sustainability

Article
The Impact of the Allocation of Facilities on
Reducing Carbon Emissions from a Green
Container Terminal Perspective
Yun Peng ID
, Wenyuan Wang * ID
, Ke Liu, Xiangda Li and Qi Tian ID

State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology,
Dalian 116024, China; yun_peng@dlut.edu.cn (Y.P.); 18004094112@mail.dlut.edu.cn (K.L.);
201352026@mail.dlut.edu.cn (X.L.); tianqidlut@163.com (Q.T.)
* Correspondence: wangwenyuan@dlut.edu.cn




Received: 2 May 2018; Accepted: 30 May 2018; Published: 31 May 2018


Abstract: The main contribution of this paper is to quantify the impact of the allocation of facilities,
including the number of facilities and the fuels adopted by facilities, on carbon emissions. In order to
deal with the complex queuing network of container terminals, a simulation model is established
with the changing of the number of and the fuel adopted by facilities as inputs. Firstly, the operation
process and complex queuing network of container terminals are described to explain why simulation
technology needs to be used. Then, various simulation experiments based on a container terminal
in Algeria are designed and carried out. Finally, the carbon emissions from facilities and ships at
berth and inside container terminals, and the total carbon emissions inside container terminals,
are obtained and analyzed. Results show that the emissions from facilities are only a small fraction
of the total emissions of container terminals. Improving the number of trucks and yard cranes can
help reduce carbon emissions, but when the number continues to rise, the emissions are decreased
very slightly. The results obtained and proposed method can be applied to build a green container
terminal, which can also be used for similar problems.

Keywords: green port; green container terminal; allocation of port facilities; carbon emission
reduction; simulation

1. Introduction
As major hubs in global supply chains, container terminals play a significant role in energy
consumption, and even climate change due to carbon emissions. Port facilities, referring to handling
equipment and trucks, are major energy consumers, and have been becoming the main sources
of carbon emissions. For example, according to the data from the Inventory of Air Emissions,
the emissions from port facilities in 2016, which accounted for about 18% of total emissions,
had increased by 18.6% compared to the data in 2005 [1]. Reducing carbon emissions and the efficient
use of port equipment in container terminals are vital to achieving the climate and environmental goal
of green port construction [2]. Reasonable allocation of facilities, including the number of facilities
and the fuels adopted by facilities, can help reduce carbon emissions. However, how to quantify the
impact of the allocation of facilities on carbon emissions is still a problem that needs to be solved.
Efforts to reduce carbon emissions from ports mainly focus on visiting ships inside the ports,
since almost half of emissions were attributed to ship movement [3]. Most of the previous works related
to the mitigation strategies of ships mainly focus on on-shore power supply [4], alternative fuels [5],
and reduced speed in the waterway [6]. The emissions from port facilities (e.g., quay cranes, yard cranes
and trucks) in container terminals have recently been regarded as a problem and corresponding

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813; doi:10.3390/su10061813 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 2 of 19

research has been conducted. For example, He et al. [7] allocated quay cranes for berths by developing
a dynamic-allocation objective programming model to minimize the total energy consumption of quay
cranes. Yu et al. [8] solved the quay crane scheduling problem by building a mixed-integer nonlinear
programming model to minimize the total fuel emissions of all ships during the voyages. Wang et al. [9]
established an allocation optimization model of quay cranes with a limit of carbon emissions. In order
to reduce emissions from idling trucks, Chen et al. [10] built a bi-objective model by optimizing the
arrival patterns and waiting time of trucks. Sha et al. [11] scheduled yard cranes with a consideration of
moving and turning distance and practical operation rules by developing a novel integer-programming
model to minimize the total energy consumption of yard cranes from a low carbon perspective. Besides,
for the energy replacement problem of yard cranes with energy consumption changing from diesel
to electricity, Peng et al. [2] combined an allocation resource mathematical model and a simulation
model of the whole port operation network to schedule the time of energy replacement for each yard
crane, where the objective function was minimizing carbon emissions. Yang et al. [12] analyzed the
sources of carbon emissions, measured the carbon emissions in the port system, and suggested two
approaches to reduce carbon emissions.
The literature mentioned above only focused on a component or a part of the container terminal
operation system by proposing a mathematic model to solve the problems of deciding arrival patterns,
travelling rules, or energy replacement time etc. of facilities, but little attention is paid to the
coordinated operations of facilities. For the coordinated scheduling of quay cranes, internal trucks, and
yard cranes, He et al. [13] formulated a mixed integer-programming model, where one of two objectives
was minimizing the total transportation energy consumption of all tasks. Results show that the
“Energy-saving strategy” can evidently save more energy cost than the “Time-saving strategy”. Graf
von Westar and Schinas [14] combined fuzzy optimization and mixed flows of full and empties, and
suggested holistic reconsideration of the operational plan that leads to cost and emissions reductions.
The existing literature shows that the carbon emissions always work as one objective function or
constraint condition in a mathematic model, when a green, low-carbon, or environmental friendly port
is introduced, developed, and studied. However, it is still a challenge to estimate how much the carbon
emissions can be affected by the allocation of facilities. Most of the works related to the allocation of
facilities in container terminals focus on the allocation, assignment, and scheduling of quay cranes,
yard cranes, and trucks.
For the allocation of quay cranes, studies mainly concentrate on minimizing the total cost and
handling makespan. For example, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam et al. [15] solved the quay crane scheduling
and assignment problem to minimize the total cost by presenting a novel MIP model with the method
of the Genetic Algorithm. A model is developed for the quay crane assignment and scheduling
problem with the aim of minimizing the handling makespan of ships [16]. Aiming to minimize the
makespan of container terminals, Fu et al. [17] analyzed the integrated quay crane assignment and
scheduling problem with respect to the travels of cranes from one ship to another ship.
Fewer studies have been done on yard cranes allocation, and most literature has focused on
minimizing the number, workload, and handling cost of yard cranes. For instance, Kaysi et al. [18]
developed a linear integer program to solve the problem of allocating a minimum number of cranes
used in both quay and yard sides. In order to distribute the workload equally among yard cranes,
an exact polynomial-time solution procedure is proposed to allocate yard cranes [19]. Jiang and Jin [20]
formulated an MIP model with the purpose of minimizing the yard crane cost and guaranteeing the
requirements of container allocation by the method of novel branch-and-price.
For the allocation problems of internal trucks, He et al. [21] allocated internal trucks which share
the assignment among multiple container terminals to minimize the total overflowed workloads and
transferring costs by developing an integer-programming model. Most of the literature about internal
trucks has mainly focused on the scheduling of trucks. For example, Chen et al. [22] scheduled crane
handling and truck transportation integrally to minimize the makespan of ships by developing a
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 3 of 19

constraint-programming model; Tang et al. [23] scheduled quay cranes and trucks jointly considering
the coordination work between them to minimize the total idle time.
The existing literature shows that a mathematic model is always proposed to solve the allocation
problem of facilities in container terminals with the purpose of minimizing the total cost, makespan,
and carbon emissions etc. However, a container terminal operation system is very complicated
and stochastic, including many sub-systems, such as ships berthing and being handled by the quay
cranes subsystem, containers assignment and being transported to the yard/berth/gate subsystem,
and containers being handled by facilities etc. It is very hard to describe the proposed problem
using a stochastic mathematical model [2]. The components of the complicated operation system are
interconnected queuing systems that interact with and influence one another, which results in difficulty
in formulating how the allocation of facilities influences the emissions from a container terminal
operation system considering the uncertainty inherent to the container terminal operation system.
In order to cope with the high uncertainties involved in a complex operation system, a simulation
model is always used. For example, Legato et al. [24] combined a discrete event simulator and an
integer-programming model to determine the number of cranes for each ship. A simulation model
was used to determine how many handling facilities should be allocated to increase the capabilities
of a Turkish port [25]. Considering the integrated assignment of berths, tugboats, and quay cranes,
an integrated simulation model of port resource allocation was developed by [26]. He et al. [27]
proposed an integrated simulation-optimization model for the yard crane scheduling problem to obtain
the trade-off between energy consumption and efficiency. A container terminal operation simulation
model was established to realize the scheduling of quay cranes and trucks, and the allocation of trucks
is suggested [28]. Considering the uncertainty and dynamics in the process of container handling,
AI-Dhaheri et al. [29] applied a simulation-based Genetic Algorithm for the stochastic mixed integer
programming model to solve the problem of quay crane scheduling. Simulation technology works well
in dealing with problems in a complex, stochastic, and comprehensive system. Therefore, a simulation
model will be established in this paper to discuss how to quantify the impact of the allocation of
facilities on carbon emissions in container terminals.
The contribution of this paper is to provide a method for quantifying how the allocation of
facilities affects carbon emissions. Numerical simulation models are formulated in consideration
of three kinds of facilities, including quay cranes, yard cranes, and trucks to analyze the impact of
the number of facilities and the fuels adopted on carbon emissions. The remainder of this paper is
organized as follows. Section 2 focuses on materials and methods, including queuing network models
in container terminals, carbon emission formulation, and simulation of carbon emissions in container
terminals. Then, the results employed to analyze the impact of the allocation of facilities on carbon
emissions are presented in Section 3, followed by conclusions and discussions in Section 4.

2. Materials and Methods

According to the Design Code of Container Terminal for Sea Port [30], the number of yard cranes and
trucks depends on the number of quay cranes, and generally, the ratio of the number of yard cranes
and trucks to that of quay cranes is (2~4):(3~7):1. The ratio is obtained based on the investigation of
major container terminals in China, whose throughput capacity is fully developed with the balance
of each sub-system of terminals. However, the ratio is provided without considering the impact on
carbon emissions and the environment. Therefore, how to quantify the impact of the ratio on carbon
emissions is one of the issues we will discuss in the paper.
Another challenge that needs to be solved in the paper is how to estimate the impact of energy
replacement on carbon emissions. The reason why we define the energy replacement as one of the
allocation problems is that the fuel adopted is replaced, which means the type of facilities is changed.
This paper focuses on the energy replacement of yard cranes and trucks. Rubber tire container
gantry cranes (RTGs) and traditional trucks, which are driven by diesel, are replaced by electric
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 4 of 19

RTGs and 2018,

Sustainability Automatic
10, x FORGuided Vehicles
PEER REVIEW (AGVs) to reduce carbon emissions and noise in port areas. 4 of 19
However, from the perspective of a life cycle, it is hard to say which one is more environment-friendly.
regarding uncertainties in real conditions, stochastic and fuzzy methods
Over the last few years, regarding
are two
two effective
effectivestrategies
strategiestotoresolve
resolveuncertain
uncertain situations, while
situations, robust
while optimization
robust optimizationhas recently been
has recently
applied to overcome problems under uncertainties, like the layout problem
been applied to overcome problems under uncertainties, like the layout problem [31] and hub [31] and hub location
problemsproblems
location [32]. For example,
[32]. For Karamyar et al. [33] developed
example, Karamyar et al. [33]adeveloped
bi-objectivea integrated
bi-objective optimization
integrated
model to formulate
optimization modellocation-allocation and scheduling problems
to formulate location-allocation with uncertain
and scheduling budgets,
problems withand applied
uncertain
a robust optimization
budgets, and applied and Benders
a robust decomposition
optimization algorithm
and Benders to solve the problems
decomposition algorithmwith only one
to solve the
uncertain situation.
problems with onlyHowever, a container
one uncertain terminal
situation. operationa system
However, includes
container manyoperation
terminal complicated and
system
stochasticmany
includes queuing networksand
complicated such as a shipsqueuing
stochastic enteringnetworks
and leaving
suchports
as a sub-system,
ships entering ships
andberthing
leaving
and being
ports handledships
sub-system, sub-system,
berthingcontainers
and beingassignment, and being containers
handled sub-system, transportedassignment,
by trucks sub-system,
and being
which placesby
transported thetrucks
system in a place which
sub-system, whichmeans
placesthat the problem
the system proposed
in a place whichis very
means difficult
that the to problem
describe
proposed is very difficult to describe using an optimization model. Even if the optimization hard
using an optimization model. Even if the optimization model could be developed, it is still very model to
solve using
could an optimization
be developed, algorithm.
it is still very hardNevertheless,
to solve usinga simulation strategy algorithm.
an optimization is always used to cope with
Nevertheless, a
these kinds strategy
simulation of problems underused
is always uncertainties in thethese
to cope with operation
kinds system. Thus,under
of problems this paper will showinhow
uncertainties the
the above two
operation issues
system. are solved.
Thus, this paperThewill
operation
show how process
the and
abovecomplex queuing
two issues networks
are solved. The of operation
container
terminals
process arecomplex
and described below networks
queuing to explainofwhy simulation
container technology
terminals needs tobelow
are described be used to instead
explain of whyan
optimization model.
simulation technology needs to be used instead of an optimization model.

2.1. Queuing
2.1. Queuing Network
Network Models
Models in
in Container
Container Terminals
Terminals
A container
A container terminal
terminal generally
generally consists
consists of
of three
three components: Quayside, Yard,
components: Quayside, Yard, and
and Landside
Landside
(Figure 1). As the main sources of carbon emissions in container terminals, facilities
(Figure 1). As the main sources of carbon emissions in container terminals, facilities including including
quay
quay cranes, trucks, and yard cranes are applied to transport and handle containers
cranes, trucks, and yard cranes are applied to transport and handle containers during the operation during the
operation
process. process.
A container
A containerterminal
terminaloperation
operation process
process consists
consists of atof at four
least leastsub-processes:
four sub-processes:
the shipsthe ships
entering
entering and leaving ports sub-process, ships berthing and being handled sub-process,
and leaving ports sub-process, ships berthing and being handled sub-process, containers being containers
being transported
transported by trucks
by trucks sub-process,
sub-process, and containers
and containers beingbeing handled
handled by yard
by yard cranes
cranes sub-process.
sub-process. The
The operation
operation process
process includes
includes twotwo dynamic
dynamic processes,
processes, which
which areopposed
are opposedtotoeach
eachother:
other: loading
loading and
and
unloading. The following is introduced by only focusing on the unloading
unloading. The following is introduced by only focusing on the unloading process. process.

Figure 1. General Layout of a Container Terminal.

Figure 1. General Layout of a Container Terminal.

2.1.1. Ships Entering and Leaving Ports Sub-Process

The operation process begins with ships’ arrival, and ships have to wait at anchorage in a queue
if the berth or waterway is occupied. Natural conditions (winds, waves, and water levels) and traffic
situations are other judgment states affecting ships going through the waterway. Until all these
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 5 of 19

2.1.1. Ships Entering and Leaving Ports Sub-Process

The operation process begins with ships’ arrival, and ships have to wait at anchorage in a queue
if the berth or waterway is occupied. Natural conditions (winds, waves, and water levels) and traffic
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19
situations are other judgment states affecting ships going through the waterway. Until all these
conditions
conditions are are satisfied, ships can
satisfied, ships can leave
leave anchorage,
anchorage, go go through
through thethe waterway,
waterway, arrive
arrive at
at the
the allocated
allocated
berth, and wait for quay cranes. After finishing the handling operation, ships
berth, and wait for quay cranes. After finishing the handling operation, ships will leave the berthwill leave the berth and
and
enter
enter through
through the the waterway
waterway to to depart.
depart.
The
The queuing process of ships at
queuing process of ships at anchorage
anchorage and and berth
berth can
can be
be modeled
modeled as as aa queuing
queuing network
network in in
Figure 2. There are m berths in the berth system, which can be modeled as several
Figure 2. There are m berths in the berth system, which can be modeled as several multi-server multi-server queuing
systems. The shipThe
queuing systems. canship
onlycanberth
onlyatberth
the berth
at thewhose
berth tonnage is equalistoequal
whose tonnage or larger
to or than
largerthe ship’s
than the
tonnage. For actual container terminals, the assignment rule of ships and
ship’s tonnage. For actual container terminals, the assignment rule of ships and berths can be berths can be determined
by operators.by
determined For the waterway
operators. system,
For the it can be
waterway modeled
system, as variable
it can be modeledmulti-server queuing
as variable systems.
multi-server
The
queuing systems. The number of servers is dynamically changed due to the different length,priority
number of servers is dynamically changed due to the different length, safety distance, and safety
of each ship.
distance, and Itpriority
is veryofhard
eachtoship.
describe the complex
It is very queuing the
hard to describe network using
complex a mathematical
queuing modela
network using
because of the model
mathematical randombecause
arrival of
of ships, uncertain
the random natural
arrival conditions,
of ships, variable
uncertain servers
natural of the waterway,
conditions, variable
and user-defined assignment rules of ships and berths.
servers of the waterway, and user-defined assignment rules of ships and berths.

Figure 2. Queuing
Figure 2. Queuing Network
Network of
of Ships
Ships at
at the
the Quayside.
Quayside.

2.1.2. Ships Berthing and Being Handled Sub-Process

2.1.2. Ships Berthing and Being Handled Sub-Process
The ships berthing and being handled sub-process begins with ships berthing and ends with
The ships berthing and being handled sub-process begins with ships berthing and ends with
handling work finished by quay cranes. From the perspective of ships, the handling time of ships at
handling work finished by quay cranes. From the perspective of ships, the handling time of ships at
the berth, which determines carbon emissions from ships at the berth, is influenced by the number
the berth, which determines carbon emissions from ships at the berth, is influenced by the number and
and operation efficiency of assigned quay cranes. At the quayside, the trucks, quay cranes, and
operation efficiency of assigned quay cranes. At the quayside, the trucks, quay cranes, and handling
handling containers’ work are taken as customers, servers, and service, respectively. This sub-process
containers’ work are taken as customers, servers, and service, respectively. This sub-process can be
can be modeled as a multi-server queuing system with ships deployed at the allocated berth. It is
modeled as a multi-server queuing system with ships deployed at the allocated berth. It is different
different to modelling the sub-process by a queuing network model due to the dense connection to
to modelling the sub-process by a queuing network model due to the dense connection to other
other sub-processes. The quantity of allocated quay cranes and trucks, and the truck arrival pattern
sub-processes. The quantity of allocated quay cranes and trucks, and the truck arrival pattern at the
at the berth, which is even influenced by yard cranes, affect the queuing time of trucks and operation
berth, which is even influenced by yard cranes, affect the queuing time of trucks and operation time of
time of quay cranes, and will further influence carbon emissions. Therefore, it is necessary to study
quay cranes, and will further influence carbon emissions. Therefore, it is necessary to study the impact
the impact of the number of facilities on carbon emissions.
of the number of facilities on carbon emissions.

2.1.3. Containers
2.1.3. Containers Being
Being Transported by Trucks
Transported by TrucksSub-Process
Sub-Process
An empty
An empty truck
truckwill
willgogototothe assigned
the quay
assigned crane
quay to pick
crane up containers
to pick discharged
up containers from from
discharged a ship,
a
and then transport the containers to the assigned yard block to wait for dispatched yard cranes
ship, and then transport the containers to the assigned yard block to wait for dispatched yard cranes to
unload
to thethe
unload containers. After
containers. Afterthethestorage
storageperiod,
period,external
externaltrucks
truckswill
willtransfer
transfercontainers
containers to
to gates.
gates.
This paper only focuses on the allocation of internal trucks (traditional trucks and AGVs) due to the
different quantities and arrival patterns of different external truck companies.
The internal truck works as a tie linking the yard and quayside. When the number of internal
trucks is too small, the quay crane and yard crane will have to wait for empty trucks to pick up
containers. At this time, it takes longer to service a ship, and the carbon emissions from ships at the
berth will be larger. However, if the number is too large, trucks will wait in a queue at the yard or
quayside for cranes, which can lead to congestion and lead to the release of additional carbon
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 6 of 19

This paper only focuses on the allocation of internal trucks (traditional trucks and AGVs) due to the
different quantities and arrival patterns of different external truck companies.
The internal truck works as a tie linking the yard and quayside. When the number of internal
trucks is too small, the quay crane and yard crane will have to wait for empty trucks to pick up
containers. At this time, it takes longer to service a ship, and the carbon emissions from ships at
the berth will be larger. However, if the number is too large, trucks will wait in a queue at the yard
or quayside
Sustainability for10,cranes,
2018, which
x FOR PEER can lead to congestion and lead to the release of additional carbon
REVIEW 6 of 19
emissions from trucks. Therefore, there is a trade-off between the number of internal trucks and carbon
carbon
emissions.emissions.
Due to Due to the
the high high connection
connection with
with other other facilities
facilities in the container
in the container transportation
transportation network,
network,
it is almost it is almost impossible
impossible to considertothe
consider theantruck
truck as as an independent
independent unit.between
unit. The links The links between
trucks and
trucks and other
other facilities arefacilities are very
very difficult difficult to
to describe describe
using using a mathematical
a mathematical model. model.

2.1.4. Containers
2.1.4. Containers Being
Being Handled
Handled by
by Yard
Yard Cranes
Cranes Sub-Process
Sub-Process
After being
After being transported
transported toto the
theassigned
assignedblock
blockby
bytrucks,
trucks,containers
containerswill
willbebe
stacked and
stacked andshuffled by
shuffled
yard
by cranes,
yard which
cranes, whichwillwill
stand overover
stand a storage blockblock
a storage space.space.
Considering truckstrucks
Considering as customers, yard cranes
as customers, yard
as servers, and handling operation as service, the handling process at the yard can be treated
cranes as servers, and handling operation as service, the handling process at the yard can be treated as a
multi-server
as queuing
a multi-server system,
queuing as shown
system, in Figure
as shown 3. 3.
in Figure

Figure
Figure3.3.Queuing
QueuingNetwork
Networkof
ofInternal
InternalTrucks
Trucks at
at Container
Container Terminals.
Terminals.

However, the queuing system is very difficult to model due to the different behaviors of arrival
However, the queuing system is very difficult to model due to the different behaviors of arrival
trucks, which are also influenced by the operation efficiency of quay cranes and traffic conditions in
trucks, which are also influenced by the operation efficiency of quay cranes and traffic conditions in
the yard. The coordinated operation of quay cranes, trucks, and yard cranes must be considered as a
the yard. The coordinated operation of quay cranes, trucks, and yard cranes must be considered as a
whole queuing network in container terminals.
whole queuing network in container terminals.
As discussed previously, the operation process in container terminals is an interconnected
As discussed previously, the operation process in container terminals is an interconnected
complicated queuing system considering uncertainties in the operation system and the complex
complicated queuing system considering uncertainties in the operation system and the complex
coupling between sub-processes. It is hard to model how each sub-process interacts with one another
coupling between sub-processes. It is hard to model how each sub-process interacts with one another
by optimization methods and queuing theories, not to mention the relationship between carbon
by optimization methods and queuing theories, not to mention the relationship between carbon
emissions from facilities and the allocation of resources in container terminals. Therefore, a
emissions from facilities and the allocation of resources in container terminals. Therefore, a simulation
simulation model of the whole container terminal will be introduced to solve the proposed problem.
model of the whole container terminal will be introduced to solve the proposed problem.
2.2.
2.2. Carbon
Carbon Emission
Emission Formulation
Formulation of
of Ships
Ships and
and Facilities
Facilities
The
The direct
direct or
or indirect
indirect carbon
carbon emissions
emissions from
from ships
ships and
and facilities
facilities in
in container
container terminals
terminals can
can be
be
calculated according to ISO 14064-1 (2006) [34] and IPCC (2006) [35], as follows.
calculated according to ISO 14064-1 (2006) [34] and IPCC (2006) [35], as follows.
4 nj
W = n (C s ⋅ E j ,s )
4 j
(1)
W = j =∑
1 i =∑
1
(Cs · Ej,s ) (1)
j =1 i =1
where W represents the total carbon emissions from container terminals; j represents the type of ships
or facilities, and we can define that j is 1 if it is a ship, j is 2 if the facility is a quay crane, j is 3 if the
j
facility is a yard crane, and j is 4 if the facility is a vehicle or a truck; n is the number of facilities or
ships; s represents the type of energy source of j, which can be diesel or electric energy in this paper;
C is the carbon emission coefficient of the energy source; and E represents the energy consumption
of j.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 7 of 19

where W represents the total carbon emissions from container terminals; j represents the type of ships
or facilities, and we can define that j is 1 if it is a ship, j is 2 if the facility is a quay crane, j is 3 if the
facility is a yard crane, and j is 4 if the facility is a vehicle or a truck; n j is the number of facilities or
ships; s represents the type of energy source of j, which can be diesel or electric energy in this paper;
C is the carbon emission coefficient of the energy source; and E represents the energy consumption of j.
The energy consumptions from ships include three parts: ships sailing in the waterway, ships
waiting at anchorage, and ships berthing at the berth. For ships sailing in the waterway, Ej,s of
main engines follows the “cubic law of the design speed and operational speed” [36], as shown in
Equation (2). "  0 3 #
M M v d
Ej,s = l · Pj · R j,s · d · 0 (2)
v v

where P M is the main engine power, and l M is the load coefficient of the main engine; R represents the
consumption rate; v0 and vd represent the operational speed and the design speed, respectively; and d
is the length of the waterway.
For ships waiting at anchorage and berthing at the berth, the energy consumption E of ships can
be formulated as shown in Equation (3).

Ej,s = l A ·( PjA · R j,s )·t j (3)

where P A is the auxiliary engine power, l A is the load coefficient of the auxiliary engine, and t is
waiting time of ships at anchorage or the berthing time of ships at the berth.
For yard cranes, quay cranes, and trucks, the energy consumption E of facilities can be formulated
as shown in Equation (4).
Ej,s = ( Pj · R j,s )·t j (4)

where Pj is the handling capacity of cranes or the velocity of trucks and t j is the working time.

2.3. Logic Model

According to the operation sub-processes in container terminals described in Section 2, a logic
model, which is the combination of ships arriving and berthing, the handling operation, and ships’
departing operation, is firstly developed.

2.3.1. Ships’ Arriving and Berthing

The logic model begins with ships entering and terminates at berthing at an allocated berth,
including two events: ships waiting at anchorage and ships going through the waterway.
In Figure 4, arriving ships of various tonnages, drafts, and different lengths will wait at anchorage
when the waterway and berth are busy. Then, a berth will be assigned to a ship with a comprehensive
consideration of different types of berth and ships and assignment rules users can define. When natural
and traffic (e.g., ships in opposite direction, and safety distance) conditions in the waterway are
satisfied, the ship will go through the waterway and berth at an allocated berth.
In the process of ships entering ports, the waiting time at anchorage and sailing time in the
waterway of ships are influenced by stochastic environments, such as natural conditions and traffic
situations, which can increase carbon emissions from ships.
including two events: ships waiting at anchorage and ships going through the waterway.
In Figure 4, arriving ships of various tonnages, drafts, and different lengths will wait at
anchorage when the waterway and berth are busy. Then, a berth will be assigned to a ship with a
comprehensive consideration of different types of berth and ships and assignment rules users can
define. When natural and traffic (e.g., ships in opposite direction, and safety distance) conditions in
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 8 of 19
the waterway are satisfied, the ship will go through the waterway and berth at an allocated berth.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

In the process of ships entering ports, the waiting time at anchorage and sailing time in the
waterway of ships are influenced by stochastic environments, such as natural conditions and traffic
Figure 4. Ship arriving and berthing logic model.
situations, which can increase carbon emissions from ships.

2.3.2.
2.3.2.Handling
HandlingOperation
Operation
After
Afteraaship
shiparrives
arrivesatatthe
theassigned
assignedberth,
berth,aacertain
certainnumber
numberof ofquay
quaycranes
cranesareareallocated
allocatedto tothe
the
ship according to its tonnage and assignment rules after the auxiliary
ship according to its tonnage and assignment rules after the auxiliary operation. operation.
Take
Takethe
theunloading
unloadingprocess
processasasan anexample.
example.Quay Quaycranes
craneshorizontally
horizontallytransfer
transfercontainers
containersand and
place them onto allocated trucks. After that, based on travelling rules, the trucks leave
place them onto allocated trucks. After that, based on travelling rules, the trucks leave the quay the quay cranes,
and transport
cranes, the containers
and transport to an assigned
the containers container
to an assigned storage location
container in thelocation
storage yard under corresponding
in the yard under
speeds along a specific route. In the stacking process, a yard crane will
corresponding speeds along a specific route. In the stacking process, a yard crane willlift the containers from
lift the
the
trucks and horizontally place the containers at the assigned location.
containers from the trucks and horizontally place the containers at the assigned location.
Until
Untilthe handling
the handlingoperation has finished,
operation the facilities
has finished, will stopwill
the facilities working. The handling
stop working. Theoperation
handling
isoperation
shown inisFigure 5.
shown in Figure 5.

Auxiliary operation

Are quay cranes No

idle?
Yes
Handling operation-QC

Truck transporting

Are yard cranes No

idle?
Yes
Stacking operation-YC

Truck transporting

Is handling operation No
completed?
Yes
Handling operation
finished

Figure5.5.Ship
Figure Shiphandling
handlingoperation
operationsub-model.
sub-model.

2.3.3. Ships’ Departing Operation

After the auxiliary operation, the ship prepares to leave the berth. The logic model of ships’
departing operation is almost the opposite, as shown in Figure 6.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 9 of 19

2.3.3. Ships’ Departing Operation

After the auxiliary operation, the ship prepares to leave the berth. The logic model of ships’
departing
Sustainabilityoperation is almost
2018, 10, x FOR the opposite, as shown in Figure 6.
PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Ship departing sub-model.
Ship departing sub-model.

2.4. Simulation
2.4. Model
Simulation Model
A complex
A complex object-oriented
object-oriented simulation
simulationmodel
modelisisconducted
conductedbybyusing
usingARENA
ARENA 10.0 software
10.0 to
software
simulate the stochastic process of the operation with high uncertainties in container terminals.
to simulate the stochastic process of the operation with high uncertainties in container terminals. The
whole
The simulation
whole model
simulation concludes
model threethree
concludes parts: The Berth
parts: allocation
The Berth and quay
allocation cranes
and quay assignment
cranes sub-
assignment
system simulation model, Truck allocation sub-system simulation model, and Yard cranes
sub-system simulation model, Truck allocation sub-system simulation model, and Yard cranes allocation
sub-systemsub-system
allocation simulationsimulation
model. model.

2.4.1. Model
2.4.1. Model Assumptions
Assumptions
(a) No
(a) No accidents
accidents andand interference
interference happen
happen during
during aa simulation
simulation run.
run.
(b) The facilities are taken full use of, and incomplete combustion of
(b) The facilities are taken full use of, and incomplete combustion of fuel
fuel is
is not considered.
not considered.
(c) All
(c) All facilities
facilities work
work well
well under
under good
good conditions,
conditions, and
and the
the number
number of
of facilities
facilities and
and the
the fuel
fuel adopted
adopted
by facilities are not changed during a simulation
by facilities are not changed during a simulation run. run.
(d) The working condition of facilities will not change seasonally.
(d) The working condition of facilities will not change seasonally.
(e) Only care carbon emissions of ships and port facilities such as handling equipment and trucks,
(e) Only care carbon emissions of ships and port facilities such as handling equipment and trucks,
not considering the carbon emissions of tugs, and the number of tugs, are enough for the ship
not considering the carbon emissions of tugs, and the number of tugs, are enough for the
operation.
ship operation.
2.4.2. Ship
2.4.2. Ship Arriving Simulation model
Arriving Simulation model
In the
In the Ship
Ship arriving
arriving sub-model,
sub-model, the
the ships
ships are firstly created
are firstly created by
by Create
Create modules
modules with
with aa certain
certain
distribution recorded or a time table scheduled by operators. Then, the attributes of
distribution recorded or a time table scheduled by operators. Then, the attributes of ships such as ships such as
tonnages, auxiliary operation time, the speed in the waterway, and the arrival time at
tonnages, auxiliary operation time, the speed in the waterway, and the arrival time at the port are the port are
recorded as
recorded as inputs
inputs in
in the
the Assign
Assign module.
module. Finally, it is
Finally, it is implemented
implemented in in the
the Decide
Decide module
module that
that ships
ships
with different tonnages are allocated to the corresponding berth, as shown
with different tonnages are allocated to the corresponding berth, as shown in Figure 7.in Figure 7.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 10 of 19
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

Figure 7. Ship-arriving simulation sub-model.

Figure 7. Ship-arriving simulation sub-model.

2.4.3. Ship Berthing and Departing Simulation Model

2.4.3. Ship Berthing and Departing Simulation Model
The Ship berthing process can be achieved by using two sub-models: Berth allocation and
The Ship berthing process can be achieved by using two sub-models: Berth allocation and
In_waterway, as shown in Figure 8.
In_waterway, as shown in Figure 8.
In the Berth allocation sub-model, firstly, the distribution of non-operating days, which is
In the Berth allocation sub-model, firstly, the distribution of non-operating days, which is influenced
influenced by unfavorable natural conditions (winds, waves, et al.), and the delay time due to natural
by unfavorable natural conditions (winds, waves, et al.), and the delay time due to natural conditions
conditions at anchorage, are recorded in the Assign module and Delay module, respectively. Next, the
at anchorage, are recorded in the Assign module and Delay module, respectively. Next, the status
status variable describing the occupied and idle status of berths is judged in the Decide module. If the
variable describing the occupied and idle status of berths is judged in the Decide module. If the berth
berth is idle, the ship will seize the berth resource, otherwise the waiting time for the berth at
is idle, the ship will seize the berth resource, otherwise the waiting time for the berth at anchorage
anchorage will be recorded as outputs in the Assign module. Finally, the traffic conditions (safe
will be recorded as outputs in the Assign module. Finally, the traffic conditions (safe distance, ships in
distance, ships in opposite directions, et al.) are judged to decide whether the ships can sail through
opposite directions, et al.) are judged to decide whether the ships can sail through the waterway. In the
the waterway. In the In_waterway sub-model, once the conditions (Weather, berth, and waterway) are
In_waterway sub-model, once the conditions (Weather, berth, and waterway) are satisfied, the ships
satisfied, the ships can enter the waterway, and the entering time will be recorded in the Assign
can enter the waterway, and the entering time will be recorded in the Assign module, which can
module, which can be used to calculate the carbon emissions of ships at anchorage along with the
be used to calculate the carbon emissions of ships at anchorage along with the arrival time in the
arrival time in the Ship arriving model. Besides, the berthing time is recorded in the same module,
Ship arriving model. Besides, the berthing time is recorded in the same module, which can be applied
which can be applied to evaluate the carbon emissions of ships in the waterway along with the
to evaluate the carbon emissions of ships in the waterway along with the entering time. Since the
entering time. Since the process of ships departing is almost identical to that of ships entering, the
process of ships departing is almost identical to that of ships entering, the Ship departing model will
Ship departing model will not be described here.
not be described here.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 11 of 19
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Figure
Figure 8.
8. Ship
Ship berthing
berthing and
and departing
departing simulation
simulation model.
model.

2.4.4. Ship Handling Operation Simulation Model

2.4.4. Ship Handling Operation Simulation Model
After the auxiliary operation and quay crane assignment, the process of the handling operation
After the auxiliary operation and quay crane assignment, the process of the handling operation
begins. At this time, the starting time of quay cranes will be recorded in the Assign module to calculate
begins. At this time, the starting time of quay cranes will be recorded in the Assign module to calculate
the emissions from ships waiting at the berth. Meanwhile, the duplicate entity is transferred from a
the emissions from ships waiting at the berth. Meanwhile, the duplicate entity is transferred from
ship to containers by using the Separate module. When containers are handled by quay cranes, seizing
a ship to containers by using the Separate module. When containers are handled by quay cranes,
quay crane resources can be realized by using a Service-QC module, and the number of handled
seizing quay crane resources can be realized by using a Service-QC module, and the number of handled
containers by each quay crane and the working time for each container can be recorded. Then, until
containers by each quay crane and the working time for each container can be recorded. Then, until the
the handling work of quay cranes for a container is finished, the Release module is used for releasing
handling work of quay cranes for a container is finished, the Release module is used for releasing quay
quay crane resources. Trucks allocated to quay cranes by using the Allocate truck module will
crane resources. Trucks allocated to quay cranes by using the Allocate truck module will transport the
transport the containers to assigned yard blocks by the Transport to yard module. Meanwhile, the
starting and ending time of each truck for transporting the containers every trip can be recorded in
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 12 of 19

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

containers to assigned yard blocks by the Transport to yard module. Meanwhile, the starting and ending
the Assign
time module.
of each The
truck for attributes for
transporting theeach truck, such
containers everyastrip
the can
travelling speed and
be recorded theAssign
in the fuel used, can
module.
be defined
The by for
attributes the each
Assign module
truck, suchofasthe
theHandling
travellingoperation
speed andsub-model
the fuel(Figure
used, can9). Once trucksby
be defined arrive
the
at the yard blocks, the container will call for an idle yard crane to handle it. Then, the
Assign module of the Handling operation sub-model (Figure 9). Once trucks arrive at the yard blocks, working time
of yard
the craneswill
container andcall
thefor
number
an idleofyard
containers
crane toforhandle
each yard cranethe
it. Then, can be recorded
working time in
of the
yardYC_Handling
cranes and
sub_model.
the number of containers for each yard crane can be recorded in the YC_Handling sub_model.

Figure9.
Figure 9. Handling
Handling operation
operation sub-model.
sub-model.

Carbon emissions from each truck can be calculated based on traveling time. The number of
Carbon emissions from each truck can be calculated based on traveling time. The number of
handled containers is recorded, which can be applied to estimate the carbon emissions of quay cranes
handled containers is recorded, which can be applied to estimate the carbon emissions of quay cranes
and yard cranes. The allocated number of facilities and the energy type of facilities can be changed in
and yard cranes. The allocated number of facilities and the energy type of facilities can be changed
the Resource module and Assign module, separately. When all the handling work is finished, the
in the Resource module and Assign module, separately. When all the handling work is finished,
finishing time of the handling operation can be recorded in the Assign module, which will be used to
the finishing time of the handling operation can be recorded in the Assign module, which will be used
evaluate the carbon emissions of ships at the berth.
to evaluate the carbon emissions of ships at the berth.
3. Results
3. Results

3.1. Data
3.1. Data Collection
Collection
Taking aa container
Taking container terminal
terminal in in Algeria
Algeria as as the
the simulation
simulation case,
case, numerical
numerical experiments
experiments are are
implemented to evaluate the influences of allocation and energy replacement
implemented to evaluate the influences of allocation and energy replacement of facilities on of facilities on carbon
emissions.
carbon emissions.
The terminal is
The terminal is 6310
6310 mm long,
long, with
with ten
ten container
container berths
berths of
of different
differenttonnages
tonnages along
along the
the quayside
quayside
and eight
and eight blocks
blocks assigned
assignedto to each
eachberth.
berth. Besides,
Besides, thethe waterway
waterway is is 20
20 nm
nm long
long with
with two
two lanes,
lanes, and
and the
the
navigation speed of ships in the waterway is 18.52 km per hour simultaneously. Initial
navigation speed of ships in the waterway is 18.52 km per hour simultaneously. Initial parameters of the parameters of
the inputs, such as tidal observation records and natural conditions, are provided respectively
inputs, such as tidal observation records and natural conditions, are provided respectively by the port by the
port company
company in According
in 2015. 2015. According to the preliminary
to the preliminary analysis analysis
of naturalofconditions
natural conditions
(e.g., winds (e.g., winds
statistical
statistical data
◦ (36.625°N,
◦ 2.125°E) from 2002 to 2011, and wave calculation),
data (36.625 N, 2.125 E) from 2002 to 2011, and wave calculation), the navigable days in a yearthe navigable days in a
year is 340 days, and the number of operation days in a year is 330 days. The
is 340 days, and the number of operation days in a year is 330 days. The following focuses on the following focuses on
the parameters
parameters of ships,
of ships, berths,
berths, and and facilities.
facilities.

3.1.1. Ships
3.1.1. Ships
Shipsarrive
Ships arriveatat the
the container
container terminal
terminal withwith anan inter-arrival
inter-arrival time
time following
following aa negative
negative exponential
exponential
distribution.
distribution. According to the frequency curve fitting and the chi-square
chi-square test of real operation data,
of real operation data,
the average
the averagevalue
valueofofthe
theship’s
ship’sinter-arrival
inter-arrivalisisset setasas4.612
4.612h. h.
FromEquations
From Equations(2)(2)andand(3),(3),
it isitconcluded
is concluded thatenergy
that the the energy consumption
consumption of a shipofdepends
a ship depends
linearly
linearly
on on load coefficients
load coefficients under theunder the same of
same allocation allocation
facilitiesofinfacilities in ports. Additionally,
ports. Additionally, the load
the load coefficients
coefficients
only influenceonly influence
carbon carbon
emissions fromemissions from ships,
ships, having nothing having nothing
to do with to do
carbon with carbon
emissions fromemissions
facilities.
from facilities.
When When
the allocation ofthe allocation
facilities varies, of the
facilities varies,
coefficient the
will coefficient
only will
affect the only affect
amount the amount
of carbon emissions of
carbon
from emissions
ships, and willfromnotships, and will
influence not influence
the variation trendtheof variation trend of carbon
carbon emissions. So, it isemissions.
not necessarySo, itto
is
not necessary
study to study
the sensitivity the sensitivity
of load coefficientsofon load coefficients
carbon emissions.on carbon emissions.
Therefore, according Therefore, according
to the Calculation
to the Calculation of Ship Power Load [37], the load coefficients of the main engines and auxiliary
engines are set as 0.8 and 0.5 to calculate the carbon emissions, respectively. Besides, one object of
this paper is to study the impact of the allocation of facilities on carbon emissions from arriving ships,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 13 of 19

of Ship Power Load [37], the load coefficients of the main engines and auxiliary engines are set as 0.8
and 0.5 to calculate the carbon emissions, respectively. Besides, one object of this paper is to study
the impact of the allocation of facilities on carbon emissions from arriving ships, not considering the
tug operations and emissions from tugs. Thus, the numbers of tugs are assumed to be sufficient for
different types of ships. Besides, to quantify the carbon emissions of ships, the diesel consumption rate
for the main engines is set as 0.206 kg/kWh, and 0.211 kg/kWh for the auxiliary engines.
The type combinations of ships, such as the tonnage, proportion, and average handling quantity
per ship, are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Type combination of ships at the Container Port area.

Tonnage of Ships DWT Cumulative Average Handling The Power of Main The Power of
Proportion (%)
(Thousand Tons) Frequency (%) Quantity (TEU) Engines (kw) Auxiliary Engines (kw)
20 34 34 875 11,769 700
30 25 59 1000 18,411 1260
50 17 76 1800 48,617 1960
70 11 87 3400 51,500 2320
100 10 97 4800 58,344 2760
120 1 98 6000 72,240 3320
150 1 99 7950 72,360 3850
200 1 100 10,050 72,360 4000

3.1.2. Berths
Directly affecting the waiting time for berths and handling time at the berth of ships,
reasonable utilization of berth resources is extremely important for the reduction of carbon emissions
in container terminals. The parameters for berths such as berth number and tonnages, along with the
allocated number of quay cranes, are as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Parameters of different berths in container terminals.

Berth Tonnages Tonnage of Berthed Ships DWT The Number of Quay

Berth Number
(Ten Thousand Tons) (Ten Thousand Tonnage) Cranes per Berth
1 5 2,3,5 3
2 5 2,3,5 4
3 7 2,3,5,7 4
4 7 2,3,5,7 4
5 7 2,3,5,7 4
6 10 3,5,7,10 5
7 16.5 5,7,10,15 5
8 20 7,10,15,20 5
9 2 2 2
10 2 2 2

3.1.3. Facilities
The object of this paper is to calculate how much the carbon emission is influenced by the allocation
of facilities. Therefore, it is assumed that the working efficiency of quay cranes and yard cranes and the
travelling speed of trucks are constants, which are 30 TEU/h, 35 TEU/h, and 22.5 km/h, respectively.
According to the Design Code of Container Terminal for Sea Port [30], generally, the ratio of the
number of quay cranes to that of yard cranes and trucks is 1:(2~4):(3~7) based on the investigation
of major container terminals. Here, we enlarge the range a little to see how the ratio affects carbon
emissions, which is 1:(2~5):(3~7) in this paper.

3.1.4. Energy
In order to analyze the energy types of facilities on carbon emissions, this paper considers diesel
and electricity as two alternate types of energy sources. According to related research results about
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19
3.1.4. Energy
3.1.4. Energy
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 14 of 19
In order to analyze the energy types of facilities on carbon emissions, this paper considers diesel
In order toasanalyze
and electricity the energy
two alternate typestypes of facilities
of energy on carbon
sources. emissions,
According this research
to related paper considers diesel
results about
and electricity as
low-carbon ports [38], two alternate
[38], the
thecarbontypes of
carbonemission energy sources.
emissioncoefficient According
coefficientofofdiesel and
diesel and to related
electricity
electricity research results
is respectively
is respectively about
set set
as 3.2
as
low-carbon
and 0.8, and ports
the [38],
fuel the carbon
consumption emission
of trucks coefficient
is set as 0.9 of
kg diesel
per
3.2 and 0.8, and the fuel consumption of trucks is set as 0.9 kg per kilometer. and electricity
kilometer. is respectively set as
3.2 and 0.8, and the fuel consumption of trucks is set as 0.9 kg per kilometer.
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis of of Simulation
Simulation Results
Results
3.2. Analysis of Simulation Results
Regarding the
Regarding the fluctuations
fluctuationsofofeach
eachsimulation
simulationresult, a series
result, of simulation
a series of simulation experiments fromfrom
experiments five
runs Regarding
to 700 runs the
are fluctuations
conducted, of
and each
carbonsimulation
emissions result,
are asa series
shown of
in simulation
Figure
five runs to 700 runs are conducted, and carbon emissions are as shown in Figure 10. As Figure 10 10. Asexperiments
Figure 10 from
shows,
fiveresult
the
shows,runstheto 700 runs
is result
stable is are100
after
stableconducted,
runs. 100
after and
runs.carbon
Therefore, emissions
this paper
Therefore, are as
adopted
this paper shown
the average
adopted in the
Figure
value 10. As
after
average Figure
running
value 10
the
after
shows,
simulation the result
model is
for stable
100 after
runs to 100 runs.
analyze theTherefore,
trend of this
carbon paper adopted
emissions.
running the simulation model for 100 runs to analyze the trend of carbon emissions. the average value after
running the simulation model for 100 runs to analyze the trend of carbon emissions.

Figure
Figure 10.
10. Carbon
Carbon emissions
emissions under
under different
different simulation runs.
Figure 10. Carbon emissions under different simulation runs.
As shown in Figure 11, the emissions from ships account for the most, followed by quay cranes.
As shown in
As shown in Figure
Figure 11,
11, the
the emissions
emissions from
from ships account
account for
for the
the most,
most, followed
followed by by quay
quay cranes.
cranes.
The emissions from quay cranes, yard cranes, orships
trucks are only a small fraction of total emissions of
The
The emissions from
emissions from quay
quaycranes,
cranes,yard
yardcranes,
cranes,orortrucks
trucksare areonly
onlya asmall
small fraction
fraction of of total
total emissions
emissions of
container terminals, which are no more than 10%. However, the reasonable allocation of facilities can
of container
container terminals,
terminals, which
which are are
no no more
more thanthan 10%.
10%. However,
However, the the reasonable
reasonable allocation
allocation of of facilities
facilities can
help reduce carbon emissions from ships, thereby reducing the total emissions. Then, this paper
can
helphelp reduce
reduce carbon
carbon emissions
emissions from
from ships,
ships, thereby reducingthe thetotal
totalemissions.
emissions. Then, this this paper
focuses on how the emissions from ships atthereby
the berth reducing
or in container terminals andThen, paper
total emissions
focuses
focuses on how
on how the
the emissions
emissions from
from ships
ships at
at the
the berth
berth or
or in
in container
container terminals
terminals and
and total
total emissions
emissions
from container terminals are influenced. The number of facilities is changed to see how the ratio of
from
from container
container terminals
terminals are influenced.
are influenced. The number
The number of of facilities is
is changed to to see
see how
how the
the ratio
ratio of
facilities affect carbon emissions, whose results are shownfacilities
in Sections changed
3.2.1 and 3.2.2. For the emission of
facilities
facilities affect carbon emissions, whose results are shown in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. For the emission
from the affect carbon
facility, emissions,
the impact whose
of energy results are shown
replacement is shown in Sections
is Section3.2.1 and 3.2.2. For the emission
3.2.3.
from
from the
the facility,
facility, the
the impact
impact of
of energy
energyreplacement
replacementisisshown
shownisisSection
Section3.2.3.
3.2.3.

Proportion of carbon emissions from facilities

Proportion of carbon
andemissions
ships from facilities
and ships
trucks
trucks
yard cranes
yard cranes
quay cranes
quay cranes
ships
ships
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 11. Proportion of carbon emissions from facilities.
Figure 11. Proportion of carbon emissions from facilities.
Figure 11. Proportion of carbon emissions from facilities.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 15 of 19
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

3.2.1. Impact
Impact of
of Allocation
Allocation of Trucks
In order to analyze the influence of the allocation of trucks on carbon emissions in container
terminals,
terminals, several
severalsimulation
simulationexperiments
experimentsare designed,
are andand
designed, thethe
results are are
results shown in Figure
shown 12. The
in Figure 12.
horizontal ordinate in Figure 8 is the ratio of the number of quay cranes (QCs) to that of yard
The horizontal ordinate in Figure 8 is the ratio of the number of quay cranes (QCs) to that of yard cranes
(YCs)
cranesand trucks
(YCs) and (QCs:YCs:Trucks).
trucks (QCs:YCs:Trucks).

(a) Influence of allocation of trucks on emissions (b) Influence of allocation of trucks on emissions
(QCs:YCs = 1:2) (QCs:YCs = 1:3)

(c) Influence of allocation of trucks on emissions (d) Influence of allocation of trucks on emissions
(QCs:YCs = 1:4) (QCs:YCs = 1:5)

Figure 12. Influence of allocation of trucks on carbon emissions.

Figure 12. Influence of allocation of trucks on carbon emissions.

Figure 12
Figure 12 shows
shows how how thethe emissions
emissions from
from ships
ships atat the
the berth
berth oror in
in container terminals and
container terminals and total
total
emissions from container terminals change with
emissions from container terminals change with the ratio. the ratio.
It can
It can bebe seen
seen from
from Figure
Figure 12a
12a that
that when
when the
the ratio
ratio of
of the
the number
number of of quay
quay cranes
cranes toto that
that of
of yard
yard
cranes (QCs:YCs)
cranes (QCs:YCs) is is 1:2,
1:2, improving
improvingthetheratio
ratioQCs:YCs:Trucks
QCs:YCs:Trucksfrom from1:2:3
1:2:3toto
1:2:4 can
1:2:4 canreduce
reduce emissions
emissions of
ships at the berth by 35.3%, emissions of ships in container terminals by 26.7%, and
of ships at the berth by 35.3%, emissions of ships in container terminals by 26.7%, and total emissions total emissions in
container
in containerterminals by 22.8%.
terminals At this
by 22.8%. At time, it reveals
this time, that anthat
it reveals increased numbernumber
an increased of trucksofistrucks
an effective
is an
way to reduce carbon emissions. However, when the number of trucks continues
effective way to reduce carbon emissions. However, when the number of trucks continues increasing, increasing, it has
absolutely no impact on carbon emissions. For Figure 12b–d, there is the same
it has absolutely no impact on carbon emissions. For Figure 12b–d, there is the same varying trend varying trend with the
changing
with of the ratioofQCs:YCs:Trucks.
the changing The emissions
the ratio QCs:YCs:Trucks. Thefirstly decrease
emissions greatly,
firstly and after
decrease a certain
greatly, and degree,
after a
the emissions decrease slightly.
certain degree, the emissions decrease slightly.
3.2.2. Impact of Allocation of Yard Cranes
3.2.2. Impact of Allocation of Yard Cranes
In order to analyze the influence of the allocation of yard cranes on carbon emissions in container
In order to analyze the influence of the allocation of yard cranes on carbon emissions in container
terminals, several simulation experiments are designed and the results are shown in Figure 13.
terminals, several simulation experiments are designed and the results are shown in Figure 13.
 Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 16 of 19
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

(a) Influence of allocation of yard cranes on (b) Influence of allocation of yard cranes on
(a) Influence of allocation
emissions of yard
(QCs:Trucks cranes on
= 1:3) (b) Influence of allocation
emissions of yard
(QCs:Trucks cranes on
= 1:4)
emissions (QCs:Trucks = 1:3) emissions (QCs:Trucks = 1:4)

(c) Influence of allocation of yard (d) Influence of allocation of yard (e) Influence of allocation of yard
(c) Influence of allocation
cranes on emissions of yard (d) Influence of emissions
cranes on allocation of yard (e) Influence of allocation
cranes on emissions of yard
cranes on emissions
(QCs:Trucks = 1:5) cranes on emissions
(QCs:Trucks = 1:6) cranes on
(QCs:Trucksemissions
= 1:7)
(QCs:Trucks = 1:5) (QCs:Trucks = 1:6) (QCs:Trucks = 1:7)
Figure
Figure13.
13.Influence
Influenceofofallocation
allocationofofyard
yardcranes
craneson
oncarbon
carbonemissions.
emissions.
Figure 13. Influence of allocation of yard cranes on carbon emissions.
It can be seen from Figure 13a that when the ratio QCs:Trucks is 1:3, improving the ratio
It can be seen from Figure 13a that when the ratio QCs:Trucks is 1:3, improving the ratio
QCs:YCs:Trucks from 1:2:3 to 1:3:3 can obtain a 31.7% reduction in emissions of ships at the berth,
QCs:YCs:Trucks reduction in in emissions
emissions of
of ships
ships at
at the
the berth,
berth,
25.0% reduction infrom
total1:2:3 to 1:3:3from
emissions can obtain a 31.7%
ships, and 21.3%reduction
reduction in total emissions in container
25.0% reduction in total emissions
reduction emissions from ships, and 21.3% reduction in total emissions in container
terminals. Increasing the number of yard cranes can obviously reduce carbon emissions, but when
terminals. Increasing the number ofofyard
yardcranes can obviously reduce carbon emissions, but when the
the numberIncreasing
continues totherise,
number
the emissions cranes can obviously
are decreased slightly.reduce carbon emissions, but when
number
the continues
number to rise,
continues the emissions
to rise, are decreased
the emissions slightly.
are decreased slightly.
3.2.3. Impact of Energy Replacement for Yard Cranes and Trucks
3.2.3. Impact
3.2.3. Impact of
of Energy
Energy Replacement
Replacement for
for Yard
Yard Cranes
Cranes and
and Trucks
Trucks
A series of simulation experiments are designed to analyze the impact of energy replacement for
A series
A series of
of simulation experiments
experiments are
are designed
designed to
to analyze
analyze the
the impact
impact of
of energy
energy replacement
replacement for
for
yard cranes and simulation
trucks on carbon emissions, and the results are shown in Figures 14 and 15.
yard cranes
yard cranes and
and trucks
trucks on
on carbon
carbon emissions,
emissions, and
and the
the results
results are
are shown
shown in
in Figures
Figures 14
14 and
and 15.
15.

Figure 14. Impact of energy replacement for RTGs.

Figure
Figure 14.
14. Impact
Impact of
of energy
energy replacement
replacement for RTGs.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 17 of 19
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 19

Figure
Figure 15.
15. Impact
Impact of
of energy
energy replacement
replacement for trucks.

Compared with RTGs using diesel, the use of ERTGs can help reduce carbon emissions by 15.3%.
Compared with RTGs using diesel, the use of ERTGs can help reduce carbon emissions by
Figure 15 shows that, without considering external trucks, the use of AGVs can reduce carbon
15.3%. Figure 15 shows that, without considering external trucks, the use of AGVs can reduce carbon
emissions by 13.6% inside container terminals compared with trucks using diesel.
emissions by 13.6% inside container terminals compared with trucks using diesel.
Although port facilities with electric driven trucks changed from fuel driven trucks significantly
Although port facilities with electric driven trucks changed from fuel driven trucks significantly
reduce the carbon emissions, they do not contribute much to the reduction of total carbon emissions,
reduce the carbon emissions, they do not contribute much to the reduction of total carbon
owing to the small proportion of emissions from port facilities in the total emissions of container
emissions, owing to the small proportion of emissions from port facilities in the total emissions
terminals.
of container terminals.
4.
4. Conclusions
Conclusions and
and Discussion
Discussion
The maincontribution
The main contributionofof thisthis paper
paper is toisquantify
to quantify the impact
the impact of the allocation
of the allocation of including
of facilities, facilities,
including the number of facilities and the fuels adopted by facilities, on carbon
the number of facilities and the fuels adopted by facilities, on carbon emissions. In order to deal emissions. In order to
with
deal with the complex queuing network of container terminals, a simulation
the complex queuing network of container terminals, a simulation model is established with the model is established
with the changing
changing of theofnumber
of the number and theof and
fuel the fuel
adopted byadopted
facilitiesby as facilities as inputs.
inputs. Various Variousexperiments
simulation simulation
experiments
based on a container terminal in Algeria are designed and carried out. Finally, the carbonthe
based on a container terminal in Algeria are designed and carried out. Finally, carbon
emissions
emissions fromand
from facilities facilities
ships and ships
at the berthatand
the inside
berth and inside terminals,
container container terminals, andcarbon
and the total the total carbon
emissions
emissions
inside container terminals, are obtained and analyzed after running the simulation model 100 model
inside container terminals, are obtained and analyzed after running the simulation times.
100 times.
(1) The emissions from quay cranes, yard cranes, or trucks are only a small fraction of the total
(1) The emissions from quay cranes, yard cranes, or trucks are only a small fraction of the total
emissions of container terminals, which are no more than 10%. However, the reasonable
emissions of container terminals, which are no more than 10%. However, the reasonable
allocation of facilities can help reduce carbon emissions from ships, thereby the total emissions
allocation of facilities can help reduce carbon emissions from ships, thereby the total emissions
can be reduced.
can be reduced.
(2) Improvingthe
(2) Improving theratio
ratioQCs:YCs:Trucks
QCs:YCs:Trucksfrom from1:2:3
1:2:3toto 1:2:4
1:2:4 cancan reduce
reduce thethe emissions
emissions of ships
of ships at
at the
the berth
berth by 35.3%,
by 35.3%, emissions
emissions of ships
of ships in in container
container terminalsbyby26.7%,
terminals 26.7%,andandtotal
total emissions
emissions in in
container terminals by 22.8%. However, when the number of trucks
container terminals by 22.8%. However, when the number of trucks continues increasing, it hascontinues increasing, it has
absolutelyno
absolutely noimpact
impacton oncarbon
carbonemissions.
emissions.
(3) Improving the ratio QCs:YCs:Trucks
(3) Improving the ratio QCs:YCs:Trucks from from 1:2:3
1:2:3 to
to 1:3:3
1:3:3 cancan obtain
obtain aa 31.7%
31.7% reduction
reduction in in emissions
emissions
ofships
of shipsatatthetheberth,
berth, 25.0%
25.0% reduction
reduction in total
in total emissions
emissions fromfrom ships,
ships, and and
21.3% 21.3% reduction
reduction in
in total
total emissions in container terminals. Increasing the number of
emissions in container terminals. Increasing the number of yard cranes can obviously reduce yard cranes can obviously
reduce emissions,
carbon carbon emissions,
but when butthewhen the number
number continues continues
rising, rising, the emissions
the emissions are decreased
are decreased very
very slightly.
slightly.
(4) The
(4) Theuse
useof ofERTGs
ERTGs and and AGVs
AGVs can can reduce
reduce carbon
carbon emissions
emissions by by about
about 14%.
14%. However,
However, it it does
does not
not
contributemuch
contribute muchto to the
the reduction
reduction of of total
total carbon
carbon emissions
emissions owingowing to to the
the small
small proportion
proportion of of
emissions from port facilities in the total emissions of container
emissions from port facilities in the total emissions of container terminals. terminals.

The
The results
results obtained
obtained and
and proposed
proposed method
method cancan be
be applied
applied toto build
build aa green
green container
container terminal,
terminal,
which
which can also be used for similar problems. However,
However, this
this paper
paper only
only focuses
focuses onon the
the impact
impact on
carbon
carbon emissions
emissions without
without considering
considering the cost.
cost. In
Inreal
realprojects,
projects,the
thecost
costof
offacilities
facilitiescannot
cannotbe
beignored.
ignored.
Besides,
Besides, for
for trucks
trucks travelling
travelling inside
inside container terminals,
terminals, aa microscopic
microscopic simulation
simulation model
model needs to be
established to simulate the travelling behavior and congestion status, which should be solved in
future studies. Furthermore, future study should focus on the optimal allocation of facilities in ports
using the simulation optimization method.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 18 of 19

established to simulate the travelling behavior and congestion status, which should be solved in future
studies. Furthermore, future study should focus on the optimal allocation of facilities in ports using
the simulation optimization method.

Author Contributions: Methodology: K.L. and Q.T.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation: Y.P. and X.L.;
Writing-Review and Editing: W.W.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China grant number
(No. 51709037 and 51779037)
Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the Research Centre for Port Development at Dalian University of
Technology for devices.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Inventory of Air Emissions for Calendar Year. 2016. Available online: https://www.portoflosangeles.org/
pdf/2016_Air_Emissions_Inventory.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2017).
2. Peng, Y.; Wang, W.Y.; Song, X.Q.; Zhang, Q. Optimal allocation of resources for yard crane network
management to minimize carbon dioxide emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 131, 649–658. [CrossRef]
3. Villalba, G.; Gemechu, E.D. Estimating GHG emissions of marine ports-the case of Barcelona. Energy Policy
2011, 39, 1363–1368. [CrossRef]
4. Styhre, L.; Winnes, H.; Black, J.; Lee, J.; Le-Griffin, H. Greenhouse gas emissions from ships in ports—Case
studies in four continents. Trans. Res. Part D 2017, 54, 212–224. [CrossRef]
5. Schinas, O.; Butler, M. Feasibility and commercial considerations of LNG-fueled ships. Ocean Eng. 2016, 122,
84–96. [CrossRef]
6. Chang, C.C.; Jhang, C.W. Reducing speed and fuel transfer of the Green Flag Incentive Program in Kaohsiung
Port Taiwan. Trans. Res. Part D 2016, 46, 1–10. [CrossRef]
7. He, J.L.; Mi, W.J.; Chang, D.F.; Yan, W. An investigation into berth allocation and quay crane assignment
based on hybrid parallel genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, Shanghai, China, 7–8 November 2009; IEEE:
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 48–53.
8. Yu, S.; Wang, S.; Zhen, L. Quay crane scheduling problem with considering tidal impact and fuel consumption.
Flex. Serv. Manuf. J. 2017, 29, 345–368. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, W.Y.; Peng, Y.; Tang, G.L.; Song, X.Q. Influence of Carbon Emission Constraint on Container Quay
Crane Allocation. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 807–809, 936–940. [CrossRef]
10. Chen, G.; Govindanc, K.; Golias, M.M. Reducing truck emissions at container terminals in a low carbon
economy: Proposal of a queueing-based bi-objective model for optimizing truck arrival pattern. Trans. Res.
Part E 2013, 55, 3–22. [CrossRef]
11. Sha, M.; Zhang, T.; Lan, Y.; Zhou, X.; Qin, T.B.; Yu, D.Y.; Chen, K. Scheduling optimization of yard cranes
with minimal energy consumption at container terminals. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017, 113, 704–713. [CrossRef]
12. Yang, L.; Cai, Y.J.; Zhong, X.Z.; Shi, Y.Q.; Zhang, Z.Y. A Carbon Emission Evaluation for an Integrated
Logistics System—A Case Study of the Port of Shenzhen. Sustainability 2017, 9, 462. [CrossRef]
13. He, J.; Huang, Y.; Yan, W. Integrated internal truck, yard crane and quay crane scheduling in a container
terminal considering energy consumption. Exp. Syst. Appl. 2015, 42, 2464–2487. [CrossRef]
14. Von Westarp, A.G.; Schinas, O. A fuzzy approach for container positioning considering sustainable profit
optimization. Trans. Res. Part E 2016, 92, 56–66. [CrossRef]
15. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Makui, A.; Salahi, S.; Bazzazi, M.; Taheri, F. An efficient algorithm for solving a
new mathematical model for a quay crane scheduling problem in container ports. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2009,
56, 241–248. [CrossRef]
16. Diabat, A.; Theodorou, E. An integrated quay crane assignment and scheduling problem. Comput. Ind. Eng.
2014, 73, 115–123. [CrossRef]
17. Fu, Y.; Diabat, A.; Tsai, I.T. A multi-vessel quay crane assignment and scheduling problem: Formulation and
heuristic solution approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 6959–6965. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1813 19 of 19

18. Kaysi, I.A.; Maddah, B.; Nehme, N.; Mneimneh, F.M. An integrated model for resource allocation and
scheduling in a transshipment container terminal. Transp. Lett. Int. J. Trans. Res. 2012, 4, 143–152. [CrossRef]
19. Boysen, N.; Fliedner, M. Determining crane areas in intermodal transshipment yards: The yard partition
problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 204, 336–342. [CrossRef]
20. Jiang, X.; Jin, J. A branch-and-price method for integrated yard crane deployment and container allocation in
transshipment yards. Trans. Res. Part B 2017, 98, 62–75. [CrossRef]
21. He, J.L.; Zhang, W.M.; Huang, Y.F.; Yan, W. A simulation optimization method for internal trucks sharing
assignment among multiple container terminals. Adv. Eng. Inf. 2013, 27, 598–614. [CrossRef]
22. Chen, L.; Langevin, A.; Lu, Z. Integrated scheduling of crane handling and truck transportation in a maritime
container terminal. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 225, 142–152. [CrossRef]
23. Tang, L.; Zhao, J.; Liu, J. Modeling and solution of the joint quay crane and truck scheduling problem. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 2014, 236, 978–990. [CrossRef]
24. Legato, P.; Gulli, D.; Trunfio, R. The quay crane deployment problem at a maritime container terminal. In
Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Modelling and Simulation (ECMS), University of Cyprus,
Nicosia, Cyprus, 3–6 June 2008.
25. Esmemr, S.; Ceti, I.B.; Tuna, O. A Simulation for Optimum Terminal Truck Number in a Turkish Port Based
on Lean and Green Concept. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2010, 26, 277–296. [CrossRef]
26. Ilati, G.; Sheikholeslami, A.; Hassannayebi, E. A Simulation-Based Optimization Approach for Integrated
Port Resource Allocation Problem. PROMET Traffic Trans. 2014, 26, 243–255. [CrossRef]
27. He, J.; Huang, Y.; Yan, W. Yard crane scheduling in a container terminal for the trade-off between efficiency
and energy consumption. Adv. Eng. Inf. 2015, 29, 59–75. [CrossRef]
28. Ma, H.; Hong, Y.; Du, Y. The Scheduling of quay cranes and truck in Container Port-A Simulation-based
method. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Applied Science and Engineering Innovation
(ASEI), Jinan, China, 30–31 August 2015; pp. 842–847.
29. Al-Dhaheri, N.; Jebali, A.; Diabat, A. A simulation-based Genetic Algorithm approach for the quay crane
scheduling under uncertainty. Simul. Mod. Pract. Theory 2016, 66, 122–138. [CrossRef]
30. Ministry of Transport of China. Design Code of Container Terminal for Sea Port, JTS 165-4-2011;
China Communication Press: Beijing, China, 2011.
31. Izadiniaa, N.; Eshghia, K. A robust mathematical model and ACO solution for multi-floor discrete layout
problem with uncertain locations and demands. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 96, 237–248. [CrossRef]
32. Mohammadi, M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Siadat, A.; Dantan, J.Y. Design of a reliable logistics network
with hub disruption under uncertainty. Appl. Math. Model. 2016, 40, 5621–5642. [CrossRef]
33. Karamyar, F.; Sadeghi, J.; Yazdi, M.M. A Benders decomposition for the location-allocation and scheduling
model in a healthcare system regarding robust optimization. Neural Comput. Appl. 2018, 29, 873–886.
[CrossRef]
34. ISO. Specification with Guidance at the Organization Level for Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas
Emission and Removal; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
35. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 2006. Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.
iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ (accessed on 28 April 2006).
36. Corbett, J.J.; Wang, H.; Winebrake, J.J. The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from
international shipping. Trans. Res. Part D Trans. Environ. 2009, 14, 593–598. [CrossRef]
37. Calculation of Ship Power Load. Available online: https://wenku.baidu.com/view/
e548c101ed630b1c59eeb5d5.html (accessed on 4 November 2013).
38. Peng, Y. The Research on the Optimal Allocation of Low-Carbon Seaport Resources under Uncertainties.
Ph.D. Thesis, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, 2016. (In Chinese)

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).