Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia
Available Manufacturing
online 00 (2018) 863–870
atatwww.sciencedirect.com
Available
Procedia online www.sciencedirect.com
Manufacturing 00 (2018) 863–870 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect 
Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 856–863
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering, INTER-ENG 2017, 5-6 October
11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering,
2017, Tirgu-Mures, Romania INTER-ENG 2017, 5-6 October
2017, Tirgu-Mures, Romania
Optimization of the transfer function through handling productivity
Optimization of the transfer
Manufacturing Engineering functionConference
Society International through2017, handlingMESIC 2017, productivity
28-30 June
control in Vigo
2017, port(Pontevedra),
containerSpain terminals
control in port container terminals
Oana Dinua, *, Eugen Roscaaa, Vasile Draguaa, Mircea Roscaaa, Anamaria Ilieaa
a,
Costing
Oanamodels
Dinu *, for Eugen
P

P
capacity
P0F

P0F
optimization
Rosca , Vasile
P

PDragu , Mircea
P

P
in Industry
Rosca , Anamaria
P

P
P

P
4.0: Trade-off
Ilie
P

P
P

P
P

between usedDepartment
capacity and operational
Romania of Bucharestefficiency
a
Transport, Traffic and Logistics Department , University "POLITEHNICA" of Bucharest , 313 Splaiul Independentei
P P

a
Transport,
P Traffic and Logistics
P , University
060042, "POLITEHNICA"
Bucharest, , 313 Splaiul Independentei
060042, Bucharest, Romania
A. Santana , P. Afonsoa,*, A. Zaninb, R. Wernkeb
a

Abstract a
University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
Abstract b
Unochapecó, 89809-000 Chapecó, SC, Brazil
This paper investigates the efficiency of different models in shaping the transfer function of port container terminals by
This paper investigates
coordinating the handling theequipment’s
efficiency of different
activity. models inin shaping
Differences the transfer
the productivity function
of the of port
handling container
equipment andterminals
the limitedby
coordinating
capacity of the thestorage
handling
areaequipment’s activity.
at berth generate Differences
deadlock in that
situation the productivity
could be handle of the handling
through threeequipment
correlationand the limited
procedures: (i)
capacity
adjustingof
Abstract thethe storage area
productivity at berth
to the minimumgenerate
whendeadlock situation
the storage area isthat
fullycould
used;be(ii)
handle
on/offthrough
control three
of thecorrelation procedures:
most efficient equipment,(i)
adjusting the productivity
and (iii) limitation to the minimum
of the productivity when
of the mosttheperforming
storage area is fully used;
equipment. (ii)techniques
These on/off control
and ofthethe most efficient
variations in input equipment,
elements
and
Under(iii)
(ships limitation
the
arrival concept of the
of productivity
"Industry
rate, containers number to of unload/load,
4.0",the production
most performing equipment.
berthprocesses
storage These
willare
area) be techniques
pushed
taken to beandfor
into account thechoosing
variationsthe
increasingly in inputstrategy
elements
interconnected,
best of
(ships arrival A
port activity.
information rate,
based containers
simulation number
model,
on a real to unload/load,
developed
time basis berth software,
withnecessarily,
and, ARENA storage
mucharea)
ismoreareefficient.
taken
created intoIn
to analyse account
the foractivity.
thisport
context,choosing the best
Beyond
capacity thestrategy of
analytical
optimization
port
modelsactivity.
that A
dealsimulation
with one model,
ship developed
handling with
process, ARENA
the software,
simulation modelis created
could to
take analyse
into the port
consideration
goes beyond the traditional aim of capacity maximization, contributing also for organization’s profitability and value. activity.
the Beyond
process onthea analytical
period of
models
time, that deal
allowing with one
studying theship handling
impact of process,elements
stochastic the simulation
on the model could
process. The take into
model consideration
contains the the process
following on athe
modules: period of
vessels
Indeed, lean management and continuous improvement approaches suggest capacity optimization instead of
time, allowing
arrival, waitingstudying
in harbour,the anchorage,
impact of stochastic
containerselements on the process.
unloading/loading on theThe modeltemporary
vessels, contains the following
storage modules:
at berth, containerthe transfer
vessels
maximization. The study of capacity optimization and costing models is an important research topic that deserves
arrival,
to inlandwaiting
storageinarea,
harbour, anchorage,
and vessel containers
departure. unloading/loading
Computer on theanalysing
simulations allow vessels, temporary storageofatthe
random variable berth, container
vessels transfer
time spent in
contributions
to inland from
area,both the practical andComputer
theoretical perspectives. This paperrandom
presents and discusses a mathematical
port. The storage
mean value and vessel
should be departure.
kept at minimum andsimulations allowhandling
thus the best analysing variable
strategy could be of the vessels
identified. In time spentthe
addition, in
model
port. formean
The
sensitivity capacity
of the value management
results should
accordingbe to based
kept on different
theatvariation
minimum costing
andinput
of the themodels
thuselements (ABC strategy
bestishandling
obtained. and TDABC).
could beA identified.
generic model has been
In addition, the
developed
© 2018 Theofand
sensitivity theitresults
Authors.wasPublished
used to analyze
according byto the idle capacity
variation
Elsevier B.V. of theand to design
input elementsstrategies towards the maximization of organization’s
is obtained.
value.
© 2018 The
The trade-off
Authors. capacity
Published bymaximization
Elsevier B.V. vs operational efficiency
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 11th International is highlighted
Conferenceand it is shown that
Interdisciplinarity in capacity
© 2018 The Authors.
optimization
Peer-review might Published
hide by
of Elsevier
operational B.V. committee of the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in
inefficiency.
Engineering.under responsibility the scientific
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
Engineering.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
Keywords: port under responsibility
efficiency; of the scientific
handling strateg; productivitycommittee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference
control; simulation.
2017.
Keywords: port efficiency; handling strateg; productivity control; simulation.

Keywords: Cost Models; ABC; TDABC; Capacity Management; Idle Capacity; Operational Efficiency

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +40-745-504-092
* E-mail
Corresponding
address:author. Tel.: +40-745-504-092
oana.dinu@upb.ro
The cost
E-mail of idle
address: capacity is a fundamental information for companies and their management of extreme importance
oana.dinu@upb.ro
in modern©production
2351-9789 systems.
2018 The Authors. In general,
Published it isB.V.
by Elsevier defined as unused capacity or production potential and can be measured
in several©under
2351-9789
Peer-review ways: tons of production,
2018responsibility
The Authors. Published
of available
by Elsevier
the scientific B.V.hours
committee of manufacturing,
of the 11th etc. Interdisciplinarity
International Conference The management of the idle capacity
in Engineering.
Peer-review underTel.:
* Paulo Afonso. responsibility
+351 253of the761;
510 scientific committee
fax: +351 253 604of741the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
E-mail address: psafonso@dps.uminho.pt

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
2351-9789 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.121
 Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 856–863 857
864 Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 863–870

1. Introduction

The genuine interest that researchers, practitioners, local or national authorities and even international
organization show in planning and rational development of ports can be easily comprehend in the context of high
value resources that are concentrated in this nodes and mainly through their consequences on extended transport
network areas and their influence on socio-economic growth in connected hinterland. Breakdowns in ports
activities impact all transport modes present in port area but mostly, by means of the consequence dimensions, they
disturb maritime transport determining high harbor dwell times and even congestion. In this situation, the number of
vessel that can be operated continuously, rhythmically and with no breakdowns, is exceeded. From port authorities
port of view, if a low grade vessel crowding is registered, this is not an annoying situation as long as port operations
are not disturbed or weighed down. When crowding becomes chronicle and converts in congestion, port authorities
must consider investment measures in order to insure supplementary facilities and thus attract the progression traffic
leading to growing benefits.
Port container terminal facilities performance indicators [1], like dwell times registered at peak hours in port
harbor or at berth, are difficult to estimate in the context of random vessel arrival and uneven operating conditions.
In order to provide a minimum time interval for unloading/loading containers from/to the ship, some additional
capacity stashes must be insured, avoiding, in this manner, jams due to handling system ineffectiveness, seasonal
fluctuations and scarce port’s subsystems interrelations. Among others, some variables that influence handling
system efficiency can be identified: the productivity of the handling equipment and the limited capacity of berth
storage area. System efficiency can be enhanced through handling equipment (e.g.: container cranes, gantry cranes,
stacking cranes, straddle carrier, forklift trucks, terminal chassis etc.) productivity improvement correlated to
stacking areas increasing sizes. In most of European port sites large capacity storage areas are not available, even
high problems concerning lack of space are documented [2] and, therefore, berth loading – unloading process must
be gradually coordinated with transfer operations leading to port system capacity rise and increased access to
hinterland.

2. Literature review

In order to improve the transfer function through handling productivity in container terminals, one of the first
problem formulated was the quay crane scheduling problem proposed by Daganzo [3] that has as a goal function the
optimization of cumulated weighted departure time of vessels. In most of the studies, equipment scheduling is
considered separately in different areas of the terminal; nevertheless container transport strongly depends on the
correlations for the machinery specific for each area determining overall performance. Cao et al. [4] presented the
equipment correlation in quayside handling area and the terminal stacking area while Taleb-Ibrahimi et al. [5]
described handling and storage strategies, quantifying their performance according to the amount of space and
number of handling transfers they require.
The modelling practices concerning quayside jobs differ by the considered hypotheses: vessel arrival time, static
or dynamic allocation problems studied by Imai et al [6], quay with discrete or continuous layout studied by Meisel
& Bierwirth [7] and vessel handling time, static (fixed and known in advance) or dynamic (handling time is a
function of the work schedules of the assigned crane).
Overall efficiency of quayside operations is showed to be improved by means of integrated quayside operation
models. Kim & Park [8] proposed a model of quay crane assignment and scheduling problem with cohesive models,
providing an assessment between branch and bound method and a heuristic search algorithm, namely greedy
randomized adaptive search procedure. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam et al. [9] also developed a model that studies the
quay crane assignment and scheduling problem but for a more complex situation of a set of vessels in parallel.
For quay cranes assigned to high urgency vessels, Meisel [10] presented the concept of restricted time windows,
integrated in the scheduling problem, according to which, each crane is constrained to serve a particular vessel
within an imposed time window.
858 Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 856–863
Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 863–870 865

3. Methodology

3.1. Analytical approach

Differences in the productivity of the handling equipment and the limited capacity of the storage area at berth
generate deadlock situation that could be handle through different correlation procedures that are presented below.
The notation used to formulate the problem is shown below:
C dep – storage area capacity
N cont – average number of containers per ship
Q 1 – quay gantry crane productivity (vessel – quay transfer)
Q 2 – stacking area crane productivity (quay – storage area transfer).
T 1 – moment when storage capacity is reached
T 2 – moment when vessel unload is finalized

The model is built under following assumptions:

(i) The average number of containers arrived per ship exceeds the storage area capacity , N cont > C dep ;
(ii) The quay crane productivity that covers vessel – quay transfer is superior to stacking area crane
productivity that covers quay – storage area transfer, Q 1 > Q 2

First correlation procedure consists of adjusting the productivity to the minimum when the storage area is fully
used, as shown in Fig. 1a.
a) b)

Capacity Capacity
Cdep Cdep

0 T1 T2 Time 0 T1 T2 Time
(unloading vessel) (unloading vessel)

Fig. 1. Correlation procedures for quay and storage area handling equipment.

The following is the mathematical formulation of this sub - model.

Cdep = (Q1 − Q2 )T1 (1)

C dep
T1 = (2)
Q1 − Q2

N cont = T1Q1 + (T2 − T1 )Q2 (3)

N cont = T1 (Q1 − Q2 ) + T2Q2 (4)

N cont = C dep + T2Q2 (5)

 Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 856–863 859
866 Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 863–870

N cont − Cdep
T2 =
Q2
(6)

As equation (6) proves, the vessel unloading completion moment, T 2 is independent in this correlation procedure
of the quay crane productivity.

Second correlation procedure consists in limitation of the productivity of the most performing equipment,
situation presented in Fig. 1 b. The following is the mathematical formulation of the second sub - model if we
∗ *
consider Q1 to be quay crane modified productivity and Q2 ≤ Q1 < Q1

= (Q1∗ − Q2 )T1
Cdep (7)

N cont = Q1∗T1 (8)

C dep = Q1∗T1 − Q2T1 (9)

Cdep = N cont − Q2T1 (10)

N cont − C dep
T1 = (11)
Q2

Equations (6) and (11) show that the vessel unloading completion moment has the same expression and is
independent of quay gantry crane productivity, Q 1 .
The third correlation procedure consists in on/off control of the most efficient equipment.

Capacity

Cdep

0 T Tdesc Time
Cdep/(Q1-Q2) T1 Cdep/Q2 C

Fig. 2. On/off gantry crane controlling correlation procedure.

Cdep
= (Q1 − Q2 )T1 (12)

Cdep
T1 = (13)
Q1 − Q2

On/off loop time interval, T C, has the following mathematical formulation:

Cdep Cdep Cdep Q1

TC =+
T1 = + Cdep
= (14)
Q2 Q1 − Q2 Q2 Q2 (Q1 − Q2 )
860 Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 856–863
Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 863–870 867

Number of containers unloaded in one complete loop:

Loop Q1
N cont
= T=1Q1 Cdep (15)
Q1 − Q2

Complete on/off loop number:

Q1
Loop
N cont
= T=1Q1 Cdep (16)
Q1 − Q2

 N cont   N cont Q1 − Q2 
nLoop =
= Loop 
  (17)
 N cont   Cdep Q1 

In equation (17), […] denotes the integer part of determined number.

Unload vessel interval:

Loop
N cont − nLoop N cont Q1 N Cdep
Tdesc nLoopTC +
= = nLoop Cdep + cont − nLoop (18)
Q1 Q2 (Q1 − Q2 ) Q1 Q1 − Q 2

Cdep N cont
Tdesc nLoop
= + (19)
Q2 Q1

3.2. Simulation model

Computer simulation, as a modern management tool, allows the modelling of large and complex processes that
otherwise overpass the difficulties of analytical investigation because of the stochastic and non-linear characteristics
of the variables involved. In simulation, the model is divided into a number of subsystems that are combined for
generating the functionality of the whole process and the response to action of various parameters [11], assessing
technical and economical alternatives without costly capital investments [12].
For analysing the coordination strategy among container port handling equipment, a simulation model has been
developed using ARENA simulation software. The model is divided in three sub-models (Fig. 3), each one
corresponding to presented coordination situation:

• Sub-model A – the gantry crane works at full capacity until the buffer storage at berth is full, then its
productivity is adjusted to the straddle carriers;
• Sub-model B – the gantry crane works at full capacity until the buffer storage capacity is reached, then it stops
until the storage is empty and the cycle continues;
• Sub-model C – the gantry crane productivity is set so that when the vessel is completely unloaded, the buffer
storage is full.

Each sub-model consists in blocks that provide the following main service flows in port activity:

• Vessels arrival – time between arrivals and number of containers to be unloaded are set;
• Berth occupancy – a size-delay-release process is modelled in order to compute the measures of performance for
servicing vessels (waiting time in queue for the berth, unloading time) and berth occupancy rate;
• Unloading containers – a size-delay-release process is developed for gantry crane and for straddle carrier just for
modelling the handling phases; the working time and the hourly productivity for gantry cranes are set according
to the restrictions of buffer storage capacity and straddle carrier productivity.
 Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 856–863 861
868 Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 863–870

Fig. 3. Computer simulation model.

4. Results and conclusions

The input variables for the simulation experiments are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1 Simulation input variables

Input variable Values range
Time between vessels arrival Negative-exponential with mean between 12 h … 24 h
Number of containers to unload (feeder ships) Uniform between 20 TEU … 100 TEU
Mooring time 2h
Gantry crane container handling time Triangular with mean 4 min ±0.5 min
Straddle carrier container handling time Triangular with mean 8 min ±1 min
Buffer storage capacity 10 TEU … 40 TEU
Simulation time 180 days

The way the time between vessels arrival affects the measures of performance for vessels is depicted in Fig. 4.
25 7
Vessel mean unloading time
Vessel mean waiting time [hours]

20 6.5
15
[hours]

6
10
5.5
5

0 5
12 16 20 24 12 16 20 24
Time between vessels arrival [hours] Time between vessels arrival [hours]
Sub-model A Sub-model B Sub-model C Sub-model A Sub-model B Sub-model C

Fig. 4. Measures of performance for vessels (buffer storage capacity = 20 TEU).

862 Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 856–863
Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 863–870 869

Clearly the sub-models A and C are quite identical, while the sub-model B is less performant. The waiting time
for berth is high sensitive as the time between arrivals is getting smaller. The gap increases from 1.5 hour to 10
hours as the arrival time decreases from 24 hours to 12 hours. The differences are recorded due to the average
unloading time which is constantly less with one hour for sub-models A and C. As the arrival time between vessels
increases, the unloading time also decreases because of the extra available time to empty the buffer storage at berth.
For berth and gantry crane utilization, the data are shown in Fig. 5. As for the gantry crane utilization, the sub-
models A and B are identical and provide the smallest value. The gap between these and the sub-model C increases
as the intensity of arrivals increases. The simulation experiments show a difference of 10% in crane utilization. But
for the sub-model B the idle time is more contiguous. Using multiple berths in a port, this could be an advantage by
transferring the idle gantry cranes to other berths where vessels are unloading.
0.5 0.9
Gantry crane utilization

0.8
0.4

Berth occupancy
0.7
0.3 0.6
0.5
0.2
0.4

0.1 0.3
12 16 20 24 12 16 20 24
Time between vessels arrival [hours] Time between vessels arrival [hours]

Sub-model A Sub-model B Sub-model C Sub-model A Sub-model B Sub-model C

Fig. 5. Port resources utilization (buffer storage capacity = 20 TEU).

Also the berth buffer storage capacity has influence on the measures of performance both for vessels and port
resources. Fig. 6 depicts the variation in the waiting time and unloading time of vessels.
8
13
Vessel mean waiting time [hours]

Vessel mean unloading time [hours]

11 7

9
6
7
5
5

3 4
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
Berth buffer storage capacity [TEU] Berth buffer storage capacity [TEU]
Sub-model A Sub-model B Sub-model A Sub-model B
Sub-model C Sub-model C

Fig. 6. Measures of performance for vessels (mean time between arrivals = 16 hours).

The sub-models A and C are still identical in outputs, while sub-model B remains the most inefficient. What is
commonly observed is the high dependence of the waiting time and unloading time to the buffer storage capacity.
Thus, the buffer storage seems to represent a bottle-neck in port activity. Varying its capacity from 10 to 40 TEU, is
translated in decreasing the vessels waiting time by 60% and the unloading time by 40%.

870 OanaetDinu
Oana Dinu et al. / Procedia
al. / Procedia Manufacturing
Manufacturing 22 863–870
00 (2018) (2018) 856–863 863

0.45 0.75
Gantry crane utilization
0.4 0.7

Berth occupancy
0.35 0.65

0.3 0.6

0.25 0.55

0.2 0.5
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
Berth buffer storage capacity [TEU]] Berth buffer storage capacity [TEU]]
Sub-model A Sub-model B
Sub-model A Sub-model B Sub-model C

Fig. 7. Port resources utilization (mean time between arrivals = 16 hours).

Port resources/facilities exploitation is shown in Fig. 7. As previously, the gantry crane utilization is the same for
sub-models A and B, and the greatest values are for sub-model C. But, as the berth buffer storage capacity increases,
the gap between the models is closed. The gantry crane works all the time at full productivity because the buffer
storage capacity is no more limitative. The decrease in the unloading time is translated and in the decrease of berth
occupancy, also inverse correlated with the buffer storage size.

Acknowledgement

This work has been funded by University Politehnica of Bucharest, through the “Excellence Research Grants”
Program, UPB – GEX. Identifier: UPB–EXCELENȚĂ–2016 Research project title MODELING AND
SIMULATION OF INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND URBAN LOGISTICS, Contract number 346.

References

[1] C. Oprea, E. Roşca, M. Popa, A. Ilie, O. Dinu, M. Roşca, The quality of service in passenger transport terminals, IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering, 161(2016), 1-9.
[2] J.P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom, The terminalisation of supply chains: reassessing the role of terminals in port/hinterland logistical
relationships. Maritime Policy & Management, 36(2009), 165-183.
[3] C.F. Daganzo, The crane scheduling problem. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 23(1989), 159–175.
[4] J.X. Cao, D. Lee, J.H. Chen, Q. Shi, The integrated yard truck and yard crane scheduling problem: Benders’ decomposition-based methods,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46(2010), 344–353.
[5] M. Taleb-Ibrahimi, B. de Castilho, C.F. Daganzo, Storage space vs handling work in container terminals, Transportation Research Part B:
Methodological, 27(1993), 13-32.
[6] A. Imai, E. Nishimura, S. Papadimitriou, The dynamic berth allocation problem for a container port, Transportation Research Part B:
Methodological, 35(2001), 401–417.
[7] F. Meisel, C. Bierwirth, Heuristics for the integration of crane productivity in the berth allocation problem, Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(2009), 196–209.
[8] K.H. Kim, Y.M. Park, A crane scheduling method for port container terminals, European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2004), 752–
768.
[9] R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, A. Makui, S. Salahi, M. Bazzazi, F. Taheri, An efficient algorithm for solving a new mathematical model for a
quay crane scheduling problem in container ports, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56 (2009), 241-24.
[10] F. Meisel, The quay crane scheduling problem with time windows, Naval Research Logistics, 53(2011), 45–59.
[11] A. Ruscă, M. Popa, E. Rosca, M. Rosca, V. Dragu, F. Rusca, Simulation model for port shunting yards, IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering , 145 (2016), 1-6.
[12] E. Rosca, S. Raicu, M. Rosca, S. Burciu, Transhipment Modelling and Simulation of Container Port Terminals, Modern Technologies in
Industrial Engineering – Advanced material Research, 837(2014), 786-791.