Port Engineering 1

Port Engineering
Planning, Design and Analysis


Prepared by:
Jeremy Molayem

CE 589 Port Engineering: Planning and Operations
Professor Hanh Le-Griffin


Submittal Date:
24 June 2014





Port Engineering 2


Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Introduction 3
Demand Forecasting A Trilogy of Scenarios 4
Capacity Assessment Methodology and Assessment 5
Improvements Infinite Scenarios 8
Improvements A Reasoned Approach 10
Improvements Financial Motivations 12
Simulation and Summary of Results 13
Citations 14
Appendix 15











Port Engineering 3


Abstract
Port capacity planning is an increasing crucial task in an economy continuing to globalize. This
paper addresses three components to planning: demand forecasting, capacity analysis, and
potential capacity improvements. Furthermore, these components assert the following three
questions: 1) where is the bottleneck in the system? 2) what are the physical and operational
improvements? 3) how should these improvements be implemented to minimize cost and
increase utility? In addressing these questions, Microsoft Excel is used to both model and
simulate various demand scenarios, conduct sensitivity analysis due to parameter adjustment,
and optimize capacity parameters to minimize cost.
Introduction
With scattering supply chains, increasingly connected populations, and maturing markets in
developing countries, international trade is and will continue to undergo a new level of change.
While technology has not necessarily been a cause for a global market, it has certainly been an
accelerant. For example, the internet is increasingly separating traditional supply chains. A
United States car company can operate a factory in Germany, ship its metals from West Africa
and utilize a technical team from South Korea. And, this is simply the beginning. In five years, 5
billion people, 70% of the worlds population, will have permanent access to the internet for the
first time (Schmidt, et al). The central part of this paper is to attempt to plan and design a port for
this unpredictable and global future.
Certainly, the degree of future variability due to technology is immense. One such
scenario for a new manufacturing world is the rise of the household 3D printeran increasingly
affordable technology that allows a person or business to print almost any object such as a cup
or bicycle wheel. Simply through downloading the cup file from the internet, anyone from
anywhere in the world such as Nigeria or Ecuador can print a cup. This can fluidize and
revolutionize manufacturing, especially in regions that must use outsourced manufacturers (Chen
2012). How will this future look for cup factories in China? Will they go out of business and the
international trade for cups decline? This is unforeseen, and that is the point of this anecdote.
There has never been a more difficult and exciting time for port planning in history.

Port Engineering 4


Demand Forecasting A Trilogy of Scenarios
The Port of Panama will progressively become a hub for traffic between the Pacific and Atlantic
spheres. Demand for trade is reaching astounding levelsworld container distribution is
growing at three times world GDP growth (Melford, 2008). From the year 2012 to 2020, the
terminal is expected to increase its handling from 400,000 TEUs to 568,000 during a low growth
scenario and 824,300 TEUs during a high growth scenario (Fig. 1). By 2030, demand will reach
a maximum of 1.754 million TEUs and a minimum of 1.0015 TEUs. The modelling of this
growth consists of two parts. For component one, from FY 2012 to FY 2020, a low forecast
gives 4.5%, a high of 9.46%, and a median of 6.98%. For component two, 2020 to 2030, both
initial and final values are known. Therefore, a growth curve can be extracted. An example of the
low demand growth is shown below:
( )

Solve for X
X = 0.058 or 5.8%
Similar calculations yield X= 6.8% and 7.8% for median and high demand, respectively.

Figure 1. Forecasting various demand scenarios from FY 2012 to FY 2030
In calculating demand, the data allows for analysis of container type as well. The demand is
expected to be distributed of 50% import, 25% export, and 25% empty.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
T
E
U
s

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

Year
Demand Forecast
Low
Median
High
Port Engineering 5


Capacity Assessment Methodology and Comparison
Assessing the capacity is disaggregated into four main componentsberth, container
yard, gate, and rail. The purpose of a capacity assessment is to determine the bottleneck of the
systema determination which will guide the process for improvements and recommendations.
Before calculating the capacities, two considerations must be made. First, in analyzing potential
bottlenecks, the capacities of both gate and rail are addedsince one mode can support the other
and vice versa. Second, capacities are artificially decreased due to a bottleneck constraint
where capacity at 80% of demand constitutes a bottleneck. The following figure shows an
accurate description of all capacities in relation to demand growth.

Figure 2. Capacity thresholds in relation to growth demand from FY 2012 to 2030

The optimizing of berth operations has received considerable research over the past few years
particularly the berth allocation problem (BAP). Several researchers contend that that the berth
allocation problem and the quay crane scheduling problem are in fact one single problem that is
tied together. Berth scheduling is a function of the crane that is assigned for the ship. (Park et al.,
Port Engineering 6


Liu et al.). For practical purposes in this analysis, berth allocation is separated from berth
capacity planning. Our analysis of berth capacity focused on three main factors: 1) crane
productivity, measured in moves per crane-hr, 2) working hours, and 3) the number of cranes.
The port has made the following improvements already: namely, the replacement of three older
cranes with two Post-Panamax cranes in 2013. Currently, there are nine ship-to-shore gantry
cranes (QCs). Berth capacity was calculated as follows:
()
() (

)
Furthermore, there are three more considerations in calculating capacity. First, total lifts is
converted to TEUs by multiplying a factor of 1.7 to yield for TEUs (twenty-equivalent units).
This process is used to account for the presence of FEUs (forty-equivalent units). Second, to
attain work hours, the holidays were considered as follows: 52 weeks/yr with 1 weeks (5 days)
worth of holidays. Third, capacity is reduced by 20% to ensure the following constraint:
bottleneck exists when capacity is 80% of demand. The following is current berth capacity:
(

) (

) (

) (

) () (

) ()

The capacity assessment of the container yard is separated into two components: an area
based approach and an equipment based approach. In regards to an area based approach, the
following formula is used:

Total ground slots is given as 3650 TEUs. To acquire stack height, total throughput is divided by
total stack height. In this case total throughput is given as 11,680 TEUs. Stack height yields the
following:

Finally, turnover rate is a function of average dwell time, calculated as 5.33 days. Turnover rate
yields the following:
(

)

Therefore, dynamic capacity using an area approach yields:
Port Engineering 7



Using an equipment based approach, different parameters apply: 1) the number of RTGs in the
container yard, 2) the productivity of an RTG, and 3) the hours of operation per year. The
following expression shows this relationship.
( ) (

) (

( ) (

) ( )
Since equipment capacity is far greater than the calculated area capacity, the bottleneck analysis
will used the area calculated through area (0.65 million TEUs).
In calculating the rail capacity, the port exists with the following characteristics: a) 20%
of the terminal throughput is through rail transportation b) a train can handle 250 TEUs c) it
takes seven to eight hours to load an entire train d) operation is 2 eight-hour shifts. The following
is methodology behind determining rail capacity:
(

) (

The following figure shows rail capacity,

Figure 3. Rail Capacity with respect to a 20% throughput of current demand
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
T
E
U
s

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

Year
Rail Demand and Capacity
Capacity
20% Demand
Port Engineering 8


Although it may appear that rail capacity is a bottleneck in the system due to low capacity, gate
capacity also plays a role in offsetting rail loading during peak times. The two capacities can and
should be considered. Gate capacity is determined as follows:
()

The following yields an actual calculation:
(

) (

) (

) (

The following table illustrates a summary of capacity calculations and results.
Type Berth Container Yard Rail Gate
Parameters Work hours
Productivity
Number of Cranes
Dwell Time
Utilization
Stack Height
TGS
Turnover Rate
Work hours
Productivity
Handle Number
RTG Lifts
Work hours
Productivity
TEUs (Million) 1.65 0.65 0.14 0.66
Bottleneck (Year) 2028 2017 2018 2018
Table 1: A piece by piece approach to capacity analysis for the port
Improvements Infinite Scenarios
With forecast projected and capacity determined, the implementation of improvements is perhaps
the most difficult yet creative task for planning and design. In this endeavor, over 15
permutations of plans and horizons were tested. Three scenarios were ultimately finalized for
high, median, and low outcomes. The following figure illustrates an attempted approach at
formulating a sound strategy for cost savings, efficiency, and practicality.
There are two reasons why this strategy ultimately failed:
1. The option for Rail Mounted Gantry cranes (RMGs) was exhausted before considerations
for land purchases. RMGs represent an inflexible and high capital cost. Financial analysis
(page x.) indicates that this warrants further decision analysis.
2. Gate productivity was increased simply through maximizing shifts. However, automation
as an option was not considered.
Port Engineering 9



Figure 4. Test trial without consideration for gate automation and importance of land

Figure 5. Suggested improvement for high demand scenario
Port Engineering 10


While a side by side comparison of the improvements is crucial to illustrate the infinite number
of improvement scenarios, analysis of improvements will primarily focus on the latter case,
figure 5.
Improvements A Reasoned Approach
Container Yard Phase 1
The first bottleneck and therefore, the first area for improvement is the container yard in FY
2017. The initial improvement options were as follows: increase stack height, improve
productivity with replacement of RTG, increase the number of total ground slots, or increase the
average dwell time. The latter three improvements were postponed for longer term adjustments
because a) they represent a high, inflexible capital cost (RMG), b) drastically affect the ability to
retain clients (dwell time), or c) introduce newer layers of bureaucracy (land acquisition).
Therefore, the most sensible conclusion was to first increase stack height utilization.
Gate Adjustment Phase 1
The second bottleneck occurs for the inland transportation capacity (gate and rail) at FY 2019. It
is important to note that rail capacity was considered fixed because improvements to the system
only represented negligible changes. This is illustrated in figure 3. In focusing on gate
improvements, the primary driver for optimization is an automation system which can improve
productivity from 10 to 30 moves/lane-hr.
Point of Discussion: The decision for a partial implementation of this system went through
considerable review. Ultimately, the team eventually came to a full position reversal after
hearing an opposing opinion. A full implementation of automation now makes financial sense for
the following reasons:
1. The benefits of waiting and partially installing automation on gates are minor
considering a) hardware capital cost is relatively low and b) software is a one-time
purchase which would incentivize a full hardware installation to maximize the purchase.
2. A partial gate automation system would present problems for the standardization of
practices. Two separate systems require different protocols for truck drivers, security,
data management, and a host of other parameters.
Our team initially viewed partial implementation to be superior for flexibilitywith a justifiable
convincing strategy. However, full automation offers slightly better benefits.
Container Yard Phase 2
Port Engineering 11


Around year 2023, the container yard presents an additional bottleneck. However, this bottleneck
requires a high capital investmentpurchases of RMGs or land implementation. Additional land
implementation ultimately is a sound strategy demonstrated in Table 2.
FY 2023 Improvement RMG Option Land Acquisition
Advantages a) No additional land needed
b) Limited bureaucratic or
community barriers
c) RMG may ultimately be
required in the future
a) Land expansions will be
increasingly difficult as
Balboa City, Panama grows
b) Appreciates over time
c) Immune to technology
Disadvantages a) New yard foundation
necessary
b) Construction interrupts port
operations
c) Depreciates over time
d) Outdated by newer
technology
a) Bureaucratic barriers (EIR,
community support required)
b) Additional development
required
c) Consideration needed for
effect on terminal operations
Table 2: Comparison between RMG and Land Acquisition
RMG represents a high capital cost. The future twenty years and beyond will present a) RMGs at
a substantially reduced rate and b) possible new technologies that could drastically make an
RMG outdated. Furthermore, equipment depreciates over time and a newer, stronger foundation
is needed to support a rail system. This implementation could severely limit port operations.
However, the decision between land acquisition and RMG use warrants further investigation
specifically with an eye towards a) bureaucratic barriers, b) community support, c) proposed site
placement, d) land usability, and e) projections for the growth of Balboa City around the port.
Such specificity is outside the scope of this recommendation for land expansion. However, if
feasibility permits, acquiring additional land as soon as possible presents a strong position for
future growth.
Berth Capacity Phase 1
Berth capacity reaches a bottleneck in FY 2028. Therefore, two feasible improvements are to
increase productivity or to increase the working hours. The construction of an additional crane
may not be feasible due to a) land constraints, b) ship constraints, and c) high capital cost. The
Port Engineering 12


recommendation is to increase productivity with operational improvements to the crane. One
such improvement is the double cycling technique which allows for the loading and unloading of
containers simultaneously. Research has found that this process can induce a 10% reduction in
operating time and 25% reduction in chassis requirement (Goodchild et al.).
Improvements Financial Motivations
The proposed plan takes an adaptive approach to growthplanning for a future that is neither
too great nor too small in demand. The port reserves its capital investments to a later date while
maintaining a competitive port. Early improvements, I1 to I5, represent low cost additions:
container yard utilization increases, gate automation, and land expansions. These improvements
constitute all improvements until 2028. This yields a significant delay, 14 years, before higher
level investments, shown as I6 to I8 in the figure. These high investment improvements
namely, the addition of RMGsis not required until the year 2028. If demand falls short of
expected forecasts, investments I6 to I8 will not be even exercised.

Figure 6. An overview of an adaptive financial strategy for a dynamic market



0 5 10 15 20 25
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
I6
I7
I8
Cost ($ Millions)
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

Improvement Measures
Inexpensive
(Target low cost measures for
early improvements)
Port Engineering 13


Simulation and Summary of Results
In the event of different demand scenarios, the above recommendation shown in figure 6
significantly changes. For the purpose of report brevity, simulation results are included in the
appendix. However, the main differences in proposed improvements in highlighted in figure 7.

Figure 7. An action plan for various demand scenarios
Demand in the low scenario falls low enough that the port need not make any physical
improvements or expansions to any of its systemszero capital costs. However, the demand
scenario still justifies operational improvementsincreased stack height utilization and increase
in the number of gate shifts. Finally, it is important to distinguish that as demand scenarios
signal higher volume, the ports capital investments will inevitably increase as well.





Port Engineering 14


Citations
Chen, Baizhu, Yes, We Can Make iPhones in America. Forbes Magazine. 1 Sep. 2012.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/baizhuchen/2012/09/07/yes-we-canmake-iphones-in-america/
Goodchild, A.V., C.F. Daganzo, Crane double cycling in container ports: planning methods and
evaluation
Y.-M. Park, K. Kim, A Scheduling method for Berth and quays cranes, OR Spectrum 25 (2003)
1-23.
J. Liu, Y-M Wan, I. Wang, Quay crane scheduling at container terminals to minimize the
maximum relative tardiness of vessel departures, Naval Research Logistics 53 (2005) 60-
74
Melford International Port, Container Port and Intermodal Logistics Park Project,
www.toledoportauthority.org/docs/Melford%20Presentation.pdf, 2008 (accessed on June
13, 2014)
Schmidt, Eric and Jared Cohen. The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations
and Business. Alfred A. Knopf. New York 2013











Port Engineering 15


Appendix
Low Demand Scenario and Action Plan

Median Demand Scenario and Action Plan