Optimizing the yard

layout in container
terminals
Byung Kwon Lee . Kap Hwan Kim
2012
Andrea Gonzlez Revelo
ABSTRACT
Various cost factors are used for
optimizing the yard layout, which include
the construction cost of the ground
space, the fixed overhead cost of yard
cranes, and the operating costs of yard
cranes and transporters. Sensitivity
analysis is performed to investigate the
effect of various design parameters on
the optimal layout of the yard. The two
types of yard layout are compared with
each other, and the results of this study
are compared against those for real-world
yard layouts from the perspective of
throughput capacity and storage space
capacity
The main activities of container
terminals are to load outbound
containers on to vessels, discharge
inbound containers from vessels, and
store those containers in the yard
before loading (or after discharging)
them.
This study proposes a method for
determining an optimal layout of
container yards taking into
consideration the storage space
requirements and throughput
capacities of yard cranes and
transporters. Two types of yard layout
are under consideration: a layout
where blocks are laid out parallel to
the quay and transfer points are
located beside a bay per block, and a
layout whose blocks are laid out
perpendicular to the quay and transfer
points are located at both ends of
each block.
1. INTRODUCTION (i)
A container yard represents a kind of storage system at which outbound
containers arrive several days prior to the arrivals of the corresponding
vessels and where inbound containers are discharged from the vessels,
stored, and delivered to their consignees.
Container
inbound
Container
outbound
When handling operations in the yard are performed by yard cranes
(YCs), the operation cycle time of YCs has high impacts on various
performance measures of a container terminal. The cycle time of YCs
heavily depends not only on the mechanical speed of YCs but also on the
layout of the yard which can be specified by the width, the height, and the
length of a block, and the layout of aisles. During the discharging
operations, the QCs transfer containers from a vessel to a transporter.
The transporter then delivers the discharged container to a YC, which
picks it up and stacks it into a position in a marshaling yard. During a
loading operation, this process is carried out in the opposite direction.
1. INTRODUCTION (ii)
1. INTRODUCTION (iii)
There are two types of yard layout as follows :
PARALLEL YARD LAYOUT

There are two types of yard layout as follows :
1. INTRODUCTION (iii)
PERPENDICULAR YARD
LAYOUT

2. OPTIMIZING PARALLEL YARD
LAYOUTS (i)
Parallel yard layouts characteristics:

YCs can travel from one block to another.

2. OPTIMIZING PARALLEL YARD
LAYOUTS (i)
Parallel yard layouts characteristics:

Road trucks and transporters travel through vertical and horizontal aisles
to transport containers. However, the flows in the horizontal aisles just in
front of the gate and at the next to the quay are bidirectional. The study
assumes unidirectional flows in horizontal aisles and bidirectional flows in
vertical aisles, which are the most popular in real-world container terminals.
The study also assumes that road trucks drive in the clockwise direction and
transporters in the counterclockwise direction

Some assumptions for defining the problem:
2. OPTIMIZING PARALLEL YARD
LAYOUTS (ii)
1. The entire layout of a container terminal is of a rectangular
shape.
2. The number of YCs per row of blocks in the yard is given and the
same for all the rows.
3. Interference among YCs is not considered, the interference
among YCs is assumed to be negligible in the parallel layout.
4. The number of YCs deployed to each type of the operation (the
vessel operation or the hinterland operation) is proportional to the
number of handling operations of the type.
5. Some blocks are dedicated only to inbound containers, while the
others are dedicated only to loading containers.
Some assumptions for defining the problem:
2. OPTIMIZING PARALLEL YARD
LAYOUTS (iii)
6. The blocks for inbound and loading containers are uniformly
mixed in the yard. (blocks for inbound and loading containers are
uniformly distributed across the yard).
7. The sizes of blocks are the same within the entire yard.
8. The quay length is given. i.e., the width of a yard is assumed to
be the same as the quay length and so the number of columns of
blocks determines the length of a block in the yard.
9. The gate is located at the middle of the landside of the
rectangular yard.
10.Transporters deliver containers between the yard and a vessel in
single command cycles.


The notation to formulate the optimization problem is presented below:
2. OPTIMIZING PARALLEL YARD
LAYOUTS (iiii)
Input
parameters
Decision
variables
Dependent
variables
Functions of
decision
variables
Contraints
Objective
Function
lq = Length of the quay (m). Refer Fig. 1
lv = Average length of a vessel (m).
lb = Length of a bay (m).
wh = Width of a horizontal aisle between adjacent blocks in the layout
including the width of a lane for driving (m).
nr = Number of containers moving from the hinterland to vessels
(outbound containers) during a year.
nt = Number of containers discharged from a vessel and then loaded onto
another vessel (transshipment containers) during a year.
h = Total working time per year (min).

N = Number of columns of blocks in the layout.
R = Number of rows of blocks.
W = Number of stacks in a bay.
B = Number of bays per block in the layout.
Hr = Average height of stacks in the number of tiers.
H = Maximum height of stacks.
AYCh = Arrival rate of road trucks from the hinterland for receiving and
delivery containers, incorporating the peak arrivals, per minute per YC.
AYCs = Arrival rate of transporters for loading and discharging containers,
incorporating the peak arrivals, per minute per YC.

fYC(H,W) = Installation (fixed) cost of a YC per year under a given
combination= YC cycle time for a receiving operation during which a YC
receives an of H and W.
Cr(H,W) outbound container from road trucks or a transshipment
container from a transporter under a given combination of H and W (min)
Wd(R, H, Hr,W) =Waiting time of a road truck for receiving an inbound
container from a YC for a given combination of R, H, Hr , and W (min).
Dg(N, R,W) = Round-trip travel distance of road trucks between the gate
and a random position in the yard for given values of N, R, and W (m).

Maximum system time of transporters for a loading container. (waiting
time at the block + YC operation time for retrieving a loading container)
Maximum system time of transporters for a discharging inbound
container.
Maximum allowed average turnaround time of road trucks for a outbound
container.
Maximum allowed average turnaround time of road trucks for a inbound
container.

(PYL-I) Minimize:
The construction cost of the ground space for blocks and aisles in the
layout.
The fixed overhead cost of YCs in the layout.
The operating cost of YCs in the layout.
Fixed overhead and operating cost of transporters.

3. OPTIMIZING PERPENDICULAR
YARD LAYOUTS (i)
Perpendicular yard layouts characteristics:
YCs cannot move from one block to another.
Traffic areas for the receiving (or delivery) operation are separated from those for
the loading (or discharging) operation.

The notation to formulate the optimization problem is presented below:
Input
parameters
Decision
variables
Dependent
variables
Functions of
decision
variables
Contraints
Objective
Function
3. OPTIMIZING PERPENDICULAR
YARD LAYOUTS (ii)
mYC = Number of YCs per block in the layout. It is assumed that the
number of YCs is fixed and the number of YCs per block in the yard is the
same for all blocks (columns).
wb = Gap between adjacent blocks for rails of YCs.
rYC =Interference ratio between adjacent YCs during the operation.
W = Number of stacks in a bay.
B = Number of bays per block.
N = Number of blocks in the yard. Note that a perpendicular layout has a
single row of blocks.
Hr = Average height of stacks in the number of tiers.
fYC(H,W) = Installation (fixed) cost of a YC per year under a given
combination of H and W.
Cr(H,W) = YC cycle time for a receiving operation during which a YC
receives an outbound container from road trucks or a transshipment
container from a transporter under a given combination of H and W (min).


Maximum system time of transporters for a loading container.
Maximum system time of transporters for a discharging container.
Maximum system time of road trucks for a receiving container.
Maximum system time of road trucks for a delivery container.


(PYL-II) Minimize:

The construction cost of the ground space for blocks and aisles in the
layout.
The fixed overhead cost of YCs in the layout.
The operating cost of YCs in the layout.
The fixed overhead and operating cost of transporters in the layout.

4. NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS
A numerical experiment was conducted to illustrate the layout design
procedure for the parallel yard layout. It was assumed that :

nr = 360,700 containers/year (Number of containers moving from the hinterland to
vessels (outbound containers) during a year)
h = 518,400 min (Total working time per year)
dr = 20,160 min (Average dwell time (inworking time) of outbound containers at the
yard)
u = 0.6 (Average utilization of storage space (0 u 1))
fG = 28, 890 Korean won/m2/year (Construction cost of the ground space
equivalent to a square meter, which is converted to the equivalent annual cost. This
includes the investment capital cost for the land and the construction of the ground.)
fTR = 19.290 won/min (Fixed overhead cost of a transporter per minute)
.
.
.
lb = 6.458 m (Length of a bay)
wr = 2.838 m (Width of a stack)
4.1 SENSITIVY ANALYSIS FOR THE
PARALLEL YARD LAYOUT (i)
The number of YCs per row, nYC, was set to 6. It was assumed that tr = td = 20
min and tl = tu = 2 min. The interference factor between YCs, rYC, was set to 1.0.
S(N), S(R), and S(W) were assumed to have integral values between 1 and 100. The
optimal layout was determined by enumerating all the combinations of the elements
in S(N), S(R), and S(W).
Table 1 shows the optimal layouts for various numbers of YCs per row. It was found
that the total cost was lowest when the number of YCs per row was 7. The number of
bays per block and the height of stacks did not show a consistent trend.
4.1 SENSITIVY ANALYSIS FOR THE
PARALLEL YARD LAYOUT (ii)
Table 2 tests the sensitivity of the optimal layout to various speeds of the gantry and
the trolley of YCs. The optimal layout was not sensitive to the gantry speed, while it
changed when the trolley speed changed.
4.1 SENSITIVY ANALYSIS FOR THE
PARALLEL YARD LAYOUT (iii)
The number of YCs per block, mYC, was set to 2. It was assumed that tr = td = 25
min, tl = tu = 5 min, and wb = 16 m. It was also assumed that nr = 324, 630
containers/year, nt = 682,020 containers/year, nd = 371, 610 containers/year, S(W)
and S(B) consisted of integral values from 1 to 100, respectively.
4.2 SENSITIVY ANALYSIS FOR THE
PERPENDICULAR YARD LAYOUT (i)
Table 3 shows the optimal layouts for various numbers of YCs for each block. When the
number of YCs was assumed to be one, no feasible layout could be found. The total cost was
minimized when the number of YCs in each block was 3. Considering that the interference
among multiple YCs is significant and the maximum number of YCs is 3 in a block of the
perpendicular layout in current practices, the data were collected only for mYC = 1, 2, 3,
and 4.
4.2 SENSITIVY ANALYSIS FOR THE
PERPENDICULAR YARD LAYOUT (ii)
4.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN PARALLEL
AND PERPENDICULAR YARD LAYOUTS
Table 4 compares the
two different types of
layout in terms of
performance.
4.4 COMPARISON OF REAL WORLD
YARD LAYOUT WITH THE RESULTS
OF THE STUDY (i)
One typical container
terminal (terminal P)
in South Korea has a
yard in a parallel
layout; it consists of
approximately seven
rows and seven
columns of blocks for
outbound and
inbound containers.
Table 5 compares
the layout of
terminal P and the
optimal layout
obtained by solving
PYL-I.
4.4 COMPARISON OF REAL WORLD
YARD LAYOUT WITH THE RESULTS
OF THE STUDY (ii)
For the perpendicular
layout, a comparison
between a real-world
layout and the
optimal layout was
done by using a real-
world design for a
container terminal
(terminal H) under
construction at the
new port in Busan
Korea. Table 6
shows the result of
the comparison
between the optimal
layout and the
planned
perpendicular layout
in terminal H.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Regarding the parallel layout, it was found that the optimal layout in this paper has a
larger number of stacks in a bay and a smaller number of rows of blocks than a
layout in practice.
Regarding the perpendicular layout, it was found that the optimal layout has much
shorter and wider blocks than a layout in practice.
It was also found that by using the optimal layout in this paper, the total cost may
be significantly reduced compared with real-world layouts.
It was found that the parallel layout is superior to the perpendicular layout in terms
of the total cost.
The travel time of transporters depends on the degree of the congestion on their
travel routes, which was not considered in the paper. The effects of the congestion of
transporters on the layout parameters may be analyzed in a future study.
ANY
questions?