Simulation of A Container Terminal Through A Discrete Event Approach Literatur

SIMULATION OF A CONTAINER TERMINAL
THROUGH A DISCRETE EVENT APPROACH:

LITERATURE REVIEW AND GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION
Armando Carten, Stefano de Luca
Department of Civil Engineering University of Salerno
INTRODUCTION
Design and project appraisal of container terminals may be carried out

through two main approaches: optimization or simulation. Although the
approaches based on optimization models allow a more elegant and compact
formulation of the problem, simulation models are mainly based on discrete
event simulation (DES) models and help to achieve several aims: overcome
mathematical limitations of optimization approaches, support and make
computer-generated strategies/policies more understandable, and support
decision makers in daily decision processes through a what if approach.
Several applications of DES models have been proposed and simulation
results confirm that such an approach is quite effective at simulating container
terminal operations. Most of the contributions in the literature develop objectoriented simulation models and pursue a macroscopic approach which
gathers elementary handling activities (e.g. using cranes, reach stackers,
shuttles) into a few macro-activities (e.g. unloading vessels: crane-dock-reach
stacker-shuttle-yard), simulate the movement of an aggregation of
containers and therefore do not take into account the effects of container
types (e.g. 20 vs 40, full vs empty), the incidence of different handling
activities that may seem similar but show different time duration and
variability/dispersion (e.g. crane unloading a container to dock or to a shuttle)
and the differences within the same handling activity (e.g.
stacking/loading/unloading time with respect to the tier number). Such
contributions primarily focus on modelling architecture, on software
implementation issues and on simulating design/real scenarios. Activity
duration is often assumed to be deterministic, and those few authors that
estimate specific stochastic handling equipment models do not clearly state
how they were calibrated, what data were used and what the parameter
values are. Finally, no one investigates the effects of different modelling
hypotheses on the simulation of container terminal performances.
The focus of this paper is on the effects that different hypotheses on handling
equipment models calibration may have on the simulation (discrete event) of
container terminal performances. Such effects could not be negligible and
should be investigated with respect to different planning horizons, such as
strategic or tactical. The aim is to propose to analysts, modellers and
practitioners a sort of a guideline useful to point out the strengths or
weaknesses of different approaches.
Drawing on the model architecture proposed in a previous contribution by the
same authors (Carten, Cantarella and de Luca, 2005), a discrete event
simulation model is developed and applied to the Salerno Container Terminal
in order to deal with the following issues:
Association for European Transport and contributors 2009
analysis of the effects of different estimation approaches (sample mean

and random variable estimations) on estimating whole terminal
performance, hence on container terminal planning strategies. In
particular, analyses were made for different time horizons: long-term
planning interventions/investments, medium/short period, short-term or
real-time applications.
Analysis of the effects of different hypotheses on the level of aggregation
of elementary activities (undifferentiated vs. container type model).
The paper is divided into four sections. In the first section (section 2) an in
depth literature survey is proposed. The aim is to go back over about thirty
year of container terminal simulation models, to highlight weaknesses points
of the existing approaches to handling equipment activities simulation, and to
propose a synthetic but complete outline of the models calibrated and of their
parameters. In section 3 a brief description of the discrete event simulation
model is reported. In section 4 results from model application are proposed
while the main conclusions are drawn in section 5.
Literature review
The existing literature reports approaches to either managing a container

terminal as a system and trying to simulate all elements or managing a subset of activities (simultaneously or sequentially following a predefined
hierarchy). The main contributions seek to maximize overall terminal efficiency
or the efficiency of a specific sub-area (or activity) inside the terminal. The
most widely followed approaches are based on deterministic optimization
methods, although recently a stochastic optimization model was proposed
(Murty et al., 2005). Such approaches schematize container terminal activities
through single queue models or through a network of queues. Following a
stochastic approach, both modelling solutions may lead to analytical problems
and/or unsatisfactory results if the probability distribution of activities involved
does not belong to the Erlang family (Nilse and Abdus-Samad, 1977; Ramani,
1996). Moreover, the resulting network could be very complicated and
theoretical solution might not be easy to obtain.
In such a context, an effective and challenging alternative approach for
container terminal system analysis may be represented by discrete simulation.
Simulation can help to achieve various aims: overcome mathematical
limitations of optimization approaches, allow a more detailed and realistic
representation of terminal characteristics, support decision makers in daily
decision processes through assessment of what if scenarios and make
computer-generated strategies/policies more understandable.
Simulation is not a new methodology in port operations. Several works have
been presented since the 1980s, most of them concerning port operations
management. Many of the proposed models do not focus on the details
regarding the model set-up, its calibration and its validation; but on the
application and/or the simulation of design scenarios. Moreover, although the
estimation of handling activity models should be one of the main issues of all
container terminal applications, this problem does not seem to be treated in
depth in most applications. While many contributions do not present any
information on handling activity models used, the remaining contributions
carry out very simple approaches (deterministic) and/or give scant information
on the estimation approach adopted, the experimental data used, the
parameters estimated and on parameter values.
The aim of our analysis is twofold: (i) to propose an extensive review of the
main contributions in the literature, (ii) to focus on the approaches, models
and parameters used to model handling activities.
Starting from the pioneering work of Collier (1980) investigating the role of
simulation as an aid to the study of a port as a system, the 1980s saw several
works implementing the first simulation-based models. In Agerschou et al.
(1983), Tugcu (1983) proposed a simulation model for the port of Istanbul,
dealing with berth assignment and unloading operations. Vessel arrival is
simulated through Poisson distribution, whereas empirical distributions are
used for the remaining activities. El Sheikh et al. (1987) developed a
simulation model for the ship-to-berth allocation problem; the phenomenon is
modelled as a sequence of queues, and vessel interarrival and service time
are modelled through exponential distribution functions. In the same year,
Park and Noh (1987) used a Monte Carlo type simulation approach to plan
port capacity, Comer and Taborga (1987) developed one of the first port
simulation softwares (PORTSIM), and Chung et al. (1988) proposed a
methodology based on a graphic simulation system to simulate the use of
buffer space to increase the use of handling equipment and reduce total
container loading time.
In the 1990s much effort was spent on simulating terminal containers: the
number of applications based on simulation increased, terminals were
modelled more realistically through disaggregation of the main operations in
several elementary activities, and much more attention was laid on real case
studies. The focus of most contributions was on developing practical tools to
simulate terminal operations, on software issues and/or on model validation.
Less attention was focused on modelling handling activities and/or model
details.
Kondratowicz (1990), within a general method for modelling seaport and
inland terminals in intermodal freight transportation systems, proposed an
object-oriented model, TRANSNODE, to simulate different application
scenarios. Silberholz et al. (1991) described a simulation program that models
the transfer of containerized cargo to and from ships, Mosca et al. (1992)
used simulation to ascertain the efficiency of an automatic flatar system
servicing a rail-mounted crane, and Hassan (1993) gave an overview of a
computer simulation program used as a decision support tool to evaluate and
improve port activities. Lai and Lam (1994) examined strategies for allocation
of yard equipment for a large container yard in Hong-Kong. In the same year,
Hayuth et al. (1994) used a discrete event simulation to build a port simulator,
but the main emphasis was on software and on hardware problems. Key
issues of the application of modelling and simulation were discussed in
Tolujev et al. (1996) and Merkutyev et al. (1998), both contributions proposing
an application to the Riga Harbour Container Terminal. Gambardella et al.
(1998) proposed a discrete event simulation model (based on processoriented paradigm) to simulate vessel loading/unloading. The model was
applied to the Italian container terminal of La Spezia (Italy), with scant
information on the data used and on the characteristics of the equipment used
in the application. The same case study was analyzed by Mastrolilli et al.
(1998), using a model similar to that proposed in Gambardella et al. (1998)

and proposing a calibration and a validation procedure of simulator
parameters. Means and standard deviations are estimated for quay crane,
yard crane and straddle carrier service time, whereas speed of cranes and
travel time of shuttle trailers are assumed deterministic, as well as vessel
arrival and truck arrival. Nevins et al. (1998) developed PORTSIM, a seaport
simulation model able to animate and visualize seaport processes and in the
same year Bruzzone and Signorile (1998) developed a software tool to
support terminal operators in making strategic decisions. The main emphasis
was on optimizing container placement in a terminal; a genetic algorithm
approach was adopted, a simple application proposed, yet no details can be
found on the performance functions used. The same authors (Bruzzone et al.
1999) investigated the effectiveness and benefits of a simulation approach as
a decision support system for complex container terminals.
Interesting modelling details were proposed by Koh et al. (1994), HolgunVera and Walton (1996) and Ramani (1996). Koh et al. (1994) developed an
object-oriented approach using MODSIM simulation software. The proposed
model relies on experimental data, average values are used for handling
equipment, whereas Weibull distribution seems to fit crane cycle time better.
Holgun-Vera and Walton proposed a simulation model based on the next
event approach. The model is calibrated on experimental data and two
approaches are carried out: a deterministic one based on empirical
distribution and a stochastic one. Gantry crane, yard crane and crane
movements are simulated through a random variable made up by systematic
and a random component. While the systematic components are estimated
using multiple regression, the corresponding random parts are not clearly
introduced. Ramani (1996) designed and developed an interactive computer
simulation model to support the logistics planning of container operations. The
model provides estimates for port performance indicators.
Since the end of the 1990s, the most important ports in the world have been
modelled through discrete event simulation models, and greater interest is
shown in the calibration of handling activities models. Yun and Choi (1999)
develop an object-oriented simulation model using SIMPLE++ language and
apply it to analyse the container terminal system used in Pusan. The system
is analyzed as a whole (gates, yards and berths), deterministic and stochastic
distribution functions are considered: deterministic for trailer speed and for
interarrival time of trailers and tractors; uniform for service time at the gates;
exponential for interarrival time of trailers, vessels and service time of cranes.
The same case study proposed by Choi and Yun (2000) follows an objectoriented approach, developing a model to simulate two different terminals
located in Pusan. The simulation tool is generic and transferable to any other
terminal; it is based on Visual C++ and gives accurate results once validated
on historical data. As regards equipment characteristics, averages are used
for cranes and trailer speed, whereas distribution functions are used for crane
operation time (Normal distribution). It is not clear whether performance
characteristics were estimated.
Tahar and Hussain (2000) deal with berth operation and crane allocation
problems. Their discrete event simulation model is based on data collected at
the port of Kelang and specific analyses are carried out to identify the
distribution functions for inter-arrival time of ships (Weibull distribution) and for
service time at berths (distribution not mentioned). The model is implemented

in ARENA software and is validated on historical data.
Legato and Mazza (2001) examine the vessel arrival-departure process,
developing a queuing network model through an object-oriented approach
implemented in VISUAL SLAM language. Since no detailed disaggregate data
are available, a first order Erlang distribution is applied for those services with
the supposed larger variance, a higher order is adopted for more regular
services and, finally, a triangular distribution is used to assign the number of
containers to cranes.
Sgouridis and Angelides (2002) develop a discrete event model to simulate
the inbound container handling problem. The model is implemented in an
EXTEND software package and applied to the port of Thessaloniki. Truck
inter-arrival times follow an Erlang distribution, whereas maximum, minimum
or most probable values are estimated for speed and activity time of
equipment involved.
Developing a microscopic simulation model, Chin et al. (2002) evaluate the
effectiveness of automated guidance vehicles. The focus is on the application
and no details are given either on the models or data used.
Shabayek and Yeung (2002) propose a discrete event simulation model
employing the Witness program to analyse the performance of Hong Kongs
Kwai Chung container. Although the model encompasses all the operations
that may occur in a terminal, the focus is on vessel arrivals and their
distribution among the existing buffers and operators. While arrivals are
simulated through a distribution function (k-stage Erlang), the remaining
operations are analysed in a very aggregate way and average values are
considered (average handling capacity).
Kia et al. (2002) use a port simulator developed in TAYLOR II software to
investigate the effectiveness of two different operational systems applied to
the terminal of Melbourne. With the emphasis on terminal capacity, all the
activities that occur inside the terminal are not explicitly simulated but
aggregated in one variable represented by the vessels service time. Although
no details are reported on the model structure, interesting statistical analyses
are presented on vessel arrival patterns (exponential distribution for interarrival times) and on vessel service time (k-stage Erlang distribution).
Parola and Sciomachen (2005) present a discrete event model to simulate the
logistic chain of a system made by two ports, three possible destinations and
connections between them (by road and/or by rail). The simulation is
undertaken through WITNESS simulation software and the main emphasis is
on vessel berthing, vessel loading/unloading and gate operations. Vessel
interarrival is represented by an exponential distribution function (estimated),
crane working time and truck waiting time by a truncated normal distribution. It
is not clear whether the probability distributions were estimated or simply
taken from the literature. Bielli et al. (2006) develop a simulation tool in JAVA
programming language to simulate the port of Casablanca. The focus is on
the architecture and on software issues; handling activities are hypothesised
as deterministic.
Bugaric and Petrovic (2007) simulate unloading services of bulk cargo
vessels. They stress the relevance of a stochastic approach and schematize
the system as a three-phase queuing system with different numbers of
servers in each phase. A simulation tool is created in PASCAL programming
language, and all variables are generated using the Monte-Carlo method
according to distribution functions obtained from an existing river terminal:
normal for anchorage operations and for crane unloading times, exponential
for inter-arrival of vessels.
Corts et al. (2007) set out to simulate the whole freight transport process in
the Guadalquivir river estuary. Despite a detailed description of operations
and the software modules implemented, little information on equipment
characteristics and time duration is reported. Deterministic functions appear to
have been used for gantry cranes, exponential for the transfer time in dock
assignment while for vessel arrival time an empirical distribution function is
used.
Lee and Cho (2007) propose a model to simulate the effectiveness of a
dynamic planning system for yard tractors utilizing real-time location systems
technology. AutoMod 11.1 software is used and statistical models are
proposed.
Of the contributions introduced so far, as already pointed out, only ten papers
give information on the handling equipment models used. Half of them adopt a
stochastic approach and show estimated parameter values. Most of the
contributions deal with vessel loading/unloading operations. There is
substantial heterogeneity regarding the level of aggregation of activities
involved and how such activities are aggregated in a single macro-activity: El
Sheikh (1987), Choi (2000), Kia et al. (2002) and Shabayek and Yeung (2002)
analyse the entire time to load (unload) a vessel (vessel cycle time); Koh et al.
(1994) and Bugavic and Petrovic (2007) investigate the crane cycle time (time
needed to: lock onto the container, hoist and traverse, lower and locate,
unlock and return); crane loading time to/from a vessel is analysed by Tugcu
(1983), Thiers (1998), Yun and Choi (1999), Merkuryeva et al. (2000), KMI
(2000), Parola and Sciomachen (2005), Bielli et al. (2006), and Lee and Cho
(2007).
As regards vessel cycle time, a stochastic approach is unanimously proposed.
In particular, El Sheikh (1987), Kia et al. (2002) and Shabayek and Yeung
(2002) suggest using Erlang random variables whereas Choi (2000) proposes
normal random variables for two crane types (quay, yard). As regards crane
cycle time, Koh et al. (1994) advise the use of a Weibull random variable;
Bugavic and Petrovic (2007), for a bulk cargo terminal, propose normal
random variables and report the estimated parameters.
With regard to crane loading/unloading time, Tugcu (1983), Thiers (1998),
KMI (2000) and Bielli et al. (2006) follow a deterministic approach, contrasting
with the stochastic approach adopted by Yun and Choi (1999), Merkuryeva et
al. (2000), Lee and Cho (2007), Parola and Sciomachen (2005). Yun and Choi
(1999) propose the exponential distribution function both for quay crane and
yard crane; Merkuryeva et al. (2000) propose the uniform distribution function
for quay crane and a triangular distribution function for yard gantry crane; Lee
and Cho (2007) suggest the exponential distribution function for quay crane
and a triangular distribution function for yard gantry crane operation time.
Parola and Sciomachen (2005) estimated a normal random variable but do
not report parameter values.
With respect to crane speed, all propose deterministic and aggregate models
while only Yun and Choi (1999), Choi (2000), KMI (2000) and Legato et al.
(2008) report the estimated mean values.
With respect to other handling equipment, not much can be found in the
literature: Sgouridis and Angelides (2002) use deterministic values for a
straddle carrier, whereas Merkuryeva et al. (2000) propose a triangular
distribution function for the forklift. As regards shuttle performances (speed,
travel time, waiting time ), the few models existing are hard to transfer to
different case studies (due to the influence of path length, path winding, traffic
vehicle congestion inside the terminal and so on). Hence they are omitted in
this survey. A synopsis of the above analysis is presented in tables 1, 2 and 3.
For each type of handling equipment and for each activity simulated,
probability distribution and corresponding parameters are reported.
Table 1 Survey of handling models: Gantry crane (GC)
Quay GC
Yard GC
crane
operation
time
Yun and Choi (1999)

Lee and Cho (2007)
exponential
Merkuryeva et al. (2000)
uniform
Bielli et al. (2006)

Yun and Choi (1999)
deterministic
exponential

triangular
deterministic
mean = 1.55 (min)

s.d. = 0.08 (min)
mean = 1.50 (min)
normal
not reported
deterministic
deterministic
deterministic
not reported
not reported
not reported
Lee and Cho (2007)

Bielli et al. (2006)
Parola and Schiomachen
(2005)
Tugcu (1983)
Thiers (1998)
KMI (2000)
crane
cycle time
vessel
cycle
time
Koh et al. (1994)
weibull
bulk cargo
Bugavic and Petrovic (2007)
normal
Quay GC
Choi (2000)
normal
Yard GC
Choi (2000)
normal
Entire loading operation
El Sheikh (1987)
Erlang
Entire unloading operation
El Sheikh (1987)
Erlang
Kia et al. (2002)
Erlang
Shabayek
and Yeung (2002)
Erlang
quay gantry crane
crane
speed
hoist with full load

hoist without load
ship trolley
store trolley
yard gantry crane
-
mean = 0.50 (min)

mean = 1.00 (min)
min.=2.00 (min.)
max=4.00 (min.)
mean = 1.50 (min)
mean = 1.00 (min)
40 loading :
mean = 6.00 (min)
40 unloading :
mean = 4.00 (min)
s.d. = 0.41 (min)
Yun, Choi (1999)

Legato et al. (2008)
KMI (2000)
deterministic
deterministic
deterministic
KMI (2000)
deterministic
Choi (2000)
deterministic
Tugcu (1983)
Koh et al. (1994)
Thiers (1998)
deterministic
deterministic
deterministic
mean = 5.00 (min)

s.d. = 0.26 (min)
mean = 112.80 (min)
s.d. = 5.60 (min)
mean = 87.00 (min)
s.d. = 13.89 (min)
mean = 4.20 (day)
K = 4.33
mean = 7.57 (day)
K = 10.77
mean = 37.85 (hour)
K = 4.00
mean [9.6, 16.3] (hour)
K = 117
45 (metres/min.)
45 (metres/min.)
45 (metres/min.)
55 (metres/min.)
130 (metres/min.)
180 (metres/min.)
75 (metres/min.
134 (metres/min.)
Table 2 Survey of handling models: Straddle carrier (SC)

Handling activity
speed
shuttle
loading/unloading time
spreader movement
turning
container spotting
Model used
deterministic
Characteristic parameters
inside yard: 110(met./min.)
outside yard:250 (met./min.)
deterministic
0.60 (min.)
deterministic
deterministic
deterministic
0.30 (min.)
0.02 (min.)
1.00 (min.)
References
Shouridis
and
Angelides (2002)
Table 3 Survey of handling models: Forklift (FL)

Handling activity
loading/unloading time
Model used
Characteristic parameters
20 loading
mean = 4.00 (min.)
st. dev. = 0.41 (min.)
triangular
References

20 unloading
mean = 3.00 (min.)
st. dev. = 0.41 (min.)
MODEL
The proposed approach schematizes a container terminal (CT) as a discrete

event system and models its functioning through a simulator. A discrete event
system can be defined as an interacting set of entities/objects that evolves
through different states as internal or external events happen. Entities/objects
may be physical, conceptual (information flows) or mathematical, and can be
resident or transient. Resident entities remain part of the system for long
intervals of time; transient entities enter into and depart from the system
several times.
Entities can be characterized by parameters and/or variables. Parameters
define static (stationary) characteristics that never change, variables define
the state (dynamic characteristics) of each entity and may change over time
and can further be classified as deterministic or stochastic.
In a CT entities represent the handling equipment, the containers and all
those physical locations relevant to CT operations (dock, yard, gates, etc..).
Handling equipment is a resident and active entity and may be
characterized by parameters, variables and an activity.
Containers are transient and passive entities.
Physical locations are resident and passive entities. As for containers, they
may be characterized by parameters and variables.
Apart from the above-described entities other entities can be considered.
Such entities do not usually move containers but can control/manage entities
that handle containers and can thus change their attributes. The change in
such attributes may be driven by simple heuristic rules (e.g. if there are more
than four trucks waiting for a reach stacker, use one more reach stacker) or by
sub-models that change entity attributes, trying to optimize overall terminal
performance in real time.
In discrete event modelling the model is defined once the case study is
defined and three main tasks should be carried out.
[a] Identification of the terminals logical and functional architecture.
[b] Demand characterization and estimation.
[c] Supply characterization and calibration.
Case study
In this paper the Salerno Container Terminal (SalCT) is analyzed. SalCT is a
major private container terminal operator in southern Italy, and is both small
and very efficient: it handles close to 0.45 MTEUs per year in less than 10ha
(100,000 m2), which amounts to 45 kTEUs/ha. The Salerno Container
Terminal (SalCT) can be divided into three subsystems: enter/exit port gates
(land-side), container yards, and berths (sea-side). Container handling
equipment comprises storage cranes, loading/unloading cranes, yard tractors,
trailers and reach stackers. The basic activities occur simultaneously and
interactively, and can be grouped into four main operations: receiving (gate
yard), delivery (yard gate), loading
(yard berth) and unloading (berth
yard).
Model architecture
Three different macro-activities were taken into account: import, export and
transhipment. Apart from vessel arrival and berthing (not relevant to our case
study) and apart from truck arrival, all the typical activities of a container
terminal were explicitly simulated. The architecture is proposed in Figure 1,
more details may be found in (Carten et al., 2005; Carten and de Luca,
2009).
Terminal container
Rail
Network
c.m.13
Rail
Br. Ac
c.m.10
IMPORT YARD
c.t.
C-R
Wait
Stor.
RS-C
c.m.9
NO
YES
Wait
Rail
Destination
Truck
Br. Ac
(full)
Customs
YES
c.t.
C-T
c.m.11
Stor.
S-C
Cust.Ac.
c.t.
RS-S
c.m.8
c.t.
C-B
c.t.
B-RS
YES
NO
NO
c.m.14
UNLOAD
Shuttle
c.t.
V-C
NO
NO
Empty
Tranship.
YES
YES
Road
Network
c.m.15
c.m.12
c.t.
FL-T
Wait
c.t.
S-FL
Stor.
c.m.7
GATE OUT
YES
c.t.
RS-S
Consolidation
c.m.3
Firm
c.t.
B-RS
Shuttle
c.m.4
Vessel
c.t.
B-S
EMPTY YARD
Truck
Br. Ac
(empty)
NO
Load
NO
YES
BUFFER
Stor.
Wait
c.t.
B-C
c.t.
RS
c.m.16
c.m.2
GATE IN
Br.
Ac.
Road
Network
GATE
c.m.0
EXPORT YARD
c.t.
T-RS
c.m.1
Stor.
c.m.6
c.t.
RS-B
c.m.5
c.t.
S-C
LOAD
c.t.
C-V
YES
Wait
Buffer
NO
NO
Shuttle
c.t.
RS-S
YES
YARD
BERTH
Vessel
Figure 1 Model architecture

ID.
c.t. T-RS
c.t. RS-S
c.t. S-C
c.t. RS-B
c.t. RS-C
c.t. B-C
c.t. C-V
c.t. V-C
c.t. C-B
c.t. B-RS
c.t. B-S
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
from Truck to Reach Stacker
from Reach Stacker to Shuttle
from Shuttle to Crane
from Reach Stacker to Berth
from Reach Stacker to Crane
from Berth to Crane
from Crane to Vessel
from Vessel to Crane
from Crane to Berth
from Berth to Reach Stacker
from Berth to Shuttle
ID.
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
c.t. S-FL
c.t. FL-T
c.t. C-R
c.t. C-T
c.m.j
Br. Ac.
Stor.
Wait
Cust. Ac.
Rail Br. Ac.
Truck Br. Ac.
from Shuttle to Fork Lift

from Forklift to Truck
from Crane to Rail
from Crane to Truck
j container movement (j[116])
bureaucratic activities
storage
container waiting time
customer activities
rail bureaucratic activities
truck bureaucratic activities
Demand characterization
Demand is represented by single containers. For each macro-operation
(import, export, transhipment), the demand flows were characterized over
space, time and type. As regards spatial characterization, container flows
were subdivided by origin and destination zone and were arranged in origindestination matrices. In particular, for each operation macro-origin and macrodestination zones were identified, usually corresponding to quays, yards,
gates. Different O-D matrices were estimated for each container type (20 feet
vs. 40 feet, full vs. empty, ), each demand flow was characterized by its
distribution over time. (details in Carten et al., 2005; Carten and de Luca,
2009).
Supply characterization
As introduced in the previous sections, in a container terminal macrooperations, operations and handling activities may be distinguished. Macrooperations are set up by operations; operations are set up by elementary
handling activities. In such a classification the different entities involved must
be characterized by their geometrical characteristics (if physical points) and by
the corresponding performance supplied (time duration and/or transport
capacity). Storage capacity was estimated for quays and yards; averages and
probability distribution functions were estimated for handling equipments time
duration. In the following tables, results of estimation (sample means and
probability function parameters) are reported for each handling equipment and
for each activity. Details on the pursued estimation methodologies and/or
comments on estimation and calibration results may be found in Carten and
de Luca, 2009).
Handling equipments involved were: mobile harbour crane (MHC), gantry
crane (GC), reach stacker (RS).
MHCs operating in the Salerno Container Terminal are three Gottwald HMK
260 mounted on rubber-tyres and are mainly devoted to loading/unloading
containers to/from berthed vessels. The results, reported in table 6, concern
loading activities from shuttle to vessel or from dock to vessel, and unloading
activities from vessel to dock. The following container types were considered:
undifferentiated containers, 20, 40 and 20x20. Since most Salerno
Container Terminal loading/unloading activities concern full containers, the
analysis is mainly focused on full containers. Some results on empty
containers are proposed only for activities that systematically involve empty
containers. Statistical analysis for undifferentiated containers shows that the
Gamma distribution function is always statistically significant. The same
random variable seems to be the best approximation for loading and
unloading activities that involve 20 and 40 (full or empty) containers. In table
7 means and standard deviations related to Gamma distribution are reported.
10
Table 6 MHC empirical results

activity
loading
unloading
loading
from dock
loading
from shuttle
unloading
to dock
undifferentiate
d
1.426
0.657
0.871
0.263
20
empty
40
full
empty
2 x 20
full
full
1.102
0.768
0.385
0.216
1.257
0.856
0.444
0.221
1.121
n.p.
0.386
n.p.
1.332
0.867
0.476
0.230
2.214
0.971
0.926
0.366
1.398
0.562
n.p.
n.p.
1.316
0.485
n.p.
n.p.
1.494
0.632
n.p.
n.p.
1.435
0.678
1.102
0.385
1.193
0.387
1.121
0.386
1.272
0.389
2.214
0.926
0.871
0.263
0.768
0.216
0.856
0.221
n.p.
n.p.
0.867
0.230
0.971
0.366
Table 7 MHC statistical results: parameters of Gamma distribution function

activity
loading
unloading
loading
from dock
loading
from shuttle
unloading
to dock
undifferentiate
d
1.366
0.514
0.862
0.214
20
empty
40
full
empty
2 x 20
full
full
1.084
0.664
0.387
0.139
1.238
0.825
0.405
0.183
1.101
n.p.
0.340
n.p.
1.288
0.835
0.402
0.188
2.083
0.933
0.690
0.326
1.389
0.441
n.p.
n.p.
1.252
0.407
n.p.
n.p.
1.372
0.485
n.p.
n.p.
1.350
0.549
1.084
0.387
1.227
0.405
1.101
0.340
1.244
0.375
2.083
0.690
0.862
0.214
0.664
0.139
0.825
0.183
n.p.
n.p.
0.835
0.188
0.933
0.326
GCs operating in the Salerno Container Terminal are four rubber-tyred gantry
cranes used both for movement/storage of containers and for loading of
shuttles/trucks. This crane type usually consists of three separate movements
for container transportation. The first movement is performed by the hoist,
which raises and lowers the container. The second is the trolley gear, which
allows the hoist to be positioned directly above the container for placement.
The third is the gantry, which allows the entire crane to be moved along the
working area.
The analyses carried out concern loading and unloading to the shuttle/truck,
and loading and unloading to the stack (sometimes called pile). Each activity
was analyzed distinguishing undifferentiated containers from 20 and 40
containers. Moreover, loading time from stack is reported, further
distinguishing the tier. The analysis is focused on full containers, since these
activities are the most frequent in the Salerno Container Terminal. Finally,
averages and standard deviations were estimated for trolley speed and crane
speed. As regards undifferentiated containers, the Gamma distribution
function proved the best solution for all analysed activities. Similar results
were achieved on analysing activities for each container type and each tier
number. In tables 10 and 11 means and standard deviations are reported for
each activity.
11
Table 8 GC empirical results (minutes)

activity
20
undifferentiated
40
full
0.888
0.352
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
unloading (to shuttle)
1.331
0.434
1.303
0.460
1.367
0.402
loading (from stack)
0.769
0.380
0.758
0.283
0.774
0.422
unloading (to stack)
0.760
0.309
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
loading (from stack) - tier 1
1.025
0.431
1.019
0.348
1.031
0.509
0.713
0.270
0.706
0.188
0.721
0.340
0.672
0.290
0.658
0.169
0.683
0.361
0.625
0.374
0.618
0.236
0.636
0.401
0.614
0.376
0.605
0.261
0.623
0.415
unloading (to stack) - tier 1
1.101
0.236
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.753
0.339
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.699
0.312
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.647
0.309
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.640
0.307
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
loading (from shuttle)
activity
trolley speed (with container)
free trolley speed
crane speed
full
12.663
49.076
12.916
20
full
undifferentiated
40
full
6.416
13.243
4.142
12.508
30.202
5.515
6.902
-
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Table 10 GC statistical results: parameters of Gamma distribution function

activity
20
undifferentiated
40
full
full
loading (from stack)
0.752
0.406
0.741
0.311
0.769
0.457
unloading (to stack)
0.766
0.352
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1.022
0.449
1.011
0.353
1.060
0.561
0.687
0.250
0.658
0.222
0.712
0.256
0.668
0.323
0.659
0.246
0.673
0.383
0.592
0.325
0.583
0.261
0.606
0.390
0.571
0.355
0.560
0.280
0.584
0.399
1.097
0.231
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.703
0.308
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.671
0.256
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.638
0.245
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.613
0.240
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
activity
20
undifferentiated
40
full
full
trolley speed (with container)
11.653
4.597
12.740
4.275
11.203
free trolley speed
46.609
29.892
4.586
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
crane speed
11.498
4.530
12
The RSs operating in the Salerno Container Terminal are eleven and are
equipped with a twin-lift spreader able to move two full 20 containers. They
are used both to transport containers in short distances very quickly and to
pile/storage them in various rows.
The analyses carried out concern: loading to shuttle/truck, unloading from
shuttle/truck and stacking.
Each activity was analyzed distinguishing
undifferentiated containers from 20 and 40 containers. Moreover, stacking
was analyzed distinguishing the tier number. The analysis is focused on full
containers since in Salerno Container Terminal the main activities are related
to full containers. For the stacking time, the time duration for each tier, up to
five, was computed, but it was not possible to distinguish containers typology.
For the mentioned activities Gamma random variable fits the data better due
to best values of the validation test. In table 13, the results are showed. As
regards RSs speed, the authors suggest to estimate the time duration of these
activities directly.
Table 12 RS empirical results
activity
undifferentiated
20
40
full
full
loading to shuttle/truck
0.357
0.250
0.344
0.205
0.365
0.272
unloading from shuttle/truck
0.215
0.114
0.153
0.055
0.236
0.119
stacking time
0.288
0.157
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
stacking time - tier 1
0.201
0.062
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.186
0.077
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.238
0.098
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.355
0.148
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.542
0.164
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Table 13 RS statistical results: parameters of Gamma distribution function

20
activity
undifferentiated
40
full
full
loading to shuttle/truck
0.307
0.170
0.304
0.155
0.311
0.188
unloading from shuttle/truck
0.186
0.074
0.144
0.056
0.200
0.087
stacking time
0.260
0.146
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.185
0.056
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.167
0.071
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.212
0.086
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.334
0.118
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.542
0.140
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
13
4 SIMULATION RESULTS
To plan investments for a container terminal several project scenarios need to
be compared through performance indicator estimation. These indicators
could be global, if referring to the container terminal as a whole (aggregate
indicators), or local if referring to a single container (disaggregate indicators).
Global indicators are generally used to evaluate the benefits of long-term
investments; while local indicators are used to evaluate the benefits of
medium/short-term investment and for real time applications.
To test the applicability of the model architecture proposed for all the cited
kinds of application, the implemented model was validated with respect to
performance indicators coherent with those measured by the terminal
monitoring office and summarized above:
global performance indicators
terminal operation time: daily time required to bring all terminal
activities to a close;
local performance indicators
handling equipment indicators;
o vessel loading and/or unloading time;
o quay/yard crane idle time;
o shuttle waiting time;
o shuttle transfer time;
o reach stacker stacking time;
o reach stacker idle time;
o gate in/out waiting time;
container indicator;
o container operation time: time required to move a container with
handling equipment (e.g., time spent moving a container from
quay to vessel or from shuttle to stack).
Starting from the model architecture proposed in the previous section, four
different models based on four different handling equipment models, were
implemented:
Sample Mean Undifferentiated (SMU) model.

Sample mean values are used to estimate handling equipment time
duration and there is no distinction between containers type.
Sample Mean Container Type (SMCT) models.

Sample mean values are used to estimate handling equipment time
duration and containers type are explicitly taken into account: 20 full
and/or empty; 40 full and/or empty; 2 x 20 full.
Random Variable Undifferentiated (RVU) model.

The time associated to each single activity is the realization of a random
variable, handling equipments time duration is modeled as a random
variable and there is no distinction between containers type.
Random Variable Container Type (RVCT) models.

Handling equipment time duration is modeled as a random variable and
containers type are explicitly taken into account: 20 full and/or empty;
40 full and/or empty; 2 x 20 full.
The discrete event simulation model was developed in Witness software, the
simulations were carried out on Intel Core 2 CPU 2.00 GHz, 2.00 GB RAM,
the values used for calibration are obtained by determining the average of 25
simulations.
14
In the following tables and figures analyses on computational time (table 14),
absolute percentage error (table 14), cumulative absolute percentage error
variation are reported (figure 2). In figure 3 and 4 a sensitivity analysis is
proposed.
The results in terms of simulation time point out that random variable models
require a computational time much greater than sample mean ones. The
former require about 20 minutes, the latter are below one minute.
Results in terms of global indicators show an average absolute percentage
error of more than 10% for the SMU handling model, whereas in using the
RVU handling model the percentage estimation error is lower than 5%. Using
the Container Type models, results in terms of global indicators show an
average absolute percentage error of about 9% for the sample mean model,
whereas in using the random variable model the percentage estimation error
is about 3%.
The use of sample mean handling models does not produce very good results
in terms of local indicators; average percentage estimation errors exceed 13%
for handling equipment indicators and are about 30% for container indicators.
Results obtained using random variable handling models are significant:
average absolute percentage errors for handling equipment indicators are
more than 6% with the RVU handling model, and about 3% with RVCT
handling models. With respect to container indicators, when only using the
RVCT handling models the absolute percentage estimation error is acceptable
(>11%); in all other cases the estimation errors are about 30%.
Table 14 Average absolute percentage estimation error: estimation sample
handling
model
SMU
SMCT
SRVU
RVCT
simulation
time
(minutes)
0.50
0.60
18.70
21.30
absolute percentage
estimation error
local indicators
global
handling
indicators
containers
equipment
10.1%
13.2%
30.8%
8.9%
11.0%
29.3%
4.6%
6.5%
28.5%
2.6%
3.0%
11.2%
In figure 2 cumulative absolute percentage estimation error variation is

reported. With respect to the global indicator the results described above are
confirmed; for more than 80% of the business day simulated, the absolute
percentage error is lower than 10%. Regarding the handling equipment
indicators, the great variability of the phenomenon observed produces
absolute estimation errors for sample mean estimations lower than 10% only
for 25% of the handling equipment simulated, while for random variable
estimations the absolute estimation error is always lower than 10% and for the
RVCT this value is lower than 5% for 75% of the handling equipment
simulated.
If the aim of the simulation is to estimate container movement, the only
suitable handling model is the RVCT one: only for this model is the absolute
estimation error of the container operation time lower than 10% for 45% of the
observations, and lower than 15% for over 60% of the observations. By
contrast, for over 80% of the observations the absolute estimation error is
15
lower than 30%. As can be seen in figure 2, the other models (SMU, SMCT
and RVU) produce unacceptable absolute estimation errors for the purposes
of the simulation.
Terminal operation time
Handling equipment indicators

100%
Percentage of handling equipments
Percentage of business days
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Absolute percentage estimation error
SMU / SMCT
SMU / SMCT
RVU
RVCT
RVU
100%
RVCT
Figure 2 Cumulate absolute percentage estimation error: terminal and

handling equipment
Container operation time
100%
Percentage of containers
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

SMU / SMCT
RVU
RVCT
Figure 3 Cumulate absolute percentage estimation error: containers

To evaluate the models sensitivity, the percentage performance indicators
variations with respect to the input variables percentage variations (e.g.,
percentage variation in equipment number or equipment performance) were
estimated. In figures 3 and 4 some representative results obtained with the
RVCT handling models estimated are reported (results related to the other
performance indicators are analogous).
In the Salerno container terminal there are critical activities: the gate-in
procedure and vessel loading time. With respect to gate-in activity (figure 3),
the truck waiting time (queue waiting time plus service time) percentage
variation was estimated with respect to the service time percentage variation;
the simulation results show an expected decreased benefit effect; in
particular, -10% of service time produces about -35% of truck waiting time; Association for European Transport and contributors 2009
16
20% of service time produces about -55% of waiting time while -30% of
service time produces more than -70% of waiting time.
GATE IN service time % var.
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
GATE IN waiting time % variation
0%
-80%
Figure 3 An example of the models sensitivity: gate-in waiting time variation

measured against gate-in service time variation
With respect to vessel loading time (figure 4), one of the critical points of the
Salerno terminal is the low arrival frequency of the shuttles near the vessels.
Hence a crane number increase does not produce a great reduction in terms
of vessel loading time. Instead, a shuttle lag time reduction produces a
significant vessel loading time variation (e.g., -30% of shuttle lag time produce
about -30% of vessel loading time). This phenomenon occurs till crane
capacity is reached; then only a combined increase of crane number with the
shuttle lag time could further improve loading performance.
Shuttle / Crane number % var.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.0%
Vessel loading time % var.
-20.0%
-40.0%
-60.0%
-80.0%
-100.0%
Crane numb. % var.

Shuttle lag time % var.
Shuttle lag time % var. + 50% crane numb.
Figure 4 An example of the models sensitivity: vessel loading time variation

measured against shuttle/crane number variation
17
CONCLUSIONS
In literature numerous efforts may be found in the field of simulation of a

container terminal, most of the existing papers are only focused on the
application and/or on the comparison of design scenarios and do not pay
great attention on the model set-up, its calibration and its validation. If on the
one hand, many contributions do not present any information on equipment
handling models used, the remaining contributions carry out very simple
approaches (deterministic) and/or give scanty information: on the estimation
approach pursued, on experimental data used, on parameters estimated and
on parameters value. Moreover, no one investigates the effects that different
hypotheses on handling equipment models calibration may have on the
simulation of container terminal performances. Such effects could not be
negligible and should be investigated with respect to different planning
horizons, such as strategic or tactical.
In this paper a discrete event simulation model was proposed and applied to
the Salerno container terminal in order to address some of the open issues
introduced above. The aim was to suggest to analysts, modellers and
practitioners a sort of a guidelines useful to point out the strengths or
weaknesses of different approaches. Guidelines were presented through:
(a) a preliminary in depth literature survey;
(b) the description of the developed discrete event models, with particular
attention to estimation results of handling activity models for three
handling equipment (mobile harbour cranes, gantry cranes, reach
stackers) and for different container type (undifferentiated, 20 feet, 40
feet, empty, full.);
(c) the simulation of the effects of different hypotheses regarding (i) the
approach to estimate handling activities time duration (sample mean vs
random variable estimation), (ii) the level of aggregation of handling
activities (e.g. vessel loading vs explicit simulation of elementary activities
sequence), (iii) the segmentation of container type.
Literature review allowed a comprehension of what has be done in the last
twenty five years in container terminal simulation field and gave detailed
information on approaches pursued, software used, models calibrated and
corresponding parameters. Among the contributions proposed only ten papers
give information on the handling equipment models used. Half of them adopt a
stochastic approach and show estimated parameter values. Most of the
contributions deal with vessel loading/unloading operations. There is
substantial heterogeneity regarding the level of aggregation of activities
involved and how such activities are aggregated in a single macro-activity. As
regards vessel cycle time, a stochastic approach is unanimously proposed.
With regard to crane loading/unloading time both deterministic approach and
stochastic one have been pursued. With respect to crane speed, all existent
papers propose deterministic and aggregate models. With respect to other
handling equipment, not much can be found in the literature; someone
propose deterministic values for a straddle carrier, whereas other one propose
a triangular distribution function for the forklift. As regards shuttle
performances (speed, travel time, waiting time ), few models exist and are
18
easily transferable to different case studies (due to the influence of path

length, path winding, traffic vehicle congestion inside the terminal and so on).
Discrete event model description and calibration results enriched the existent
state of art, gave some insights on the best calibration approach (Moment,
Maximum Likelihood), highlighted a family of distribution functions suitable to
simulate handling equipment time duration and allowed to define the best
performing distribution functions for each handling equipment and for each
container type. From a statistical point of view, Maximum Likelihood
estimation approach seemed to be the most performing one, and Normal,
Gamma and Weibull distribution functions turned out statistically significant to
interpret handling activities time duration. In particular, Gamma random
variable led to better goodness fit for all handling activities and for all
container type involved. The whole set of distribution functions (and of their
parameters) allowed to implement different simulation models as activities
level of aggregation changes and as container type changes.
The application of discrete event model allowed to draw some operational
guidelines on the best approach to simulate handling equipment activities
and/or on the best approach to simulate terminal performances with respect to
different planning horizons.
If the focus is to simulate handling equipment time duration, both sample
mean and random variable estimation can be pursued. Sample mean models
could be used for estimating handling equipment indicators, but greater
average absolute percentage errors must be accepted (11% to 13%) with
respect to random variable handling models that allow absolute percentage
error varying from 3% to 6%. If the focus is to simulate single container trip
time (container indicators), only the Random Variable Container Type
handling models can be used. In this case average absolute percentage
estimation error is about 11%, while it is about 30% for the other approaches.
Finally, different planning horizons (strategic vs tactical) were investigated
with respect to two different modelling hypotheses: sample means vs. random
variable handling models. In strategic planning horizon, since the aim is to
simulate whole container terminal performance with respect to longer
simulation time horizon (for instance 365 days), it is important to have a
simulation model efficient, easy to implement and realistic in the simulation of
aggregate terminal performance indicators (e.g. terminal operation time). In
such a context sample mean handling models may be used, since realistic
micro-simulation of single containers movement does not sensibly improve
simulation results. In tactical planning horizons, benefits from medium/shortterm investments and/or benefits from real time strategies should be
estimated. In this context, it is important to have a simulation model efficient
and realistic in the simulation of single container movement. Obtained results
showed that only the use of random variable handling models allows
satisfactory simulation results.
19
REFERENCES
Only the most relevant contributions are cited. For a complete list of all references, the reader
can refer to the technical paper by Carten and de Luca (2009).
Carten, A., Cantarella, G.E., de Luca, S. (2005) A simulation model for a

container terminal, Proceedings of the European Transport Annual Meeting:
Transportation Planning Methods, PTRC, London.
Carten, A., de Luca, S. (2009) Simulation of the Salerno Container Terminal,
technical paper, Dept. Of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno.
de Luca, S., Cantarella, G.E., Carten, A. (2008) A macroscopic model of a
container terminal based on diachronic networks, Schedule-Based Modeling
of Transportation Networks: Theory and Applications (Nuzzolo, A., Wilson,
N.H.M., eds), Springer.
El Sheikh, A. R.; Paul, R. J., Harding, A. S., Balmer, D. W. (1987) A
Microcomputer-Based Simulation Study of a Port, The Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 38 (8) 673-681.
Tucu, S. (1983) A Simulation Study on the Determination of the Best
Investment Plan for Istanbul Seaport The Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 34 (6) 479-487.
Park, C. S., Noh, Y. D. (1987) A port simulation model for bulk cargo
operations, Simulation, 48 (6) 236-246.
Silberholz, M. B., Golden, B. L., Baker, E. K. (1991) Using simulation to study
the impact of work rules on productivity at marine container terminals,
Computers and Operations Research, 18 (5), 433 452.
Collier, P. I. (1980) Simulation as an aid to the study of a port as a system,
Ship Operation Automation III, 51-6.
Borovits, I., Ein-Dor, P. (1990) Computer simulation of seaport container
terminal, Simulation Today, 141-144.
Tolujiev et al. (1998) Assessment of simulation models based on trace-file
analysis: a metamodeling approach, ACM, 443-450.
Bruzzone, A., Signorile, R. (1998) Simulation and genetic algorithms for ship
planning and shipyard layout, Simulation, 71(2) 74--83.
Chung, Y. C., Randhawa S. U., McDowell E. D. (1988) A simulation analysis
for a transtainer-based container handling facility, Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 14 (2) 113-125.
Gambardella, L. M., Rizzoli, A. E., Zaffalon M. (1998), Simulation and
planning of an intermodal container terminal, Simulation, 71(2) 107-116.
20
Kozan, E. (1997) Comparison of analytical and simulation planning models of

seaport container terminals, Transportation Planning and Technology, 20
(3), 235248.
Yun, W.Y., Choi, Y.S. (1999) A simulation model for container-terminal
operation analysis using an object-oriented approach, Int. J. Production
Economics, 59 221-230.
Legato, P., Rina, R. M. (2001) Berthing planning and resources optimisation
at a container terminal via discrete event simulation, European Journal of
Operational Research, 133 537-547.
Merkuryev, Y., Tolujew, J., Blumel, E., Novitsky, L., Ginters, E., Viktorova, E.,
Merkuryeva, G., Pronins, J. (1998) A modelling and simulation methodology
for managing the Riga Harbour container terminal, Simulation, 71 (2) 84--95.
Murty, K. G., Liu, J., Wan, Y., Linn R. (2005) A decision support system for
operations in a container terminal, Decision Support Systems, 39 (3) pp.
309-332.
Nevins, M. R., Macal, C. M., Love, R. J., Bragen, M. J. (1998) Simulation,
animation, and visualization of seaport operations, Simulation, 71 (2) 96-106.
Ramani, K. V. (1996) An interactive simulation model for the logistics planning
of container operations in seaports, Simulation, 66 (5) 291-300.
Shabayek, A.A., Yeung W.W. (2002) A simulation model for the Kwai Chung
container terminals in Hong Kong, European Journal of Operational
Research, 140 111.
Tahar, R. M., Hussain, K. (2000) Simulation and analysis for the Kelang
container terminal, Logistics Information Management, 13 (1) 14-20.
Thiers, G. F., Janssens, G. K. (1998) A port simulation model as a permanent
decision instrument, Simulation, 71 (2) 117--125.
Tugeu, S. (1983) A simulation study on the determination of the best
investment plan for Istanbul seaport, Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 34 (6) 479--487.
Van Hee, K.M., Wijbrands, R.J. (1988) Decision support system for container
terminal planning, European Journal of Operational Research, 34 262272.
21

Simulation of A Container Terminal Through A Discrete Event Approach Literatur

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Simulation of A Container Terminal Through A Discrete Event Approach Literatur

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SIMULATION OF A CONTAINER TERMINAL

THROUGH A DISCRETE EVENT APPROACH:

Design and project appraisal of container terminals may be carried out

Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

analysis of the effects of different estimation approaches (sample mean

The existing literature reports approaches to either managing a container

(1998), using a model similar to that proposed in Gambardella et al. (1998)

service time at berths (distribution not mentioned). The model is implemented

Yun and Choi (1999)

Merkuryeva et al. (2000)

Bielli et al. (2006)

Merkuryeva et al. (2000)

mean = 1.55 (min)

Lee and Cho (2007)

Koh et al. (1994)

Bugavic and Petrovic (2007)

Entire loading operation

Entire unloading operation

Kia et al. (2002)

quay gantry crane

hoist with full load

mean = 0.50 (min)

Yun, Choi (1999)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

mean = 5.00 (min)

Table 2 Survey of handling models: Straddle carrier (SC)

Table 3 Survey of handling models: Forklift (FL)

Merkuryeva et al. (2000)

The proposed approach schematizes a container terminal (CT) as a discrete

Figure 1 Model architecture

from Shuttle to Fork Lift

Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

Table 6 MHC empirical results

Table 7 MHC statistical results: parameters of Gamma distribution function

Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

Table 8 GC empirical results (minutes)

unloading (to shuttle)

loading (from stack)

unloading (to stack)

loading (from stack) - tier 1

loading (from stack) - tier 2

loading (from stack) - tier 3

loading (from stack) - tier 4

loading (from stack) - tier 5

unloading (to stack) - tier 1

unloading (to stack) - tier 2

unloading (to stack) - tier 3

unloading (to stack) - tier 4

unloading (to stack) - tier 5

loading (from shuttle)

Table 10 GC statistical results: parameters of Gamma distribution function

loading (from stack)

unloading (to stack)

loading (from stack) - tier 1

loading (from stack) - tier 2

loading (from stack) - tier 3

loading (from stack) - tier 4

loading (from stack) - tier 5

unloading (to stack) - tier 1

unloading (to stack) - tier 2

unloading (to stack) - tier 3

unloading (to stack) - tier 4