MARTEC 2004

CONTAINER HANDLING EFFICIENCY

K. B. Loke, A. H. Saharuddin, A. R. Ibrahim, and I. Rizal

Faculty of Management and Economics
University College of Science and Technology Malaysia (KUSTEM)
21030 Kuala Terengganu

ABSTRACT
At present, a Malaysian port is continuing her role to become one of the busiest international shipping
ports in the region. In order to maintain its position as one of the top port, good handling efficiency is one of the
most contributing factors. The handling efficiency of the container transhipment of seaport can be determined
by considering some variables of interactions. Interactions involve interference among dock cranes (quay
cranes), interference among yard cranes (rubber-tyred gantry cranes), interference among connection units
(prime movers), and finally, interference among containers (containers blocked among themselves). Using these
interaction variables, this paper discusses the initial findings in order to improve the performance of the
container handling. The efficiency of a container port is measured by ship turnaround times of vessels.
Therefore, the port with a shorter turnaround time is considered a better or a more efficient port. By improving
the performance of container handling, the ship turnaround time can be reduced.

INTRODUCTION
The seaport terminals have undergone tremendous transformation with the introduction of
containerisation. Container transportation started in the United State of America (USA) in 1920. The
Pennsylvania Railways first transported a set of containers by rail and expanded them to Europe. In 1955
McLean Industry Ltd. further established and developed a connecting system of piggyback and marine
transport. The first maritime container transportation started between New York and Houston by the Pan-
Atlantic Shipping Lines in 1956 and later witnessed the first full container vessel named Gateway City being
launched into operation for the route in 1957 [1].
On a large terminal, there may be thousands of container movements in a day. A well-coordinated and
controlled series of systems would allow the terminal to operate smoothly and efficiently. There are four main
operational systems, such as ship operation, quay transfer operation, container yard operation, and
receipt/delivery operation [2].
It indicates that the terminal operation involves with many interactions [3]. In the real container
terminal system the interactions are the critical issues; some of the principal aspects involve with interference
among dock cranes, interference among yard cranes, interference among connection units, and interference
among containers themselves [4]. If these activities are not compatible with one another, like one operation
running slower than the others, then one operation can interfere with and possibly delay another in the process.
So, this research would mark with interaction between the vehicles and machineries, to speed up the
quay transfer operation and container yard operation, eventually match with the operation of the quayside
cranes.

TRANSHIPMENT PROCESSES AT CONTAINER TERMINAL

When a ship arrives at a port, the import and tranship containers have to be taken off the ship by the
quay crane (QC). Next, the containers are transferred from the QC to connection units that travel between the
ship and container yard. This task is performed by prime mover (PM). The containers are stored for a certain
period until they reach the next destination, transported by rubber-tyred gantry crane (RTG). After a certain
period, the containers are retrieved and transported by PM to transportation modes like deep-sea ships or feeder
vessels. This process can be executed in reverse order, to load export or tranship containers onto a vessel. The
containers stacking on the yard and vessel can be piled up, which means that not every container is directly
accessible. As a result, storage space becomes limited [5].
In order to be efficient, every QC is served by 6 or 7 PMs. Every PM will be waiting under their
serviced QC before arrival of the vessels during the discharge process. During loading process, every PM also
carries containers and waits under their serviced QC before vessels arrival. It reduces the waiting time and
minimises the vessel turnaround time.
After discharging the container, PM would transfer it to the container transhipment block. RTG would
stand by and wait to service the oncoming PM. On average 3 RTGs would be arranged for 1 unit of QC.
 MARTEC 2004

Figure 1: A layout of a transhipment process

Interference Interference Interference

among dock among among yard
cranes connection units cranes

Quay transfer operation

Ship
operation Container yard
operation
Interference
among Interference
containers among
containers
Discharging containers
Loading containers

Sources: Iris F. A. Vis and Rene de Koster, 2002. Transhipment of Containers at a Container Terminal: An
Overview [5]
Kim K.H., and Park Y.M., 2004. A Crane Scheduling Method for Port Container [6]

Interference Among Dock Cranes

The Quay Crane (QC) with its steel box-girder framework is the most distinctive feature of a container
terminal. The operator’s cab hangs below and travels along the horizontal boom with the spreader frame
suspended beneath it. The crane itself is mounted on rails, and can move under electric power along the
quayside to a new loading or discharge position alongside the vessel. The speed with which it loads and unloads
containers determines the ship-handling rate and has a significant effect on the performance of the terminal as a
whole [2].
When discharging and loading operations are performed at the same ship bay, the discharge operation
must precede the loading operation. When a discharge operation is performed in a ship bay, activities on a deck
must be performed before activities in the hold. Also, the loading operation in a hold must precede the loading
operation on the deck of the same ship bay. Thus, there are precedence relationships among clusters,
relationships that must be observed during a ship operation. It should also be noted that QCs travel on the same
track. Thus, certain pairs of tasks cannot be performed simultaneously when the locations of the two clusters
corresponding to the tasks are too close to each other, because two adjacent QCs must be apart from each other
by at least one ship bay so that they can simultaneously perform their tasks without interference [6].

Interference Among Yard Cranes

A RTG is rather like a wide stretched straddle carrier. The RTG own a spreader frame to lift the
containers. The RTG’s activities are limited to the container yard, lifting containers to and from transfer
equipment and road vehicles, and shifting containers in stack, though it can move between container storage
blocks as the focus of activities changes [2].
Storage yards at container terminals serve as temporary buffers for inbound and outbound containers.
RTGs are the most frequently used equipment in yards for container handling. The efficiency of yard operations
heavily depends on the productivity of these RTGs. As the workload distribution in the yard changes over time,
dynamic deployment of RTGs among storage blocks (container stacking areas) is an important issue of terminal
operation management [7]. Yard cranes play a very important role in the storage yard and usually become the
bottleneck in the container handling process. Without an effective operation planning of yard cranes, PMs may
 MARTEC 2004

have to wait in the yard, and consequently QC will be idle in waiting for PM. Such waiting times reduce the
QCs rate. Therefore, to achieve high productivity, the use of yard cranes should be well planned.

Interference Among Connection Units

Tractor-trailer sets are among the commonest equipment for quay transfer. Each set consists of a
heavy-duty tractor and a trailer or train of trailers towed by it. The trailer is a wheeled frame fitted with locating
devices to hold the container while it is moved. The trailer is designed solely for in-terminal use.
The main requirements of the connection units are to keep in step with the crane operation. There have
two factors that would effect the transfer rate. First, time taken to complete one quay transfer cycle (transfer
cycle time). Second, number of units of equipment deployed in the operation [2]. The transfer cycle time
depends on three main factors; these are the distance that has to be travelled in the round trip, the speed of the
equipment, and the time within the cycle when the equipment is not moving (immobile time). The number of
vehicles to be allocated and deployed will be based on two factors. First, it depends on the number of containers
to be discharged, loaded, shifted and restowed. Second, the expected speed of the ship operation, that depends
on the types of cranes and ship.

Interference Among Containers

There have two ways of storing containers at yard: storing on a chassis and stacking on the ground.
With a chassis system each container is individually accessible, but with stacking on the ground containers can
be piled up. The yard is divided into multiple blocks, each consisting of a number of rows. The height of
stacking varies between two and eight container high. At the end of each lane a transfer point is situated. At this
point the crane takes the container off/on the PMs [2].
A typical problem for a container terminal is that containers have to be stored and retrieved at two sides
of the stack, namely seaside (to/from the ship) and landside (to/from other modalities). Cranes do the work.
Some of the decisions that have to be made to ensure an efficient process are: which side has the highest priority
and how long can containers wait before they are stored or retrieved [5].
Consequences of higher stacking are rehandling problems. To reach a specific container it can be
necessary to move containers that are placed on top of the demanded container. To minimise delay by removing
containers, reshuffling of the stack can be done in advance. On the other hand, the higher the stacking the less
ground space is needed for the same amount of containers. The higher stacking needs improvement of all the
other relevant conditions at the same time to reduce its possible impact. Otherwise, large numbers of
unproductive container movements are needed [8]. When import containers are picked up in a random way, total
number of rehandling would be increased when the height of the stack increases [9].
A buffer area has been proposed, where a number of empty chassis are available to store export
containers temporarily. As a result, 4% reduction in the total loading time can be obtained by using a buffer
space [10].

METHODS
This paper is concerned with container transhipment handling equipment interaction, which would
cause the efficiency of a container terminal. First, a classification of interactions that arise at container terminals
are analysed and discussed. For various decision problems, an overview of relevant literature is presented.
Second, some secondary data are taken from a Malaysian port’s various departments for analysis and discussion.
This is done by observation and interviewing employees of the Malaysian port. After that, three mathematic
formulas have been developing to calculate the performance of Moves Per Hour (MPH) vehicles and
machineries.
Port efficiency can be measured in term of MPH, so that data for various vehicles and machineries are
collected and analysed. Three mathematical formulas are used to calculate the MPH of QCs, RTGs & PMs. The
authors did their research trip during March – April 2004, and this study is based on 6-month data that the
authors obtained from various departments at the Malaysian port, such as operation department, statistic
department, and technical department. The data was collected from October 2003 until March 2004.
This paper will give some output example of MPH of 1 unit of QC, PM, and RTG (Table 1). After
that, analysis of the MPH of 1 unit of QC is calculated between various units of PMs and RTGs (Table 2). After
that, it would convert the table to figure, to analyses the matching quantities between various vehicles and
machineries based on MPH (Figure 2 and 3).
A ratio study between gross crane production (GMPH) and net crane production (NMPH) is
synthesised (Table 4 and Figure 4). A mathematical formula is also being used for analysis of data.
 MARTEC 2004

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Three mathematical formulae have been used to calculate the MPH of QCs, RTGs, and PMs. The
formulae are as below:
1. MPH QC = Total Discharge + Total Load + Total Shift/Restows
Gross Crane Hours

2. MPH RTG = Gate Moves + Yard Moves + Vessel Moves

RTG Running Hours

3. MPH PM = Yard Moves + Vessel Moves

PM Running Hours

After this, some output example of MPH for various vehicles and machineries are shown. Table 1
shows the MPH of QC, RTG and PM per unit, and Table 2 shows the MPH of 1 unit QC with various units of
RTGs and PMs.
From Table 1, the authors found that the result MPH of QC increases when the RTG and PM is
increases in December 2003. It may be caused by faster turnaround time of RTGs and PMs that have sped up the
ship operation. But, it was also found that the MPH results of RTGs and PMs are increased, but MPH of QCs
decreased. It may be caused by the delays value of stevedore and vessel both are high at Mar 2004. It needs to
be further research.
2 ½ units of RTGs and 6 units PMs normally will support 1 QC. But 3 units of RTGs and 7 units of
PMs also will support 1 QC. This situation usually happened for mainline vessels. From Figures 2 and 3, the
findings highlight the distribution of QCs and RTGs that was mismatched. It must be solved by increasing the
number of RTGs or increased handling speed of RTGs. For economic fact or for improving the speed of RTGs
is an important issue. The authors found also that the allocation of QCs and PMs is a slight mismatched;
coordinating the interactions between QCs and PMs can enhance it.

Table 1: Moves Per Hour (MPH) of 1 unit of quay crane (QC), Rubber-tyred Gantry crane (RTG) and Prime
Mover (PM)
Month/Year MPH QC MPH RTG MPH PM
Oct-03 32.00 7.18 4.90
Nov-03 32.53 7.27 4.77
Dec-03 33.28 7.48 5.00
Jan-04 31.67 7.56 4.63
Feb-04 33.67 7.12 4.80
Mar-04 31.16 8.17 5.84
Source: Malaysian port, 2003 – 2004, various departments [11]

Table 2: Moves Per Hour (MPH) for various units of Quay Cranes (QCs), Rubber-tyred Gantry cranes (RTGs)
and Prime Movers (PMs)
Month/Year MPH QC MPH RTGs MPH PMs
1 unit 2.5 units 3 units 6 units 7 units
Oct-03 32.00 17.95 21.53 29.38 34.30
Nov-03 32.53 18.18 21.81 28.63 33.39
Dec-03 33.28 18.70 22.45 29.98 35.00
Jan-04 31.67 18.90 22.69 27.77 32.41
Feb-04 33.67 17.80 21.37 28.82 33.60
Mar-04 31.16 20.43 24.50 35.06 40.88
Source: Malaysian port, 2003 – 2004, various departments [11]
 MARTEC 2004

Figure 2: Moves Per Hour (MPH) 1 unit of Quay Crane (QC), 2 ½ units of Rubber-tyred Gantry cranes (RTGs)
and 6 units of Prime Movers (PMs)

40
35
30
25
MPH

20
15
10
5
0
Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04
Month
1 unit of QC 2 & 1/2 units of RTGs
6 units of PMs

Figure 3: Moves Per Hour (MPH) 1 unit of Quay Crane (QC), 3 units of Rubber-tyred Gantry cranes (RTGs)
and 7 units of Prime Movers (PMs)

45
40
35
30
MPH

25
20
15
10
5
0
Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04
Month
1 unit of QC 3 units of RTGs 7 units of PMs

A ratio study between Gross Crane Production (GMPH) and Net Crane Production (NMPH) is done
and analysed the scale of improvement on crane activity (Table 3 and Figure 4). GMPH is the total crane
production plus various delays, and NMPH is the net total crane production and is free from delays. Below is the
formula to calculate the ratio between GMPH and NMPH.
Ratio Formula (%):
Ratio (%) = Net Crane Production (MPH) – Gross Crane Production (MPH) X 100%
Net Crane Production (MPH)
 MARTEC 2004

Table 3: Ratio between Gross Crane Production and Net Crane Production 2004
Week Gross Crane Production (GMPH) Net Crane Production (NMPH) Ratio (%)
1 29.99 38.26 21.62
2 30.64 37.58 18.47
3 32.34 38.83 16.71
4 32.6 39.1 16.62
5 31.82 38.16 16.61
6 33.43 39.68 15.75
7 33.96 39.87 14.82
8 34.06 40.21 15.29
9 34.71 39.99 13.20
10 31.25 37.55 16.78
11 30.65 37.51 18.29
12 32.64 37.93 13.95
13 31.08 37.65 17.45
14 30.49 37.31 18.28
Source: Malaysian port, 2004, productivity week, statistics department [12]

Figure 4: Ratio between Gross Crane Production and Net Crane Production 2004
45 25
40
35 20

Percentage (%)
30
15
25
MPH

20
10
15
10 5
5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
week

GMPH NMPH Ratio (%)

Figure 4 shows that the ratio between GMPH and NMPH 2004 for the first 14 weeks. In initial finding,
the Malaysian port has achieved 16.70% on average.

CONCLUSION
A fast developing container port at par or better than the rest in the Region. The Malaysian port has a
strong role to play in the development of the country. The need to enhance the efficiency of containership
handling is paramount to decreasing turnaround times of the client ship, hence in the decrease of the overall ship
port cost. Could the Malaysian port maintain its efficient status or increase in their speed of MPH? In what ways
does the Malaysian port maintain or improve its speed of MPH?
 MARTEC 2004

FURTHER RESEARCH
There are 2 issues need to be addressed here. First, closing the gap between modes and units in
improving better MPH outturns. Second, maintaining and enhancing MPH result to become a world-class
container port.

Acknowledgements
We extend our sincere appreciation and indebtedness to Malaysian port operation department, statistic
department, human resource department, and technical department for they guidance, support and
encouragement. We would also like to thank the reviewers of this paper for they helpful suggestion.

References
1. Inamura H., Ishiguro K., and Osman M. A. (1997). “Asia Container transportation Network and Its
Effects on the Japanese Shipping Industry”. IATSS Research Volume 21, number 2. 100 – 108 pp.
2. Thomas B. J., Roach D. K., Interface4 Ltd, and International Labour Office. (1994). “Portworker
Development Programme”. International Labour Organisation (ILO).
3. Koh P. H., Goh J. L. K., Ng H. S., and Ng H. C. (1994). “Using Simulation to Preview Plans of A
Container Port Operation”. Proceedings of the 1994 Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, Florida,
December.
4. BruzzoneA. G., Giribone P., and Revetria R. (1999). “Operative Requirements and Advances for the
New Generation Simulators in Multimodal Container Terminals”. Proceedings of the 1999 Winter
Simulation Conference. 1243 – 1252 pp.
5. Iris F. A. Vis and Rene de Koster. (2002). “Transhipment of Containers at a Container Terminal: An
Overview”. European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 147 Issue 1, 16 May 2003. Pg 1 – 16.
6. Kim K. H., and Park Y. M. (2004). “A Crane Scheduling Method for Port Container Terminals”.
European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 156, Issue 3, 1 August 2004. 752 – 768 pp.
7. Zhang C., Wan Y., and Liu J. (2002). “Dynamic Crane Deployment in Container Storage Yards”.
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological Volume 36, Issue 6, July 2002. 537 – 555 pp.
8. Chen T. (1999). “Yard Operations in the Container Terminal – Unproductive Moves”. Maritime Policy
and Management Volume 26, Number 1. 27 – 38 pp.
9. Kim K. H. (1997). “Evaluation of the Number of Rehandles in Container Yards”. Computers and
Industrial Engineering Volume 32, Number 4. 701 – 711 pp.
10. Chung Y. G., Randhawa S. U., and Medowell E. D. (1988). “A Simulation Analysis for A Transtainer
– Based Container Handling Facility”. Computers and Industrial Engineering Volume 14, Number 2.
113 – 125 pp.
11. Malaysian Port. (2003 & 2004). Data from various departments.
12. Malaysian Port. (2004). “Productivity Week” in excel, Statistic department.