 8.64 12.5 13.47

17.73 20.06

0 5 10 15 20 25

Average service time of ships in hours

<500 lifts 500 - 1000 lifts >1000 lifts 2006

2005

40.96 37.55

62.19 56.66

82.91 77.39

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Average QCs productivity per ship per hour

<500 lifts 500 - 1000 lifts >1000 lifts 2006

2005

1.931.76 2.69

2.52 3.39

3.14

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Average QCs asigned per ship

<500 lifts 500 - 1000 lifts >1000 lifts 2006

2005

FIGURE 13

Average service time of ships

FIGURE 14 Average QCs productivity

FIGURE 15 QCs assigned per ship

Container terminals in Busan Port, especially PECT, are trying to expand capacity and increase performance at a maximum of investments. Often the container terminal operations are changing to meet increased customer demands as well as to adapt to new technologies. Reasons for the decrease of the average cost per ship served with the introduction of new container berth, QCs, container yard area and automated stacking cranes (ASC) include that waiting time of ships and the average time that ships spend in port decrease with the advanced handling systems improving the operations procedures (see results from Figures 13, 14 and 15) [6, 7 and 8]. A complete description of the simulation and analytical models is provided in [8].

5. CONCLUSIONS

Containerization continues to grow as it has done for a long time. While the entire world merchant fleet grew by only 1%, the containership fleet expanded by more than 10% and this continuous growth has also led to the development of very large containerships. Numerous studies indicate that mega container ship construction is not only feasible but may be a necessary development if this market expansion is to be accommodated in the most cost effective manner. After deploying above 12000+ TEU ships, how should ocean carriers reorganize the shipping network design? Will the bigger vessels lead to a reduction in port calls and how will the terminal operators respond? The impact of next generation ships on shipping lines and container terminals is examined.

The challenges facing the shipowner and the port operator are certainly real. But, it may be concluded that container shipping technology has undergone changes mainly in the scale of ships and terminals used but very little change in the technology itself. Changes in containership technology will probably not occur in the next 5 years, but radical changes in port, terminal and feeder operations must be expected to happen soon. The objective of most changes will be to: Reduce transshipment handling cost; Reduce mainline and feeder vessel turnaround times at transshipment and other terminals; Introduce driverless automated guided vehicles and continuous container conveyers; Introduce floating yard barges for containers; Introduce large outreach gantries spanning mainline and feeder vessels.

The liner shipping and port industry has been reshaped by logistic integration, containerization, deregulation and globalization. Liner shipping companies and container terminal operators have become the most important part in the international supply chains, which are complex and logistics models. The evolution in supply chains and logistics models urges liner shipping and container terminals to reconsider their function in the logistics process described with the trends in mega ships and mega container cranes in ports. These performances require the new ideas and concepts in container terminal planning in order to keep pace with the development of the mega container vessels.

The trend towards globalization of trade, together with the uncoupling of production sites and markets, has significantly increased the demand for containerized marine shipping. Due to the increased volume of container traffic and especially the sizes of container ships, container terminals have become important components of sea and logistics networks. These terminals serve as hubs for the transshipment of containerized goods from ship to ship or from ship to other modes of transportation, e.g., rail and trucks.

The face of the container shipping industry continues to change. Timing of introduction of new generations of container ships is very difficult. However, an attempt has been made for the next few years.

The trend towards larger containerships also makes it more difficult to choose between hub port and feeder port strategies. This trend is driven by the continued growth in container shipping and increased deployment of mega-ships on major trade routes. The time-sensitive operating practices of such mega-ships mean that they require full loading capacity so that they can efficiently call at major hub ports with minimal dwelling time.

By identifying demand growth, and making an assumption as to the market share of further demand could be approved by these ships, a range of possible fleet development can be estimated.

REFERENCES

[1] Containerization International, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006, January - December.

[2] Containerization International Yearbook, 1985, 2001 and 2002, 2005, London.

[3] Cullinane, K., and Khanna, M., 1999, “Economies of scale in large container ships”, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 33, 185-208.

[4] Cullinane, K., and Khanna, M., 2000, “Economies of scale in large containerships: optimal size and geographical implications”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol . 8, 181 - 195.

[5] Dragović, B., Radmilović, Z., Maraš, V., 2003, “Containership evolution and mega-container carriers development”, Proceeding of the Seventh International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST 2003, Naples, Italy, Vol. III - Session D1, 51- 58.

[6] Dragović, B., Ryoo, D.K., Park, N. K. and Radmilović, Z, 2007, “Container ship development: A review of state-of-the- art”, Proceeding of Annual Conference – The International Association of Maritime Economists 2007, Athens, Greece, Conference Proceedings on CD, 1-25.

[7] Dragović, B. and Ryoo, D.K, 2007, “Container ship and port development: A review of state-of-the-art”, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST 2007, Shanghai, China, 31-39.

[8] Dragović, B., Park, N. K. and Radmilović, Z, 2007, “Anchorage-ship-berth-yard link modeling in container port“, Proceedings of the 11^th Conference on Transport Research, WCTR 2007, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, Paper No. 558, Conference Proceedings on CD, pp. 1 - 21.

[9] Notteboom T., 2004, “Container shipping and ports: an overview”, Review of Network Economics, Vol. 3, 2004, 86-106.

[10] ISL Market Analysis World Port Development, 2006, www.isl.org/products_services/publications/pdf/Comm_11-2006-short.pdf [11] BRS Alphaliner Fleet Report, June 2006 and March 2007,

http://www1.axsliner.com/WWW/research_files/liner_studies/nofleet/BRS-AlphaForecast.xls [12] Biggest ships in the world, listed by TEU capacity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship [13] SSMR June (2006) World seaborne container trade and port traffic,

www.isl.org/products_services/publications/pdf/COMM_6-2006-short.pdf [14] Hamburg Harbour, http://www.hafen-hamburg.org/en/

A HOLISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN