More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Wootton port development
Similar to Wootton port development (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Wootton port development
- 1. Port Development and Container Terminals
- 2. Port Development and Container Terminals Introduction Basic Considerations Current and Future Design Ship Berth Design Development in Quay Crane Technology Berth & Terminal Productivity Transfer and Yard Systems Terminal Layout Land and Connectivity to National Infrastructure
- 3. Port Development and Container Terminals 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 TEUs'000 Historic Low Base High Historic 1,731 Low 2,227 3,143 4,075 4,887 7,667 12,031 Base 2,344 3,692 5,162 6,540 11,292 19,059 High 2,380 3,904 5,684 7,778 15,926 29,372 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040 Traffic Essential Parameters Cargo Design Ship
- 4. Port Development and Container Terminals CROSS BORDER CROSS BORDER NATIONALHINTERLAND TRANSHIPMENT IMPORT EXPORT PORT RELATED INDUSTRIES Traffic Forecasting
- 5. Port Development and Container Terminals Design Ship Current maximum Future; what are the limitations? Mainline or Transhipment Terminal? Design Ship dimensions Laden draft Navigation issues Berth design
- 6. Port Development and Container Terminals Current Ships Largest (Capacity) : MSC Pamela 9,200 TEU Largest (Length) : Gudron Maersk 367m Maximum Beam : 18 box wide (45m) Maximum Draught : 15m Single Screw Engines less than 100,000 bhp Post Panamax nearly 30% of fleet by Capacity
- 7. Port Development and Container Terminals Ships on order / under Construction Post Panamax - 60% of new orders Super – Post Panamax Lloyd’s study - ULCS HHI unveiled design for 13,000 TEU Maersk 15,000 TEU - 405m x 55m x 17m - 110,000 bhp engine - advertised capacity 9000 TEU
- 8. Port Development and Container Terminals Hull structure - Bending / Torsion Propulsion - Single / Twin screw Stack height - With / Without hatch covers Manoeuvrability - Wind on superstructure Design speed - ± 25 knots Operational limitations Ship Design Issues
- 9. Port Development and Container Terminals Operational Limitations International Waterways Port Facilities Suez Canal - Suezmax Straits of Malacca - Malaccamax
- 10. Port Development and Container Terminals Port Facilities Access Channel Basin - Width - Depth - Stopping Distance - Turning Circle Berth - Alongside Depth - Length Crane - Outreach - Lift Capacity - Cope to Boom Height
- 11. Port Development and Container Terminals Navigation Coastal/River Port Channel Geometry Tidal Window Environmental Considerations Manoeuvrability STOPPING DISTANCE, TURNING CIRCLE AND PLAN AT BEND
- 12. Port Development and Container Terminals Berth Depth Design Depth - Future max draft - Underkeel clearance - Allow for over dredge Accommodate ship with underkeel clearance at low water Most hub terminals designing for – 18m or – 19m Additional Capital Cost v Future proofing
- 13. Port Development and Container Terminals DESIGN DEPTHEL-19.00 EL-16.00 DECLARED DEPTH TIE EL-16.00 EL-19.00 FOUNDATION LEVEL ±0.00 C.D. DECLARED DEPTH EL-16.00 EL-19.00 DESIGN DEPTH TOE RESTRAINT(FIXITY) TIED WALL GRAVITY WALL DECLARED DEPTH DESIGN DEPTH SUSPENDED DECK REVETMENT PILE TOE LEVEL Design Considerations
- 14. Port Development and Container Terminals Berth Alignment Provides flexibility Can accommodate mix of ships Good crane utilization For hub optimum length may be 1200 m Straight Indented Drive-through
- 15. Port Development and Container Terminals Ceres Terminal - Amsterdam
- 16. Port Development and Container Terminals STS Quay Cranes Development ahead of shipping requirements 60 + m boom Increases in - Productivity - Lift Capacity (120T) - Weight - Loading on crane rail - Rail gauge (30m to 45m) ±0.00 -16.00 >60m 30m
- 17. Port Development and Container Terminals Berth Productivity Quay length (M) 400 500 Yard size (ha) 20 25 Exchange (Boxes) 2000 3300 40’ to 20’ Ratio 1.6 1.6 Crane (no) 4 5 Single Trolley √ √ Twin Lift - √ Dual Cycle - √ Moves / hr 25 33 Berth capacity (teu/year) 640000 1,320,000 teu / m/ year 1,600 2,640 Yard capacity teu / ha 32,000 52,800 8000 TEU ULCS P P P P ULCS P ULCS P P P P 8000 TEU ULCS
- 18. Port Development and Container Terminals Berth Productivity Further Improvements 7 cranes per ULCS Double Trolley Quad Lift 40 + crane moves / hr Block loading / unloading 300 berth moves / hr
- 19. Port Development and Container Terminals Twin Lift
- 20. Port Development and Container Terminals Horizontal Transfer How to match crane productivity ? Tractor / Trailer (Single or Trailer Train) AGV (ECT Rotterdam & CTA Hamburg ) Mini straddle or shuttle carrier (SC) How to handle multiple lifts ? - Import - Export
- 21. Port Development and Container Terminals AGV
- 22. Port Development and Container Terminals Shuttle Carrier
- 23. Port Development and Container Terminals Yard Layout and Equipment Straddle Carrier - Suits smaller or odd shaped Terminal Yard RTG - Most used - Flexible – move between stacks - Generally 1 over 6 and 6 or 7+ 1 wide - 9 + 1 wide in Oslo - Full automation unsafe RMG - Recent adoptions - Generally 1 over 6 and 9 wide - Full automation possible - Cantilever possible for side lift - Cost > RTG Elevated Gantry Crane (SPA)
- 24. Port Development and Container Terminals RTG
- 25. Port Development and Container Terminals RMG EXPORT EXPORT EXPORT EXPORT EXPORT IMPORT IMPORT IMPORT IMPORT IMPORT TRUCK DELIVERY /RECEIPT ZONE SHUTTLE DELIVERY /RECEIPT ZONE
- 26. Port Development and Container Terminals Yard Layout Options RTG Blocks parallel to quay RMG Blocks parallel / perpendicular to Quay Road Vehicles - within stacks - transfer bays at land end Terminal Vehicles - within stacks - shuttle to Buffer Zone
- 27. Port Development and Container Terminals PORT RING ROAD CITY FREE ZONE /CARGO VILLAGE CFS INLAND MANUFACTURING /CONSUMER CENTRE ICD NATIO NAL HIG HW AY ROAD LINK ICDINLAND MANUFACTURING /CONSUMER CENTRE SEA The Port City
- 28. Port Development and Container Terminals Land Ports require large areas of land to support their operations - Container terminals - Port related industries - Free Zones, Cargo Villages, IPCs, Distribution Centres & Value-added Industries Many ports trying to emulate Jebel Ali’s success The options are - Create new land by reclamation - Relocate the port to a greenfield site Karachi has opted for the former with its Cargo Village
- 29. Port Development and Container Terminals THANK YOU
Editor's Notes
- Borrowed picture from Safmarine to reflect International aspect of IAPH
- Title is general but presentation will focus on container terminals It is a much discussed topic and difficult to bring new topics but will include
- The essential steps in developing port facilities are A reliable traffic forecast with short and long-term projections split by cargo type An assessment of the size and frequency of call of the ship to be accomodated The principle is the same whether it is general cargo, bulks, containers or specialised cargos but we will focus on containers
- A short term forecast can be developed by building on good national and local statistical information. The forecast of imports and exports will be based on the port’s potential market share of serving the immediate hinterland and the country as a whole. Industries adjacent to the port should be a captive market whereas landlocked neighbouring countries may have a choice To understand the transhipment potential you have to understand the regional trade and the shipping lines’ operations Longterm forecasts are more difficult and need to consider global trends. The globalisation of trade and the efficiency of containerisation has resulted in a year on year growth of 8% in container traffic. The longterm predictions will always be susceptible to variation due to external factors such a wars, political upheavals and global or regional depressions
- Port Planners and Engineers are required to provide facilities with a 50 year design life to serve a “design ship” Container ships have continued to increase in size to take advantage of the economies of scale but what are the limitations? Will the next generation ship visit – is it a mega port on a principal route or a national port with mainline direct calls? Will the ship be fully laden or will it call elsewhere on route to top up? Not until the design ship criteria are agreed can the Engineer consider navigation issues and berth design
- MSC Pamela in Felixstowe
- The ultimate carrier is generally agreed to have a capacity of 18,000 teu The 10,000 teu vessel is here or just around the corner Lloyds study of 2003 showed that the technology was available to design 12,500 teu carriers – the ULCS Vessels of 13,000 teu are due to be delivered from Korean yards within a few years Maersk are currently building a next generation carrier but they use their own yard and the size and capacity are being kept under wraqps. However leaked information says…… Not everyone thinks big is beautiful and some predict a liner service revolution providing more flexibilty with direct caslls using medium sized ships
- The technical issues are being resolved. It is the operational issues which may determine the ultimate size
- The available depth in the international waterways has given rise to the so called Suezmax and Malaccamax The Straits of Malacca limit the draft to 22m but the Suez Canal keeps setting new limits. The current depth is 62ft sufficient for a draft of 17m but with dredging improvements, the canal will be progressively deepened to 72ft, allowing vessels with a draft of 20m to safely transit
- The port facilities required for the safe transit of the vessel and for handling the cargo are…..
- Navigation issues for a coastal port and a river port will be different. Generally a mega port is at the coast with a short access channel The width and depth of the channel and additional widening at bends will depend on the volume of traffic. Can the channel be limited to one way transits or has it to be wide enough for two-way traffic? Can use be made of the tidal window to limit the dredged depth and what are the wave climate and currents in the channel? Once the ship is within the basin is tehre sufficient stopping distance and sufficient area for a turning circle? Windage on the ship’s superstructure and above deck boxes can be a significant factor in the safe handling of the ship within the basin
- One of the hardest decisions the port engineer has to make is the depth of the berth. Getting the balance between minimising capital expenditure and future proofing can be difficult. Most hub ports are building terminals with a depth of 18m and a few such a Tanjung Pelepas have designed for 19m
- Underestimating the requirement can lead to very expensive structural modifications at a later stage. The initial dredged depth (or declared depth) can and should be less than the design depth
- A straight quay provides flexibility and better crane utilisation A1200m quay provides quay provides for one Panamax, one post-Panamax and on ULCS. With a mix of smaller vessels and feeders it could be considered a 4 berth terminal but better to consider it as a single quay
- The Ceres terminal was a novel approach to increasing bert productivity but to date it has not been a great success. Perhaps it is in the wrong location and would have been more successful if it was at Rotterdam An alternative considered for one transhipment terminal was a drive through berth. A little like the indented dock but open at both ends with lift bridges. This is still on the drawing board
- Quay crane and spreader technology is ahead of shipping requirements. Booms of over 60m have been installed at a number of terminals and more big cranes are on order (68m for Jebel Ali and Salalah) These cover 22 boxes across the ship Increases in productivity have been achieved by faster travel and cycle times, double trolleys, twin lifts (2x40 and 4x20) The downside for the Engineer is that the cranes weigh over 1,500 T and the loading on the crane rail exceeds 80T/m. The increased lift capacity of up to 120T means bigger motors and the installed power is over 2MW To provide more lanes under the crane some operators are specifying a 45m rail gauge
- This shows the possible increases in berth productivity that could be achieved by the new generation of cranes working an ULCS. The higher productivity has to be matched by higher yard productivity
- The berth productivity can be further enhanced by….to give an average of over 40 moves /hr Shipping lines are looking for a berth productivity of 300 moves/hr Obviously this is more easily achieved with large exchanges and with block loading/unloading. It will not be achieved where the exchange is small or where restows are necessary
- The big challenge is how to match the berth productivity in the yard and especially in the horizontal transfers between the crane and stack The tractor/trailer is still the most used mode of transfer AGVs provide a viable option only in countries where the cost of labour is high and currently they are only used in Europe. Gottwald calculate that labour costs have to exceed $25/hr for an AGV to be cost effective The shuttle carrier is being adopted in conjunction with automated RMG yards. It shuttles boxes between the quay apron and the stack buffer zones. It is independent as it picks up and puts down boxes on the deck and does not have to wait for crane lifts at either end of its run. Loading a single box onto a trailer or AGV is easy but how are twin lifts to be handled? Spreaders provide about 1m separation between the boxes and parking two trailers with the necessary accuracy is difficult. At Jebel Ali they have successfully developed a twin trailer and shuttle carriers could provide a solution as there is sufficient separation for one leg to pass between the boxes Even more difficult is the just-in-time delivery of two boxes to the quay for a twin export lift. Tandem lifts from the stack will require extensive forward planning
- RTGs are still the most used in yards around the world. Some 680 units were delivered in 2005 compared with 72 RMGs. However RMGs are becoming more popular as the forward orders reflect. RMGs lend themselves to automation and will be used in Pusan Newport, Euromax & ECT, Rotterdam Straddle is not favoured for the hub terminal. The elevated gantry at SPA was a one off
- This is a typical arrangement with 300m stacks parallel to the quay and 7+1 with 1 over 6 RTGs
- This shows a RMG arrangement with blocks normal to the quay with a shuttle delivery / receipt zone at one end and a truck receipt / delivery zone at the other Buffer zones for import/export can be prearranged at the seaward end for fast exchange. Top section shows a 9 wide stack with 1 over 6 Vehicles are generally kept out of the terminal but the lower section shows a possible option for handling twin lifts with a circulation road adjacent to each stack
- The advantage with having vehicles within the yard is that the operator cuts down the number of internal stack moves and the trucker does half the work
- A port city feed on each other’s success but often the success is self defeating with the city expanding until it chokes the port River ports such as London have moved downstream as the ships got bigger and the handling requirements changed. A coastal port has nowhere to go and trucking through leafy suburbs is not acceptable. The options are to create dedicated transport corridors to the outer ring road and the national highways not always easy – Dublin has built a tunnel and HK has built a road over water. In Karachi the infrastructure is in place apart from a link to the east side of the port and the entrance will have to be bridged To move cargo inland by rail to ICDs at the inland cities To reduce port traffic by moving all CFS operations out of the port to strategic sites near the ring road
- The other issue facing established ports is what to do with unwanted land and how to create the necessary land areas needed for development. Green field sites have the luxury of creating as much land as they need and zoning it for future port related activities. Container terminals require large areas often created by reclamation Making large areas available for …… will stimulate development and improve port traffic. It also makes the port more attractive to shipping lines Jebel Ali Free Zone generates 50% of traffic. Tanjung Pelepas is backed by large land areas Commercial redevelopment of obsolete port land. Realise existing assets to finance new development Cargo Village