MODELIRANJE LUČKE SPONE

BROD – OPERATIVNA OBALA

- Ship – Baerth Link
- Seaside Link

Dijagram lučkih operacija i ukupno vreme koje brod provede u luci

Ship loading/unloading operations modeling
In general, this model integrates main actual operations of the container terminal by
simplifying complex activities, and these operations are defined according to ship class.
In this section, various objects were observed in the real terminal and model elements.
Model elements of the container terminal can be separated into follow group:
- berth cost in $ per hour, c1  nb cnb
- QCs cost in $ per hour, c2  nb nc cnc
- storage yards cost in $ per hour, c3  ncontt con aconcy ccy
- transportation cost by yard transport

c4  nctc ncycct
equipment between quayside and
storage yard in $ per hour
- labor cost for QC gangs in $ per hour, c5  nctl cl
- ships cost in port in $ per hour, c6  tws cs
- containers cost and its contents
in $ per hour c7  twsnrcon cw

TC  i 1 ci
The total cost function, would be concerned with 7
the combined terminals and containerships cost as
It is necessary to know that only the total port cost function computes the number of
berths/terminal and QCs/berth that would satisfy the basic premise that the service port cost plus
the cost of ships in port should be at a minimum. This function was introduced by Schonfeld and
Sharafeldien (1985). We point out that their solutions may not be as good as ours because we
have simulation approach to determine key parameters tw, t s, , ,  and especially kc. Therefore,
to find the optimal solution, their function can be obtained in the following form


TC  f    nb cnb  nc cnc  
 
  ncon tt con acon cy ccy  nctl cl  ncyc ct   t ws   cs  nrcon cw 
or
1 / kc
 ncon rcon 
TC  f    nb cnb  ncon ttcon aconcy ccy    
   tdu 
  
nb cnc  tl cl  ncyc ct   t ws   cs  nrcon cw 
where TC - total port system costs in $/hour.
From the total port cost function per average arrival rate, we can obtain
f   f  
AC   (A)
 
Since  = , we get

TC f  
AC   (B)
 
or because of  = nb, the Eq. (B) also has the form

TC f nb 
AC   (C)
nb  nb 

Eqs. (A), (B) and (C) show the average container ship cost in $/ship, AC. In this study, the trade-
off will be simulative and analytically resolved by minimizing the sum of the relevant cost
components associated with the number of berths/terminal and QCs/berth, and average arrival
rate. These three parameters are key to the analysis of facility utilization and achieving major
improvements in container port efficiency, increasing terminal throughput, minimizing terminal
traffic congestion and reducing re-handling time. A reduction in operating cost can be achieved
by jointly optimizing these parameters. In solving the berths/terminal and QCs/berth, analysts
and planners are concerned primarily with the average time that ships spend in port and the
average cost per ship serviced.
 Experimental strategy I
I. Numerical examples
This section gives a ASBY link modeling methodology based on statistical
analysis of container ship traffic data obtained from the Pusan East Container
Terminal (PECT). PECT is big container terminals with a capacity of
2,008,573 twenty foot equivalent units (TEU) in 2005. There are five berths
with total quay length of 1,500 m and draft around 15-16 m, Figs. I and II
(PECT website). Ships of each class can be serviced at each berth.
I.1. Input data
An important part of the model implementation is the correct choice of the
values of the simulation parameters. The input data for the both simulation
and analytical models are based on the actual ship arrivals at the PECT for
the ten months period from January 1, 2005 to October 31, 2005 (Fig. I) and
January 1, 2006 to October 31, 2006 (Fig. II), respectively (PECT website,
PECT Management reports). This involved approximately 1,225 ship calls in
2005 and 1,285 in 2006. The ship arrival rate was 0.168 ships/hour in 2005
and 0.176 in 2006. Total throughput during the considering period was
1,704,173 TEU in 2005 and 1,703,662 TEU in 2006. Also, the
berthing/unberthing time of ships was assumed to be 1 hour.
 Fig. I. PECT layout,
2005

Fig. II. PECT layout,

2006
 The interarrival time distribution is plotted in the Figures III and IV.
Interestingly, even though ship arrivals of the ships are scheduled and not
random, the distribution of interarrival times fitted very well the exponential
distribution.
Service times were calculated by using the Erlang distribution with
different phases. To obtain accurate data, we have first fitted the empirical
distribution of service times of ships to the appropriate theoretical
distribution. It is observed that service time of ships in 2005 follows the 4-
phase Erlang distribution (Figure V), while the 5-phase Erlang distribution
fits very well the service time of ships in 2006 (Figure VI).
Goodness-of-fit was evaluated, for all tested data, by both chi-square and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests at a 5 % significance level.
We have carried out extensive numerical work for high/low values of the
PECT model characteristics. Our numerical experiments are based on
different parameters of various PECT characteristics such as: number of
containers loading/unloading from container ship, the QC move time, hourly
berth cost, average yard container dwell time, transportation cost by yard
transport equipment between quayside and storage yard, number of m2 of
storage yard per container, storage yard cost, paid labor time, labor cost,
ship cost in port and average payload of containers, presented in next Table.
Table I. Input data - Ship characteristics

Scheduled time of ship Ship Number of lifts per

arrivals characteristics ship No.
of nc PQC
berth
Loaded Unloaded
Daync T1 T2 Cs L
stage stage

09:00 08:20 734 128.8 342 155 2 2 36.37

Monday
2005 09:00 10:17 1,001 164.4 240 0 1 2 48.17

…
01:00 01:50 4,400 299.8 870 870 4 5 111.5

Sunday 04:00 03:40 5,516 277.0 273 48 2 2 28.53

2006 11:00 10:25 5,344 276.0 806 218 3 3 61.61

16:00 16:35 3,032 242.7 741 716 2 3 78.89

Note: T1– Scheduled time; T2 – Time of arrival; Cs – Capacity of ships in TEU;

L – Ship length; nc – Number of QCs assigned per ship; PQC – Productivity of QCs
 Fig. III. Distribution of ships Fig. IV. Distribution of ships
inter-arrival times (IAT) at PECT, 2005 inter-arrival times (IAT) at PECT, 2006

Fig. V. Service distribution of ships Fig. VI. Service distribution of ships

(the 4-phase Erlang distribution), 2005 (the 5-phase Erlang distribution), 2006
Table II. Input data – Terminal characteristics

Input data

in no. of in hours per in hours/ in $/ship in

container container gang/ship hour contain. nc* kc
Year s /ship

2005 897 0.042 15.19 1161 996 2.87 0.919

2006 875 0.042 13.75 1161 981 3.27 0.896

nc - average number of QCs assigned per ship (Real data and Simulation resluts);
cnb = 62 million $; i = .0663; ny - 40, cnbm = 6.2 million $ ; cnb = 1215 $; cnc = 38.8
$/QC hour; ttcon = 188 hours; aconcy= 63.9 m2/container; ccy = 0.000292 $/m2 hour;
Ccyc= 8; ct = 5 $/cycle; cl = 357 $/gang hour; cw =1.4 $/container hour.

(PECT Management reports, Korea

Input data – Terminal characteristics
Maritime Institute 1996). The described and tested numerical
experiments contain four segments in relation to the input variables.
I.2. Validation-verification
For purposes of validation of simulation model and verification of
simulation computer program, the results of simulation model were
compared with the actual measurement. Four statistics were used as a
comparison between simulation output and real data: traffic intensity, berth
utilization, average service time and average number of serviced ships. The
simulation model was run for 44 statistically independent replications. The
average results were recorded and used in comparisons. After analysis of
the port data, it was determined that traffic intensity and berth utilization
are about 2.556 and 64.31%, while the simulation output shows the value of
2.548 and 64.09% in 2005 and 2.609 and 52.29%, while the simulation
output shows the value of 2.664 and 51.64% in 2006, respectively, see
Table III. Average service time shows very little difference between the
actual data and simulation results, that is, 15.35 h and 15.19 h in 2005 and
13.87 h and 13.75 in 2006, respectively (Table III). The simulation results
of the number of serviced ships completely correspond with the real data
(i.e. the simulation results of the total number of ships are 1,227.02 in 2005
and 1,284.15 in 2006, and the real data are 1,225 in 2005 and 1,285 in
2006). All the above shows that simulation results are in agreement with
real data.
Table III. Average service time of ships, traffic intensity and berths utilisation

Results Berth utilisation Average service time of

Traffic intensity
in % ships in hours
2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006

Real data 2.556 2.609 64.31 52.29 15.35 13.87

Simulation 2.548 2.664 64.09 51.64 15.19 13.75

Analitical 2.811 2.887 71.98 59.83 15.38 13.71

The attained agreement of the results obtained by using simulation

model with corresponding values of real parameters has also been
used for validation and verification of applied analytical model. In
accordance with it, the correspondence between simulation and
analytical results completely shows the validity to the applied
analytical model to be used for optimization of processes of servicing
ships at PECT.
I.3. Results
The impact of different models is determined by comparing the key
performance measures of simulation and analytical approaches to
those of the real data of PECT. Table III displays the results, the key
measures are average traffic intensity, berth utilisation and average
service time of ships (in 2005 and 2006), while Table IV shows
average time that ships spends in queue (in 2005 and 2006). In
addition, Table IV gives average time that ships spend in port.
According to this, judging from the computational results for some
numerical examples of the models: (M/Ek/nb)I – using the average
waiting time tw given by Lee/Longton formula (for brevity, the
analytical Model I is denoted as AM I) and (M/Ek/nb)II – using
average waiting time tw given by Cosmetatos formula (for brevity,
the analytical Model II is denoted as AM II). It can be confirmed that
the adequate Equations are inclined to estimate the values of average
time that container ships spend in port, i.e. average waiting time of
ships.
Table IV. Average time that ships spend in queue and average
time that ships spend in port in hours

Average time that Average time that ships

ships spend in port in hours
spend in queue in
hours
2005 2006 2005 2006
Simulation results 2.429 1.156 17.619 14.906
(M/Ek/nb)I 3.191 1.854 18.571 15.564
Analytical (AM I)
results (M/Ek/nb)II 2.632 1.295 18.012 15.005
(AM II)

The average time that ships spend in port for SM is 14.906 h in 2006. This
is about 15% less than SM, 17.619 h in 2005. The average time that ships
spend in port is 15.005 h for AM II in 2006, about 16% less than AM II,
18.571 h in 2005. Finally, the average time that ship spends in port for AM
I is 15.564 h in 2006, about 16% less than AM I, 18,571 h in 2005.
I.3.1. Average container ship cost
The results presented here support the argument that average cost per ship or
container served, can be easily obtained by the use of the average cost
curves in function of berth utilisation, traffic intensity and QCs/berth. The
described and tested numerical experiments contain more segments in
relation to the input variables. All numerical results presented in Figs. VII –
X are obtained by using the input data from Tables II. Simulation testing
(Simulation model (SM)) was than carried out by using the GPSS/H. The
solution procedure for AM I and AM II models was programmed using the
MATLAB program.
As expressed by adequate Equations, AC can be considered as a function of
 and . Therefore, our numerical results are given with respect of ,  and
QCs. Recall that in our examples the obtained values of average time that
ships spend in port tws, dominate in the sum defined by the right hand side of
Equation which has been used. This shows that tws plays the most important
role for AC. The average costs, i.e. the optimization function of the handling
processes at a container terminal is examined by using SM, AM I and AM II
models of the container ports.
 Fig. VII shows the optimization function as a function of the variable
 while Fig. VIII presents AC as a function of QCs. Fig. VII presents
how  reduces the average costs per ship for each model. In curve AM
I, the minimum cost per ship served decreases by about 8% in 2006
with respect to 2005. This decrease is about 7.7% in 2006 with respect
to 2005 for curve SM from Fig. VII. Finally, in curve AM II from Fig.
VII in 2006, the minimum cost per ship served decreases by about
7.7% in relation to 2005.
Figure VIII compares the average ship costs in 2005 and 2006 taken
by SM, AM I and AM II models at a PECT. They graphically show the
sensitivity of the average ship costs to the various QCs per berth.
Figure VIII presents how additional QCs reduce the average costs per
ship for each model. In curve SM, the minimum cost per ship served
decreases by about 7.5% in 2006 with respect to 2005.
Fig. VII. Average container ship costs for various berth utilization (= 0.1–0.9):
1) Minimum AC in 2005 are $87,875 (SM, =0.64); $87,917 (AM I,  =0.72)
and $87,932 (AM II,  =0.72); 2) Minimum AC in 2006 are $81,117 (SM, 
=0.516); $81,232 (AM I,  =0.59) and $81,241 (AM II,  =0.575)
 Fig. VIII. Average container ship costs for various QCs/berth (QCs=1-8): 1)
Minimum AC in 2005 are $98,787 for SM (QCs=2.87), $98,876 for AM I (QCs=3)
and $98,651 for AM II (QCs=3.25); 2) Minimum AC in 2006 are $91,415 for SM
(QCs=3.25), $91,498 for AM I (QCs=3.75) and $90,852 for AM II (QCs=4.25)
 Accordingly, it will be useful to show graphically the range of
container capacity which can be optimally handled with the specific
number of berths, i.e. the optimal range of . For the reason already
stated in the numerical experiments, the average container ship cost
AC (in $/ship) has been adapted as a measure to determine the  and
the optimal number of cranes/berth, nc for the constant number of
berths/terminal in this study.
Fig. IX compares the average ship costs in 2005 and 2006 taken SM,
AM I and AM II models at a PECT. These graphically show the
sensitivity of the average ship costs to the various values . Fig. IX
presents how  reduces the average costs per ship for each model. In
curve AM I, the minimum cost per ship served decreases by about
4.8% in 2006 with respect to 2005 (i.e. $101.805). However, the
average cost per ship served decreases by about 5% in 2006 in
relation to the 2005, see Fig. IX – curves AM II. This decrease is
about 5% in 2006 with respect to 2005 for curve SM from Fig. IX.
Fig. IX. AC as a function of traffic intensity (=0.5–3.5): 1) Minimum AC in 2005
are $101, 315 for SM; $101,805 for AM I; and $101,423 for AM II; 1) Minimum
AC in 2006 are $96,289 for SM; $96,541 for AM I; and $96,383 for AM II;
Fig. X shows the optimization function AC of two variables nb (nb = 3 , 4, 5)
and nc (nc = 1 , 2,…, 7) for constant value of . In Fig. X obtained results
correspond to those from Fig. IX. Still, even in Fig. X, the study offers similar
results, i.e. the minimum average cost per ship served are $96,383 in relation to
$96,383 from Fig. IX – curve AM II. These results will emphasize the effects of
terminal and traffic intensity, average time that ships spend in port, numbers of
QCs/berth, QC productivity and numbers of berths/terminal. These five
parameters are keys to the analysis of the whole container port efficiency and
achievement of economies of scale. However, major improvements in port
productivity, quality of service and costs reduction can be achieved by joint
optimizing these variables.
The results presented here support the argument that the average cost per ship
served could be decreased by increasing number of QCs/ship and their
productivity. At the same time, the objective is to minimize the average time
that ships spend in queue for the four berths at the PECT and hence the
average time that ships spend in port. Our results show that ships arrivals over
time are needed as input data for the optimisation of the problem. In addition
to the arrival date and ships time in port, it also generates the number of lifts
per ship (i.e. number of containers to be served per ship). On the basis on a
QC productivity, this number of lifts per ship can easily be converted into the
average service time of ships needed at the berth.
 AC [$/ship] x 105
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
5
8
4 6
4
nb 2
nc
3 0

Fig. X. AC for various berths/terminal and QCs/berth; Minimum AC per ships in

2006 is $96,383 for AM II ( = 2.887); nb = 4 and nc = 3.25
I.4. Conclusions
The SBY link simulation and analytical models can be used as a decision
support tool for analyzing and evaluating SBY link performance by the
terminal management. This approach allows different models of use of
available facilities to be in for incorporated, and it facilitates the ship arrival
patterns, lifts per ship call, number of QCs assigned and QC productivity as
actual data. In addition, it provides results of the possible simulation and
analytical approaches in comparison with the current situation, and the
implication of the results given through the input data and assumptions. These
models and especially SM can be used: to estimate the improvements in
performance of the SBY link operations when their handling capacities vary;
for average cost analysis, as the simulation provides six important parameters,
i.e., average service time of ships in port, average arrival rates of ships, the
number of QCs/berth, QC productivity, the degree of utilization and traffic
intensity of container terminal, which are needed to establish average cost
effective system; and in the planning for future additional QCs/berth and
berths/terminal that may be needed, through the use of forecasted average
interarrival time of ships (obviously, high average time that ships spend in
queue would indicate the need for additional QCs/berth and berths/terminal).