TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY
In pursuit of
productivity
In part one of a two-part article, Alexandre Goussiatiner investigates productivity
rates for multi-spreader quayside cranes compared with single-lift alternatives
ncreased volumes,
I vessel sizes and
service standards
require higher berth
productivity from
terminal operators. It has
become obvious that ever-
increasing crane intensity for
vessel operations is not
always the right answer to
the challenge. If we consider
that berth productivity
demand nowadays and for
the coming years is at
minimum 200 containers per
hour (cont/hr), and that the
practical number of cranes
allocated for the vessel
should not exceed six, than
the sustainable gross rate (all
delays included) should be at
least 35 cont/hr.
The technical
productivity rate for
conventional cranes is
greater than 45 cont/hr, but
not many terminals in the
world have a sustainable
productivity rate at this level,
even if they allocate an
adequate number of prime
movers to the cranes. As
result, terminal operators and
38 • CONTAINER MANAGEMENT • August
Alexandre Goussiatiner
crane manufacturers are
seeking new ways to boost
their cranes’ productivity.
Historically, increasing the
number of 20 ft containers
on-deck and in 40 ft cells
under-deck has driven the
move to increase
productivity by handling two
2007
20 ft containers ‘end to end’
simultaneously (twin-lift). As
a result, most conventional
cranes are now equipped
with telescopic spreaders
which can handle twin-lifts
as well as single lifts.
When the spreader is
extended, the crane can lift a
single 40 ft, 45 ft of 48 ft
container or twin containers.
When the spreader is
retracted, it can lift single 20
ft containers. Most spreaders
are adjustable: they adjust to
the gap between two 20 ft
containers and can be used to
perform twin-lifts in any
deck/cell arrangement. Most
of the cranes used in twin-lift
operations have a lifting
capacity of 65 tonnes, which
allows them to handle ‘heavy
lifts’.
Currently, the centre of
attention for many terminal
operators has moved to
cranes with dual and triple
spreaders. Several ports have
commissioned dual spreader
cranes manufactured by
Shanghai Zhenhua Port
Machinery Co, Ltd (ZPMC).
About 60 such cranes have
been commissioned and an
additional 85 are currently
on order, according to
ZPMC.
The most commonly
adopted configuration for
dual spreader cranes consists
of two independent sets of
 TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY

Figure 1. Dual spreader crane configuration Figure 3. Triple-spreader crane configuration

hoists, head blocks and adjacent terminal trucks. connected, the crane is (see Figure 4). A small
telescopic spreaders similar When sets are connected to operationally identical to a number of dual-hoist cranes
to the ones from each other, the crane can conventional single spreader have been built with 120-
conventional cranes (see perform various dual crane. tonne lifting capacity under
Figure 1). spreader (tandem) lifts: two Disconnection/connection two spreaders.
Mechanical linkages 20 ft containers side-by-side takes less than a minute, but Just recently ZPMC has
between the two sets are used with retracted spreaders, two can be performed only while made further advances with a
to adjust to different twins side-by-side with the spreaders are grounded on triple-spreader crane. The first
container heights and to extended spreaders, etc. All the quay surface. The rated three triple-spreader cranes
adjust side-to-side clearances possible lift types are listed capacity of the cranes is 80 were commissioned at Mawan
of two containers quayside in Figure 2. tonnes under two spreaders or Terminal in the Port of
while landing them onto When the sets are not 65 tonnes under one spreader Shenzhen in China in
February 2007. The crane
configuration consists of three
Lift type Description Conventional Dual Triple spreaders, two head blocks
crane spreader spreader and two hoists. Two
crane crane
inseparable spreaders on the
20 Single 20 ft 1-Retracted 1-Retracted 1-Retracted waterside are connected to a
40 Single 40 ft/45 ft 1-Extended 1-Extended 1-Extended third spreader on the landside
(see Figure 3).
2x20 Twin 1-Extended 1-Extended 1-Extended The crane operates using
20_20 Two 20 ft side-by-side 2-Retracted 2-Retracted the following modes:
J Three spreaders mode:
2x20_2x20 Two twins side-by-side 2-Extended 2-Extended
landside spreader is
2x20_40 Twin and 40 ft side-by-side 2-Extended 2-Extended connected.
J Two spreaders mode:
40_40 Two 40 ft/45 ft side-by-side 2-Extended 2-Extended
landside spreader is
20_20_20 Three 20 ft side-by-side 3-Retracted
disconnected and hoisted up.
2x20_40_40 Twin and two 40 ft side-by-side 3-Extended J One spreader mode:

2x20_2x20_40 Two twins and 40 ft side-by-side 3-Extended waterside spreaders are

disconnected and hoisted
2x20_2x20_2x20 Three twins side-by-side 3-Extended up. Only the landside
40_40_40 Three 40 ft side-by-side 3-Extended spreader is utilised. In this
mode, the crane operates
Figure 2. Crane lift types as a conventional crane.

August 2007 • CONTAINER MANAGEMENT • 39

TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY
Dual-spreader crane
Under single spreader 65 tonnes
Under dual spreader 80 tonnes
Under triple spreader
Figure 4. Rated lifting capacity
According to ZPMC, the
crane’s rated lifting capacity is
as follows:
Pluses and minuses
Strengths
The cranes have a
substantially higher lifting
capacity than conventional
cranes and can handle more
containers in a single lift
cycle. Still, the hoisting speed
remains the same and, despite
the fact that cycle elapsed time
is greater than for a
conventional crane, terminal
operators report significant
increases in productivity.
Operational constraints
Certain requirements are
imposed before a multi-
spreader mode can be used.
Weight constraints: The 80-
tonne and 120-tonne lifting
capacities allow cranes to
handle dual 40 ft and triple 40
ft containers respectively, but
do not always allow multiple
full 20 ft containers to be
handled. If the maximum gross
weight for a 20 ft container is
30 tonnes, than the ‘heavy lift’
of four 20 ft containers will
require a lifting capacity of 120
tonnes under two spreaders,
and six 20 ft containers will
require 180 tonnes.
Stowage constraints:
Multiple spreaders cannot be
used if stowage is uneven, as
the containers have to be
levelled and be in position
side-by-side to each other. For
40 • CONTAINER MANAGEMENT • August
Triple-spreader crane
60 tonnes
100 tonnes
120 tonnes
instance, a dual spreader in
four 20 ft container mode can
be used only when there are
four levelled 20 ft containers
available to pick up.
Yard interface constraints:
Multi-spreader operation
requires that multiple terminal
trucks are located under the
crane at the same time. Even
if the terminal operating
system dispatches multiple
trucks to arrive at the same
time, there is no guarantee that
they will arrive concurrently.
Decoupled operations using
straddle or shuttle carriers do
not have this constraint.
Opportunities
Increased crane productivity
suggests that such
configurations can be used
efficiently for mega-vessel
operations that require a larger
number of containers to be
handled from fewer numbers
of bays.
Areas of concern
Introduction of the dual- and
triple-spreader crane raises
safety issues for the gear crew
inspecting containers and
handling semi-automatic
twistlocks (SATLs) from all
four corners of each container.
To get to the corners, the
workers have to pass through
a narrow corridor between two
terminal trucks.
Multi-spreader crane
operation can induce
congestion in the apron area,
if the terminal is using trucks
as prime movers. During
2007
operation terminal trucks are
occupying multiple lanes and
can block traffic to other
cranes.
Dual- and triple-spreader
cranes create a higher wheel
load. For example, a dual-
spreader crane with eight
wheels per corner creates 165
tonnes of wheel load, 37.5%
more than a conventional
crane wheel load. This means
that a complete engineering
assessment of the wharf
surface and rails is needed to
make sure that the crane
deployment is feasible.
A case study
Various container terminal
statistics analyses use a
number of indicators to
measure productivity of
container cranes. For this
article we are going to use the
gross crane rate indicator,
which is defined as the total
number of containers handled
divided by the gross crane
time. The gross crane rate is a
measure of the productivity of
the crane and terminal
operation as a whole, as all
delays under control of the
terminal operator (operating
delays) are included in the
gross crane time.
According to ZPMC, a
dual-spreader crane “can boost
productivity by 50% if loading
and unloading techniques are
improved accordingly”. For a
triple-spreader crane, ZPMC
states that: “Compared with
the twin 40 ft container cranes,
its handling efficiency can be
improved by at least 15-20%”.
ZPMC also reports that
dual-spreader cranes at the
Port of Dubai have created a
new world record: 104 teu per
hour. At the same time, while
most ports report an increase
in performance, their reported
productivity rates vary. We
hope that by providing
answers to the following
questions, a model will be
provided that can be used for
impartial estimation of crane
productivity in a variety of
operational conditions.
1. What maximum
(minimum) increase in
sustainable performance
should we expect if we
replace the conventional
crane with a dual- or
triple-spreader crane and
perform a ‘typical’
operation?
2. What sustainable
productivity can the
terminal operator expect
from the deployment of a
dual- or triple-spreader
crane instead of a
conventional crane for a
particular vessel?
We hope that the article can
answer those questions and
provide a model that can be
used for impartial estimation
of the crane productivity in a
variety of operational
conditions.
Limitations
Crane productivity depends on
a number of factors, including
the characteristics of the
operation, such as vessel
stowage configuration; the teu
to containers ratio; average
container weights; containers
handled in each task; etc. In
order to estimate the general
‘boost’ in productivity, we have
used the parameters of a
‘typical’ operation for a middle-
size post-Panamax vessel at the
terminal with benchmarking
characteristics of the container
fleet. Results are therefore not
universal and can be used for
comparison purposes only.
It has been known for
quite some time in the
industry that the gross crane
rate fluctuates significantly,
 TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY

Model definition
Containers handled
Suppose that during vessel operation the crane was involved in all four operational tasks:
Task 1 2 3 4
Containers handled v1 v2 v3 v4

Then the total containers handled during the operation can be found as follows:
4
Total containers handled: ∑ vi
i=1

Loading spectrum
Suppose that we have portioned all the crane cycles in a task into groups according to the number of containers handled in each cycle:

# Containers 1 2 n
# Lifts s1 s2 sn

Then the loading spectrum of the crane, denoted by, is defined as follows:

Loading spectrum: S = {s1, s1, ...,sn}.

Elapsed time spectra

Suppose that we have portioned all the crane lifts in a task into groups according to the number of containers handled in each lift
cycle and then calculated average gross lift cycle time, measured in seconds, within each group:

# Containers 1 2 n
Average cycle time t2 t2 tn

Then the elapsed time spectrum of the crane, denoted by, is defined as follows:

Elapsed time spectrum: T = {t1, t1, ...,tn}..

Crane gross elapsed time

The crane gross elapsed time for the whole operation can be defined as follows:
4 n
Crane gross elapsed time: ∑ ∑ sjti
i=1 j=1
Crane gross rate
The crane gross rate is total containers handled divided by crane gross elapsed time.
Then the crane gross rate, denoted by G, can be calculated as follows:
4
3600∑ vi
Crane gross rate: i=1 [cont/hr]
4 n
∑ ∑ sjti
i=1 j=1

This formula is applicable for conventional cranes as well as for multi-spreader cranes. We assume that containers handled are
known, and now the question is how to determine load and time spectra.

even for terminals that have
similar operating conditions
and identical cranes. The
model presented here is not
intended to predict exact
productivity figures; rather it
estimates the ‘end points’ of
the confident interval.
At any particular time
during vessel operation, the
crane executes one of the
following tasks:
Task 1: unloading from the deck
Task 2: unloading from the hold
Task 3: loading to the deck
Task 4: loading to the hold.
Each task has its own
specifics and its own
distribution of operational
delays. The differences are
reflected in the productivity
statistics. Hence we will
model each task
individually. J
Alexandre Goussiatiner is a container terminal and
transportation specialist with Sandwell Engineering Inc. in
Vancouver, Canada. The second part of this article will appear
in the September 2007 issue of Container Management.
Sandwell Engineering Inc.
Suite 600 - 885 Dunsmuir Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 1N5 Canada
el 604 630 7525 (direct)
tel 604 684 9311
e-mail: agoussiatiner@sandwell.com
www.sandwell.com

August 2007 • CONTAINER MANAGEMENT • 41

TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY

In the final part of a two-part article, Alexandre Goussiatiner of Sandwell

Engineering Inc. concludes his investigation into productivity rates for multi-spreader
quayside cranes, compared with single-lift alternatives

In pursuit of
productivity 2
T
o determine
loading
spectra, a
special crane
simulation
software system called
CraneSpectra has been
developed. CraneSpectra uses
a physical model of a vessel
and stowage and generates
discharging and loading
sequences. The containers’
stowage positions, their
status and weights are
randomised. During the
simulation the crane tries to
select moves with the
maximum number of
spreaders. When this is not
possible, the crane
‘disconnects’ spreaders, only
to connect them again when
such a move is allowed. The
record of the crane
movement is used to
calculate load spectra.
The data presented in
Figure 1 were used to simulate
the ‘typical’ operation.
The intermediate results of
the CraneSpectra simulation
Vessel capacity
In-hold rows 15
In-hold tiers 9
On-deck rows 17
On-deck tiers 6
In-hold capacity (teu) 3,000
On-deck capacity (teu) 3,300
20 ft bay to vessel capacity ratio 0.1
Containers handled
Handled to capacity ratio 0.6
Teu to containers ratio 1.6
Full to total ratio 0.85
Weights
20 ft average gross weight (tonnes) 18
20 ft gross weight variation 0.7
20 ft average tare weight (tonnes) 2.3
40 ft average gross weight (tonnes) 24
40 ft gross weight variation 0.4
40 ft average tare weight (tonnes) 3.8
Figure 1: Typical operational dimensions
runs (data from 100 runs) are recorded usage of all lift types frequency for each lift type.
presented in Figure 2. As can during the runs and Based on the recording,
be seen, CraneSpectra determined ‘average’ CraneSpectra calculates the

00 • CONTAINER MANAGEMENT • September 2007 September 2007 • CONTAINER MANAGEMENT • 00

 TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY

crane during single- and twin-

Lift Type Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4
Dual Triple Dual Triple Dual Triple Dual Triple lift operations are similar, so
20' 10 0 12 0 12 0 10 0 we can conclude that the and
parameters of the spectrum
40' 18 36 42 0 88 0 73 36
should be the same for all
2x20' 16 3 12 3 14 0 13 0 cranes.
20_20 94 12 84 0 84 0 94 12 To estimate other elements
2x20_2x20 64 3 57 2 57 0 64 0 of the spectrum we should
2x20_40 0 9 6 0 4 0 3 9 consider two models: a
40_40 360 9 312 7 290 6 331 9 realistic model (R-Model) and
an optimistic model (O-
20_20_20 0 58 0 60 0 60 0 58
Model).
2x20_40_40 0 0 0 5 0 6 0 0
2x20_2x20_40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R-Model
2z20_2x20_2x20 0 42 0 40 0 42 0 45 Certainly handling more
40_40_40 0 225 0 216 0 216 0 225 containers in a single lift
increases the elapsed time
Figure 2: CraneSpectra simulation runs and it is reasonable to assume
that this is a quasi-linear
and triple-spreader cranes function. The assumption is
Task Containers
using comparative analysis. based on the limited
1 2 3 4 5 6 Supposing that monitoring data and can be
Dual Spreader Crane container/hour is the gross validated further when more
1 28 470 0 64 0 0 rate for the single lift and data become available. The
2 54 408 6 57 0 0 cont/hr is the gross rate for assumption allows us to
3 100 388 4 57 0 0 the twin lift, then the determine the lower
4 83 438 3 64 0 0 elements of the elapsed time boundary of the ‘confidence
Triple Spreader Crane spectra can be calculated as interval’. It is unlikely that
1 36 24 292 3 0 42 following: productivity can fall lower
2 0 10 276 7 0 40 than the level defined by the
3 0 6 276 6 0 42 t2= 3,600/ g2 sec R-Model.
4 36 21 292 0 0 45 t2= 2*3,600/ g2 sec
Figure 3: Loading spectra
O-Model
For instance, if g2 = 30 For the ‘optimistic’ model,
cont/hr (t2 = 120) and g2 = 40 we assume that handling
cranes’ loading spectra (see dual- and triple-spreader (t2 = 180), then conventional more than two containers at
Figure 3). cranes (such as vessel crane spectra are defined as once does not require more
As can be seen, two operational dimensions, follows: time than it takes to perform
containers at a time is the container fleet, yard a twin-lift. The assumption
prevailing case for the double- equipment, etc.) are equal to T= {120, 180} allows us to determine the
spreader crane and three those for the conventional upper boundary of the
containers at a time for the crane. The purpose of this is Hoisting speed characteristics ‘confidence interval’. It is
triple-spreader crane. For to show how to estimate (see Figure 4) and lifting unlikely that productivity can
comparison, about 85% of all elapsed time spectra for dual- capacity for all three types of be higher than the level
lifts performed by
conventional cranes involve
only one container. Conventional Dual Spreader Triple Spreader
Crane Crane Crane
Elapsed time spectra Rated Load Hoist Speed
We assume that conventional
[m/min] 90 90 75
crane gross rates for single-
and twin-lift operations are Empty Hoist Speed [m/min] 180 180 180
known from the terminal Trolley Speed [m/min] 240 250 240
statistics. We also assume that
the operational conditions for Figure 4: Hoisting speed comparison table

00 • CONTAINER MANAGEMENT • September 2007 September 2007 • CONTAINER MANAGEMENT • 00

TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY

defined by the O-Model.

Dual Spreader Crane Triple Spreader Crane
Based on these models, R-Model O-Model R-Model O-Model
we can estimate the elapsed
time spectra, as shown in Gross Crane Rate [cont/hr] 37.8 40.4 41.5 59.8
Figure 5. Increase over baseline 26% 35% 38% 99%
Gross Crane Rate [TEU/hr] 60.5 64.6 66.4 95.7
Modelling results
Figure 6: Gross crane rates

The elapsed time spectrum, operators should expect a

which is based on the
premise that the gross crane
rate for the conventional
crane is 30 cont/hr for the
single lift and 40 cont/hr for
the twin lift, was used to
produce the final modelling
results (see Figure 6).
Figure 7 represents
modelling results for the
number of lifts counted during
the vessel operation.
Conclusions
Figure 5: Elapsed time spectra
Conservatively, terminal
26% increase in productivity
when deploying a dual-
spreader crane and a 38%
increase when deploying a
triple-spreader crane. The
increase is indeed very
significant. However, it does
not mean that from now on
we can recommend only dual
or triple cranes to be
purchased and deployed.
Crane productivity is only
one criteria of many that have
to be considered during
decision-making. J

Alexandre Goussiatiner is a container terminal and

transportation specialist with Sandwell Engineering Inc. in
Vancouver, Canada. The first part of this article appeared
in the August 2007 issue of Container Management.
Sandwell Engineering Inc.
Suite 600 - 885 Dunsmuir Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 1N5 Canada
el 604 630 7525 (direct)
tel 604 684 9311
e-mail: agoussiatiner@sandwell.com
www.sandwell.com
Figure 7: Crane lifts counted for a typical vessel operation

Space

00 • CONTAINER MANAGEMENT • September 2007 September 2007 • CONTAINER MANAGEMENT • 00