New automated rotterdam container terminal shows how far us lags

Jones 1

Port Project II

Development of Container Port Automation

John Paul Jones

MARA 416

Professor Mike Donelan

December 3, 2015

Aggie Honor Code Statement: An Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.

_______________________________________

Jones 2

The invention of the 20-foot equivalent unit, in the 1960’s, brought about a revolution in

the shipping industry; and today that same unit is changing the landscape of ports around the

world. The change is not the addition of roads or intermodal capability, but the use of automation

to streamline the ship to shore interface. In automated container ports, the only interaction a

human has with the container is from a central tower where the crane operators maneuver the

spreader bar for the last three feet of a lift. Every other movement of a container is completed by

a software system and robotic equipment. The ambitious push for automation has arisen from the

increases in container ship size. With larger ships, the amount of cargo handling is beginning to

exceed the ability of manual capacity, and the only way to break this barrier is through the use of

heavily automated terminals. The use of fully automated terminals is the next evolution in the

development of cargo handling and is already being done successfully in by APM’s Maasylakte

II Terminal in Rotterdam.

The ability to have automated terminals arises through the technological advances society

has made through the years. However, the implementation of automated terminals is being

hastened by the increased size of container ships and the rising cost of shore labor. The container

ships in operation today are increasing in size dramatically with 18,000 TEU ships already in use

with the number expected to rise to 100 vessels by 2019 (Bonney, 2015). This gross size increase

requires not only larger cranes to work the ships, but also for faster loading and unloading due to

the shear number of TEUs being handled on each vessel. The issue with this is only a finite

number of cranes can work a vessel at a given time, so the only way to reach the goal of faster

unloading is through increasing the number of lifts per hour. According to the Journal of

Jones 3

Commerce, the only possible way to achieve the sought after lifts per hour is through the use of

automation (Bonney, 2015). With this advanced technology, the ports of world will be better

suited to handle the large ships being developed in the world today.

The unions of today and the rising salaries of longshoreman are also a catalyst for ports

becoming fully automated. As seen in the Figure 41 on page 172 of Alderton, the cost of port

labor beginning in the 1960s became the largest cost for linear services (2008). This excessive

labor cost creates cause for terminals to increase interest in automation. With the use of

machines, the capital investment is great in the beginning; but the equipment can handle the

cargo more efficiently with lower operating costs. This benefits the terminal and the shipper. The

container yard saves money on labor, and the shipping line receives a reduced turnaround. The

increased automation in terminals will cost the unions jobs; however, the union will receive more

technical high paying jobs for maintenance of the equipment (Mongelluzo, 2015). This

represents a trade off between the unions and the terminal operators.

The first aspect of yard automation is the ship to shore gantry crane. The cranes used in

today’s automated yards are semi-automated cranes (Mongelluzo, 2015). This means that crane

operators are stationed in a control room and only have manual control of the last three feet of

the lift. The entirety or the lift is completed by the computer software except the landing of the

spreader bar on the container and the placing of the container on the truck. The operator has high

definition camera views of all angles necessary to complete the loading. The central location of

operators protects the men from the elements of the crane such as the sun, acceleration and

deceleration of the cab, and depth perception (Mongelluzo, 2015). Depth perception is a problem

not often though of, but it is a major issue with the increase in crane size. In order to handle the

18,000 TEU ships a crane height of 180 feet is required, and at this height depth perception is a

Jones 4

major issue for the operator (Mongelluzo, 2015). The use of semi-automated cranes with high

definition cameras eliminates this problem.

The next piece of crucial automated equipment is the automated rubber tire gantry crane

(ARTG). The crane operates exactly the same as a manual rubber tire gantry except it operates

under full automation. This equipment operates much in the same manner as the ship to shore

crane. All container movements within the stack are done with full automation, and the container

landing is done by an operator a remote station. However, one operator can control the manual

loading of the container to truck of up to six ARTGs (Konecranes). This is a major labor

reduction tool by allowing a single operator to do the work of six with a manual system. The

system that allows the ARTG to be fully automatic in the stack is the cranes active load control

system; this system minimizes container sway and holds the box in one place as the ARTG

moves (Konecranes). The ARTG is another example how automation can labor cost and save

time when used properly.

The automatic guided vehicle (AGV) also plays a crucial role in the efficiency of a fully

automatic terminal. The AGV is a driverless vehicle which takes the container from the ship to

shore crane then to the ARTG (Mongelluzo, 2015). These vehicles are run by computer software

that directs individual trucks to the ARTG. An innovative way the trucks increase efficiency is

by being battery operated. When the battery on the truck becomes depleted, the truck simply

drives itself to the service station; and the battery is exchanged in a process that takes just over 6

minutes (Mongelluzo, 2015). This saves the terminal refueling time, as well as the fuel cost

associated with running diesel trucks. Also, the AGV can be fitted with a self-unloading

mechanism, which allows the truck to place the container in a staging area for the rubber tire

Jones 5

gantry to place the container in its respective spot. All of the equipment and techniques listed

above are exhibited in the fully automated Maasvlakte II terminal in Rotterdam.

The APM terminal in Rotterdam is the worlds first fully automated container terminal.

The terminal has complete automation from the ship to shore crane to the container leaving the

gate; this terminal has achieved great efficiency as result of this high level of automation. It is

expected that Rotterdam’s APM terminal will improve vessel productivity by 40 percent

(Mongelluzzo, 2015). This is a major margin in today’s world of large ships that are trying to

minimize port time. The terminal minimizes time through two operations of the facility: ship to

stack and stack to out the gate.

The container cranes operating in the yard are semi-automated; the lift is totally control

by the computer except for the landing of the spreader bar on the container. One unique feature

of APM cranes is that they utilize a two-lift system. The ship-unloading crane lands the container

on a secondary platform that is fully automated. This crane then lands the container on the

driverless AGV to move the container to its destination (Mongelluzo, 2015). APM’s use of the

secondary platform saves valuable seconds by allowing the spreader bar to return immediately to

the vessel without waiting on the AGV. Next, the AGV takes the container from the crane to the

ARTG to be stacked. This vehicle saves time in two ways. First, the AGV is driverless and

battery operated; these two features allow the truck to be loaded by the fully automated container

crane and removes refueling time from the equation with a six minute battery change

(Mongelluzo, 2015). The second beneficial feature of the AGV is that each truck has a lifting

capacity and places the container in a designated stacking area for the ARTG (Mongelluzo,

2015). This saves time by allowing the truck to return immediately to the quayside to pick up

another container.

Jones 6

APM’s Maasvlakte II terminal also boasts two of the most efficient stacking and gate

control methods of a container yard to date. The stacking system used in Maasylakte II is based

on the containers intermodal method of shipment once off the vessel (Mongelluzo, 2015). The

yard services three intermodal methods truck, rail, and inland barge; therefore, the AGV brings

the container to the respective stack for its next mode of transportation allowing all similar

containers to be in one area. Next, the automated truck gate operating method used by the

terminal has proven to be drastically more efficient than the ones used by manual terminals. The

common gate in gate out time of Maasylakte II is 30 minutes compared to the common time of

US ports which is 45 minutes to an hour (Mongelluzo, 2015). This efficiency is achieved by

forcing truckers to enter all information into an electronic portal and requiring trucks to arrive in

a 2 hour appointment window (Mongelluzo, 2015). The implementation of the automated truck

gate has cut gate time in half allowing for a much more efficient turn time, and reducing yard

congestion by establishing an appointment method.

With the challenges of modern container terminals, the automated terminal is the future

of the industry. It is the only way to achieve the efficiency shipper’s desire, and with the amount

of competition in the market, those that do not adopt this philosophy will fall by the wayside for

those that do. Rotterdam’s APM Maasylakte II terminal is an example of the efficiency that can

be achieved by a fully automated system, and the benefits a terminal operators has from

automated machines. This project has opened my eyes to the benefits of running an automated

terminal, and it has given me valuable insight into the direction the container terminal industry is

heading.

Jones 7

References

Alderton, P. (2008). Port Management and Operations. London: Informa Law Mortimer House.

Bonney, J. (2015, September 09). Rx for North Europe ports handling mega-ships: more

automation. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.joc.com/port-

news/international-ports/rx-north-europe-ports-handling-mega-ships-more-

automation_20150909.html

Konecranes. (2015). Automated RTG (ARTG) System. Retrieved from

http://www.konecranes.com/equipment/container-handling-equipment/automated-rtg-

artg-system

Mongelluzzo, B. (2015, May 02). New automated Rotterdam container terminal shows how far

US lags. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.joc.com/port-news/terminal-

operators/apm-terminals/new-automated-rotterdam-container-terminal-shows-just-how-

far-us-lags_20150502.html

Mongelluzzo, B. (2015, September 03). Crane assist technology investment pays off for SSA

marine. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.joc.com/port-news/terminal-

operators/ssa-marine/crane-assist-technology-investment-pays-ssa-

marine_20150903.html