Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Container terminal layout design: transition and future

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Maritime Economics & Logistics Aims and scope

Abstract

Container terminals play an important role in the transportation of containerized goods in global supply chains. The number of containers handled in container terminals has increased astronomically. To accommodate and handle the increasing number of containers entering and leaving container terminals, their layout has seen several changes. New layouts require smaller footprint and must ensure faster, cheaper, and more efficient transfer of containers between the landside and seaside. This paper first reviews the literature on the transition of terminal layout designs from traditional to automated and future container terminals. Second, the relevant research needs to address strategic and tactical layout design problems are listed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Source Port of Felixstowe 2018

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Image courtesy of Casanova & Hernandez Architects

Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Image courtesy of Kubota & Bachmann Architects

Fig. 13

Image courtesy of Casanova Hernandez Architects

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcaldea, E.M., K.H. Kim, and S.S. Marchán. 2015. Optimal space for storage yard considering yard inventory forecasts and terminal performance. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 82: 101–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alessandri, A., C. Cervellera, M. Cuneo, M. Gaggero, and G. Soncin. 2008. Modeling and feedback control for resource allocation and performance analysis in container terminals. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 9 (4): 601–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angeloudis, P., and M.G.H. Bell. 2011. A review of container terminal simulation models. Maritime Policy and Management 38 (5): 523–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, A.J., and D. Rother. 2013. Technical and economic evaluation of the floating container storage and transhipment terminal (FCSTT). Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 30: 178–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakshi, N., S.E. Flynn, and N. Gans. 2011. Estimating the operational impact of container inspections at international ports. Management Science 57 (1): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakshi, N., and N. Gans. 2010. Securing the containerized supply chain: Analysis of government incentives for private investment. Management Science 56 (2): 219–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassan, S. 2007. Evaluating seaport operation and capacity analysis–preliminary methodology. Maritime Policy and Management 34 (1): 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierwirth, C., and F. Meisel. 2010. A survey of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling problems in container terminals. European Journal of Operational Research 202 (3): 615–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boile, M., S. Theofanis, A. Baveja, and N. Mittal. 2008. Regional empty container repositioning: case for inland depots. Transportation Research Record 2066: 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouer, B.D., D. Pisinger, and S. Spoorendonk. 2011. Liner shipping cargo allocation with repositioning of empty containers. INFOR 49 (2): 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • BSR. 2010. Sustainability trends in the container shipping industry. https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Sustainability_Trends__Container_Shipping_Industry.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  • Carlo, H.J., I.F.A. Vis, and K.J. Roodbergen. 2013. Seaside operations in container terminals: Literature overview, trends, and research directions. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 235: 412–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlo, H.J., I.F.A. Vis, and K.J. Roodbergen. 2014a. Storage yard operations in container terminals: Literature overview, trends, and research directions. European Journal of Operational Research 235 (2): 412–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlo, H.J., I.F.A. Vis, and K.J. Roodbergen. 2014b. Transport operations in container terminals: Literature overview, trends, research directions and classification scheme. European Journal of Operational Research 236 (1): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R., J.X. Dong, and X.Y. Lee. 2016. Pricing and competition in a shipping market with waste shipments and empty container repositioning. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 85 (2016): 32–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., K. Govindan, and Z. Yang. 2013a. Managing truck arrivals with time windows to alleviate gate congestion at container terminals. International Journal of Production Economics 141 (1): 179–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., K. Govindan, Z.-Z. Yang, T.-M. Choi, and L. Jiang. 2013b. Terminal appointment system design by non-stationary M(t)/E k/c(t) queueing model and genetic algorithm. International Journal of Production Economics 146 (2): 694–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., and Z. Yang. 2010. Optimizing time windows for managing export container arrivals at Chinese container terminals. Maritime Economics & Logistics 12 (1): 111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., X. Zhou, and G.F. List. 2011. Using time-varying tolls to optimize truck arrivals at ports. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47: 965–982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, C.Y., and W.C. Huang. 2005. Determining container terminal capacity on the basis of an adopted yard handling system. Transport Review 25 (2): 181–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crainic, T.C., P. Dell’olmo, N. Ricciardi, and A. Sgalambro. 2015. Modeling dry-port-based freight distribution planning. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 55: 518–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daamen, T.A., and I. Vries. 2013. Governing the European port–city interface: Institutional impacts on spatial projects between city and port. Journal of Transport Geography 27: 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Borger, B., and D. De Bruyne. 2011. Port activities, hinterland congestion and optimal government policies: The role of vertical integration in logistics operations. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 45 (2): 247–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, R., S. Van der Heide, E. Van Asperen, and P. Ypsilantis. 2012. A chassis exchange terminal to reduce truck congestion at container terminals. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 25 (4): 528–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Saz-Salazar, S., and L. García-Menéndez. 2016. Port expansion and negative externalities: A willingness to accept approach. Maritime Policy & Management 43 (1): 59–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhingra, V., G.L. Kumawat, D. Roy, and R. de Koster. 2018. Solving semi-open queuing networks with time-varying arrivals: An application in container terminal landside operations. European Journal of Operational Research 267 (3): 855–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Do Ngoc, A.D., and I.K. Moon. 2011. The storage capacity expansion and space leasing for container depots. Flexible Services and Manufacturing 23 (4): 364–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragović, B., E. Tzannatos, and K. Park. 2017. Simulation modelling in ports and container terminals: Literature overview and analysis by research field, application area and tool. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 29 (1): 4–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, Y., Q. Meng, and S. Wang. 2017. Mathematically calculating the transit time of cargo through a liner shipping network with various trans-shipment policies. Maritime Policy & Management 44 (2): 248–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducruet, C. 2017. Multilayer dynamics of complex spatial networks: The case of global maritime flows (1977–2008). Journal of Transport Geography 60: 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R., A. Neely, A. Weintraub, F. Valenzuela, S. Hurtado, G. Gonzalez, A. Beiza, M. Naveas, F. Infante, F. Alarcón, G. Angulo, C. Berner, J. Catalan, C. Gonzalez, and C. Yung. 2012. A strategic empty container logistics optimization in a major shipping company. Interfaces 1: 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ez-Indus. 2017. Ultra high container warehouse system. http://www.ezindus.com/emain.php?page=emenu2&sub=eez_m2. Accessed 04 Apr 2017

  • Fan, L., W.W. Wilson, and B. Dahl. 2012. Congestion, port expansion and spatial competition for US container imports. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 48 (6): 1121–1136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, K.F. 2001. Competition between the ports of Hong Kong and Singapore: A structural vector error correction model to forecast the demand for container handling services. Maritime Policy and Manage 28 (1): 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Germangray’s scale modelling. 2017. Automated container transport system (AUTOCON). http://www.iemsjl.org/journal/article.php?code=1556. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  • Ghane-Ezabadi, M., and H.A. Vergara. 2016. Decomposition approach for integrated intermodal logistics network design. Transportation Research Part E 89: 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharehgozli, A.H., Y. Yu, R. De Koster, and J.T. Udding. 2014a. A decision-tree stacking heuristic minimizing the expected number of reshuffles at a container terminal. International Journal of Production Research 52 (9): 2592–2611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharehgozli, A.H., Y. Yu, R. de Koster, and J.T. Udding. 2014b. An exact method for scheduling a yard crane. European Journal of Operational Research 235 (2): 431–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharehgozli, A.H., G. Laporte, Y. Yu, and R. de Koster. 2015. Scheduling twin yard cranes in a container block. Transportation Science 49 (3): 686–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharehgozli, A.H., D. Roy, and R. de Koster. 2016. Sea container terminals: New technologies and OR models. Maritime Economics & Logistics 18 (2): 103–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharehgozli, A.H., R. De Koster, and R. Jansen. 2017a. Collaborative solutions for inter terminal transport. International Journal of Production Research 55 (21): 6527–6546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharehgozli, A.H., J. Mileski, and O. Duru. 2017b. Heuristic estimation of container stacking and reshuffling operations under the containership delay factor and mega-ship challenge. Maritime Policy and Management. 44 (3): 373–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharehgozli, A.H., F.G. Vernooij, and N. Zaerpour. 2017c. A simulation study of the performance of twin automated stacking cranes at a seaport container terminal. European Journal of Operational Research 261 (1): 108–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharehgozli, A.H., Y. Yu, X. Zhang, and R. de Koster. 2017d. Polynomial time algorithms to minimize total travel time in a two-depot AS/RS. Transportation Science 55 (1): 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharehgozli, A. H., J. Mileski, A. Adams, and W. von Zharen. 2017e. Evaluating a “wicked problem”: A conceptual framework on seaport resiliency in the event of weather disruptions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 121: 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharehgozli, A., Y. Yu, R. de Koster, and S. Du. 2019. Sequencing storage and retrieval requests in a container block with multiple open locations. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 125: 261–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, M., J.P. Clarke, A.H. Gharehgozli, M. Hewitt, R. de Koster, and D. Roy. 2014. State of the practice: Application of OR/MS in freight transportation. Interfaces 44 (6): 535–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gracia, M.D., R.G. González-Ramírez, and J. Mar-Ortiz. 2017. The impact of lanes segmentation and booking levels on a container terminal gate congestion. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 29 (3–4): 403–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRID Logistics Inc. 2017. What is the SuperDock? http://s474091609.onlinehome.us/gridweb/superdock/. Accessed 22 May 2017

  • Guan, C.Q., and R.F. Liu. 2009. Container terminal gate appointment system optimization. Maritime Economics & Logistics 11 (4): 378–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gue, H.R. 2014. A new angle on container ports. https://kevingue.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/new-angle-on-container-ports/. Accessed Apr 24 2017

  • Gue, K.R., G. Ivanovi, and D.M. Russell. 2012. A unit-load warehouse with multiple pickup and deposit points and non-traditional aisles. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 48 (4): 795–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gue, K.R., and R.D. Meller. 2009. Aisle configurations for unit-load warehouses. IIE Transactions 41 (3): 171–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., D. Roy, R. de Koster, and S. Parhi. 2017. Optimal stack layout in a sea container terminal with automated lifting vehicles. International Journal of Production Research 55 (13): 3747–3765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haralambides, H. 2017. Globalization, public sector reform, and the role of ports in international supply chains. Maritime Economics Logistics 19: 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haralambides, H. 2019. Gigantism in container shipping, ports and global logistics: A time-lapse into the future. Maritime Economics Logistics. 21: 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, B.C., and C. Clott. 2015. Intermodal chassis supply in the US—A Bayesian game model. Research in Transportation Business & Management 14: 66–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, S. 2004. Generating scenarios for simulation and optimization of container terminal logistics. OR Spectrum 26 (2): 171–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayuth, Y. 2007. Globalisation and the port–urban interface: Conflicts and opportunities. In Ports, cities and global supply chains, ed. J. Wang, D. Olivier, T. Notteboom, and B. Slack, 141–156. Hampshire: Ashgate (Transport and mobility series).

    Google Scholar 

  • He, J., W. Zhang, Y. Huang, and W. Yan. 2013. A simulation optimization method for internal trucks sharing assignment among multiple container terminals. Advanced Engineering Informatics 27 (4): 598–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaver, T., H. Meersman, and E. Van de Voorde. 2001. Co-operation and competition in international container transport: Strategies for ports. Maritime Policy & Management 28 (3): 293–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilig, L., E. Lalla-Ruiz, and S. Voß. 2017a. port-IO: An integrative mobile cloud platform for real-time inter-terminal truck routing optimization. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 29 (3–4): 504–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilig, L., E. Lalla-Ruiz, and S. Voß. 2017b. Multi-objective inter-terminal truck routing. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 106: 178–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilig, L., and S. Voß. 2017. Inter-terminal transportation: An annotated bibliography and research agenda. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 29 (1): 35–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, M.P.M., D. Armbruster, M. Laumanns, E. Lefeber, and J.T. Udding. 2012. Strategic allocation of cyclically calling vessels for multi-terminal container operators. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 24 (3): 248–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heragu, S.S. 2008. Facilities design, 3rd ed, 2008. Clermont, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, B. 2000. Global and local change on the port–city waterfront. The Geographical Review 90 (3): 395–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, H., B.K. Lee, Y. Huang, L.H. Lee, and E.P. Chew. 2013. Performance analysis on transfer platforms in frame bridge based automated container terminals. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2013: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iannone, F. 2012. The private and social cost efficiency of port hinterland container distribution through a regional logistics system. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46 (9): 1424–1448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishfaq, R., and C. Sox. 2011. Hub location–allocation in intermodal logistic networks. European Journal of Operational Research 210: 213–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishfaq, R., and C. Sox. 2012. Design of intermodal logistics networks with hub delays. European Journal of Operational Research 220: 629–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITF. 2019. ITF transport outlook 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanović. 2014. Better container yards. https://containerterminals.wordpress.com/. Accessed 22 June 2016

  • Jiang, X., E.P. Chew, L.H. Lee, and K.C. Tan. 2013. Flexible space-sharing strategy for storage yard management in a transshipment hub port. OR Spectrum 35 (2): 417–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, X.J., Y. Xu, C. Zhou, E. Chew, and L.H. Lee. 2018. Frame trolley dispatching algorithm for the frame bridge based automated container terminal. Transportation Science 52 (3): 722–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jula, P., and R.C. Leachman. 2011. Long and short-run supply-chain optimization models for the allocation and congestion management of containerized imports from Asia to the United States. Transportation Research Part E 47: 593–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kho, F. 2013. Kalmar’s proposal received a commendation award in the Next Generation Container Port Challenge. http://port2060.kalmarglobal.com/designing-the-next-generation-container-port/. Accessed 14 April 2016

  • Kemme, N. 2012. Effects of storage block layout and automated yard crane systems on the performance of seaport container terminals. OR Spectrum 34: 563–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K.H., and H.B. Kim. 2002. The optimal sizing of the storage space and handling facilities for import containers. Transportation Research Part B 36 (9): 821–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., and J.R. Morrison. 2012. Offshore port service concepts: Classification and economic feasibility. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 24 (3): 214–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., Y.M. Park, and M.J. Jin. 2008. An optimal layout of container yards. OR Spectrum 30: 675–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K.H., M.H. Thi Phan, and Y.J. Woo. 2012. New conceptual handling systems in container terminals. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems 11 (3): 299–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konecranes. 2018. Automated terminal tractor. http://www.konecranes.com/equipment/container-handling-equipment/automated-rtg-artg-system. Accessed 30 Mar 2018.

  • Kosmatopoulos, E.B., Q. Liu, and P. Ioannou. 2002. Design and optimization of a conceptual automated yard using overhead grid rail system. Los Angeles: METRANS Transportation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ku, L.P., L.H. Lee, E.P. Chew, and K.C. Tan. 2010. An optimisation framework for yard planning in a container terminal: case with automated rail-mounted gantry cranes. OR Spectrum 32: 519–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, A.K., A. Schwientek, C. Jahn. 2017. Reducing truck congestion at ports–classification and trends. In Proceedings of the hamburg international conference of logistics (HICL), 37–58. Epubli.

  • Lau, Y.Y., and A.K.Y. Ng. 2017. An evaluation of mid-stream operation in Hong Kong. Maritime Business Review 2 (4): 410–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leachman, R.C., and P. Jula. 2011. Congestion analysis of waterborne containerized imports from Asia to the United States. Transportation Research Part E 47: 992–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L.H., E.P. Chew, K.H. Chua, Z. Sun, and L. Zhen. 2011. A simulation optimization framework for container terminal layout design. In Multi-objective evolutionary optimisation for product design and manufacturing, ed. L. Wang et al., 385–400. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D.H., J.G. Jin, and J.H. Chen. 2012. Terminal and yard allocation problem for a container transshipment hub with multiple terminals. Transportation Research Part E 48 (2): 516–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B.K., and K.H. Kim. 2010a. Comparison and evaluation of various cycle-time models for yard cranes in container terminals. International Journal of Production Economics 126 (2): 350–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B.K., and K.H. Kim. 2010b. Optimizing the block size in container yards. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 46 (1): 120–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B.K., and K.H. Kim. 2013. Optimizing the yard layout in container terminals. OR Spectrum 35: 363–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B.K., L.H. Lee, and E.P. Chew. 2014. Analysis on container port capacity: A Markovian modeling approach. OR Spectrum 36 (2): 425–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B.K., L.H. Lee, and E.P. Chew. 2018. Analysis on high throughput layout of container yards. International Journal of Production Research 56 (16): 5345–5364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le-Griffin, H.D., L. Mai, and M. Griffin. 2011. Impact of container chassis management practices in the United States on terminal operational efficiency: An operations and mitigation policy analysis. Research in Transportation Economics 32 (1): 90–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehnfeld, J., and S. Knust. 2014. Loading, unloading and premarshalling of stacks in storage areas: Survey and classification. European Journal of Operational Research 239 (2): 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei, T.L., and R.L. Church. 2011. Locating short-term empty-container storage facilities to support port operations: A user optimal approach. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47 (5): 738–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, N., G. Chen, K. Govindan, and Z. Jin. 2016. Disruption management for truck appointment system at a container terminal: A green initiative. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 61: 261–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., C. Zhou, B.K. Lee, L.H. Lee, E.P. Chew, and R.S.M. Goh. 2017. Capacity planning for mega container terminals with multiobjective and multi-fidelity simulation optimization. IISE Transactions 49 (9): 849–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C.-C., Y.-I. Chiang, and S.-W. Lin. 2014a. Efficient model and heuristic for the intermodal terminal location problem. Computers & Operations Research 51: 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, D.Y., Y.J. Lee, and Y. Lee. 2015. The container retrieval problem with respect to relocation. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 52: 132–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y.-H., R.D. Meller, K.P. Ellis, L.M. Thomas, and B.J. Lombardi. 2014b. A decomposition-based approach for the selection of standardized modular containers. International Journal of Production Research 52: 4660–4672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C.-I., H. Jula, K. Vukadinovic, and P. Ioannou. 2004. Automated guided vehicle system for two container yard layouts. Transportation Research Part C 12: 349–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, Y., L.H. Lee, and E.P. Chew. 2012. The sample average approximation method for empty container repositioning with uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Research 222 (1): 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marine Insight. 2013. The Yangshan deep water port—The Biggest deep water port in the world. http://www.marineinsight.com/ports/the-yangshan-deep-water-port-the-biggest-deep-water-port-in-the-world/. Accessed 22 Jun 2016.

  • Maritime Singapore Connect. 2018. 5 things you should know about the new tuas mega port. https://www.maritimesgconnect.com/features/spotlight/5-things-you-should-know-about-new-tuas-mega-port. Accessed 29 May 2018.

  • Matinlauri, I. 2015. Back to the future. http://port2060.kalmarglobal.com/back-to-the-future/. Accessed 22 June 2016.

  • Meng, Q., and L. Wang. 2011. Liner shipping service network design with empty container repositioning. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47: 605–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mervis, J. 2014. The information highway gets physical. Science 344: 1104–1107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mileski, J., A. Gharehgozli, L. Ghoram, and R. Swaney. 2018. Cooperation in developing a disaster prevention and response plan for Arctic shipping. Marine Policy 92: 131–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minh, C., and N. Huynh. 2014. Planning-level tool for assessing and optimizing gate layout for marine container terminals. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2409: 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minh, C.C., and N. Huynh. 2017. Optimal design of container terminal gate layout. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics 9 (5): 640–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, N., D. Roy, and J.K. van Ommeren. 2017. A stochastic model for interterminal container transportation. Transportation Science 51 (1): 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, N., M. Boile, A. Baveja, and S. Theofanis. 2013. Determining optimal inland-empty-container depot locations under stochastic demand. Research in Transportation Economics 42 (1): 50–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montreuil, B. 2011. Toward a physical internet: Meeting the global logistics sustainability grand challenge. Logistics Research 3: 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montreuil, B., R. Meller, and E. Ballot. 2013. Physical internet foundations. In Service orientation in holonic and multi agent manufacturing and robotics, ed. T. Borangiu, A. Thomas, and D. Trentesaux, 151–166.

  • Moon, I.K., A.D. Do Ngoc, and Y.S. Hur. 2010. Positioning empty container among multiple ports with leasing and purchasing consideration. OR Spectrum 32: 765–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myung, Y.S. 2017. Efficient solution methods for the integer programming models of relocating empty containers in the hinterland transportation network. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 108: 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nam, K.C., K.S. Kwak, and M.S. Yu. 2002. Simulation study of container terminal performance. Journal of Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean Engineering. 128 (3): 126–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, M.W., and W. Talley. 2017. Chassis inventory management at U.S. container ports: Modelling a case study. International Journal of Production Research 55 (18): 5394–5404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T.E. 2002. Consolidation and contestability in the European container handling industry. Maritime Policy & Management 29 (3): 257–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. 2006. The time factor in liner shipping services. Maritime Economics & Logistics 8: 19–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T.E., and W. Winkelmans. 2001. Structural changes in logistics: How will port authorities face the challenge? Maritime Policy & Management 28 (1): 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2014. The competitiveness of global port-cities. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottjes, J., H. Veeke, M. Duinkerken, J.C. Rijsenbrij, and G. Lodewijks. 2006. Simulation of a multi-terminal system for container handling. OR Spectrum 28 (4): 447–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öztürkoģlu, Ö., K.R. Gue, and R.D. Meller. 2012. Optimal unit-load warehouse designs for single command operations. IIE Transactions 44 (6): 459–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, S., E. Ballot, G.Q. Huang, and B. Montreuil. 2017. Physical Internet and interconnected logistics services: Research and applications. International Journal of Production Research 55 (9): 2603–2609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petering, M.E. 2009. Effect of block width and storage yard layout on marine container terminal performance. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 45 (4): 591–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petering, M.E. 2010. Development and simulation analysis of real-time, dual-load yard truck control systems for seaport container transshipment terminals. OR Spectrum 32 (3): 633–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petering, M.E.H. 2011. Decision support for yard capacity, fleet composition, truck substitutability, and scalability issues at seaport container terminals. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47 (1): 85–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petering, M.E.H., and K.G. Murty. 2009. Effect of block length and yard crane deployment systems on overall performance at a seaport container transshipment terminal. Computers & Operations Research 36 (5): 1711–1725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, T.M.H., and K.H. Kim. 2015. Negotiating truck arrival times among trucking companies and a container terminal. Transportation Research Part E 75: 132–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, M.-H., and K.H. Kim. 2016. Collaborative truck scheduling and appointments for trucking companies and container terminals. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 86: 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Port of Felixstowe. 2018. Container operations—berths 8&9 for mega vessels. https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/port/container-operations-berths-8-9/. Accessed 17 Apr 2018.

  • Port of Venice. 2018. The new container terminal. https://www.port.venice.it/en/the-new-container-terminal.html-0. Accessed 29 Mar 2018

  • Ramírez-Nafarrate, A., R.G. González-Ramírez, N.R. Smith, R. Guerra-Olivares, and S. Voß. 2017. Impact on yard efficiency of a truck appointment system for a port terminal. Annals of Operations Research 258 (2): 195–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rethinking container Management System. 2017. The new brochure of the RCMS project. http://www.rcms-project.net/category/news/. Accessed 26 Mar 2018

  • Robinson, R. 2002. Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: The new paradigm. Maritime Policy & Management 29 (3): 241–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roso, V., J. Woxenius, and K. Lumsden. 2009. The dry port concept: Connecting container seaports with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (5): 338–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, D., and R. de Koster. 2018. Stochastic modeling of unloading and loading operations at a container terminal using automated lifting vehicles. European Journal of Operational Research 266 (3): 895–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, D., A. Gupta, and R. de Koster. 2016. A non-linear traffic flow-based queuing model to estimate container terminal throughput with AGVs. International Journal of Production Research 54 (2): 472–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Aguilar, J.J., I.J. Turias, and M.J. Jiménez-Come. 2015a. A two-stage procedure for forecasting freight inspections at Border Inspection Posts using SOMs and support vector regression. International Journal of Production Research 53 (7): 2119–2130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Aguilar, J.J., I.J. Turias, and M.J. Jiménez-Come. 2015b. A novel three-step procedure to forecast the inspection volume. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 56: 393–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saanen, Y.A. 2004. An approach for designing robotized marine container terminals. PhD diss., Delft University of Technology.

  • Sarraj, R., E. Ballot, S. Pan, D. Hakimi, and B. Montreuil. 2014. Interconnected logistic networks and protocols: Simulation-based efficiency assessment. International Journal of Production Research 52: 3185–3208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharif, O., N. Huynh, and J.M. Vidal. 2011. Application of El Farol model for managing marine terminal gate congestion. Research in Transportation Economics 32 (1): 81–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharifyazdi, M., K.A. Navangul, A. Gharehgozli, and M. Jahre. 2018. On- and offshore prepositioning and delivery mechanism for humanitarian relief operations. International Journal of Production Research 56 (18): 6164–6182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiri, S., and N. Huynh. 2016. Optimization of drayage operations with time-window constraints. International Journal of Production Economics 176: 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiri, S., and N. Huynh. 2017. Assessment of U.S. chassis supply models on drayage productivity and air emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 61 (2018): 174–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • SingaPort. 2013. Next generation container port. https://www.isem.nus.edu.sg/research/C4NGL/achievement/. Accessed 19 May 2017.

  • Song, D.P., and Q. Zhang. 2010. A fluid flow model for empty container repositioning policy with a single port and stochastic demand. SIAM Journal on Optimization 48 (5): 3623–3642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, K., C. Vanovermeire, and S. Busschaert. 2012. Efficient metaheuristics to solve the intermodal terminal location problem. Computers & Operations Research 39: 2079–2090.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Z., L.H. Lee, E.P. Chew, and K.C. Tan. 2012. MicroPort: A general simulation platform for seaport container terminals. Advanced Engineering Informatics 26 (1): 80–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Z., K.C. Tan, L.H. Lee, and E.P. Chew. 2013. Design and evaluation of mega container terminal configurations: An integrated simulation framework. Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 89 (6): 684–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, L., and Y. Yin. 2017. Discovering themes and trends in transportation research using topic modeling. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 77: 49–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb-Ibrahimi, M., B. de Castilho, and C.F. Daganzo. 1993. Storage space vs handling work in container terminals. Transportation Research Part B 27 (1): 13–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taner, M.E., O. Kulak, and M.U. Koyuncuoğlu. 2014. Layout analysis affecting strategic decisions in artificial container terminals. Computers & Industrial Engineering 75: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teye, C., M.G.H. Bell, and M.C.J. Bliemer. 2017a. Urban intermodal terminals: The entropy maximising facility location problem. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 100: 64–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teye, C., M.G.H. Bell, and M.C.J. Bliemer. 2017b. Entropy maximising facility location model for port city intermodal terminals. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 100: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • The World Bank. 2018. Container port traffic (TEU: 20 foot equivalent units). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.SHP.GOOD.TU?view=chart. Accessed 26 Mar 2018.

  • Thoresen, C.A. 2003. Port designer’s handbook: recommendations and guidelines. London: Thomas Telford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, K., S. Voß, and R. Stahlbock. 2014. A mathematical model of inter-terminal transportation. European Journal of Operational Research 235 (2): 448–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • unctad.org | Review of Maritime Transport 2017. 2017. http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=1890. Accessed 10 July 2018.

  • Veenstra, A., R. Zuidwijk, and E. Van Asperen. 2012. The extended gate concept for container terminals: Expanding the notion of dry ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 14: 1479–2931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vis, I.F.A., and R. de Koster. 2003. Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: An overview. European Journal of Operational Research 147 (1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vis, I.F.A. 2006. A comparative analysis of storage and retrieval equipment at a container terminal. International Journal of Production Economics 103 (2): 680–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vis, I.F.A., and K.J. Roodbergen. 2009. Scheduling of container storage and retrieval. Operations Research 57 (2): 456–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • VMW Systems. 2017. Container handling systems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72HokOJ_5qw. Accessed 21 Apr 2017.

  • Wampler, S. 2010. Plan floated to ship cargo inspection offshore. https://www.llnl.gov/news/plan-floated-ship-cargo-inspection-offshore. Accessed 8 July 2016

  • Wiegmans, B.W., and E. Louw. 2011. Changing port–city relations at Amsterdam: A new phase at the interface? Journal of Transport Geography 19 (4): 575–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiese, J., L. Suhl, and N. Kliewer. 2010. Mathematical models and solution methods for optimal container terminal yard layouts. OR Spectrum 32 (3): 427–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiese, J., L. Suhl, and N. Kliewer. 2011. Planning container terminal layouts considering equipment types and storage block design. In Handbook of terminal planning, ed. J. Bose, 219–245. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiese, J., L. Suhl, and N. Kliewer. 2013. An analytical model for designing yard layouts of a straddle carrier based container terminal. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 25 (4): 466–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong. M. 2011. All at sea: container handing in Hong Kong. https://www.checkerboardhill.com/2011/08/hong-kong-mid-stream-cargo-handling/. Accessed 29 Mar 2018.

  • Woo, Y.J., and K.H. Kim. 2011. Estimating the space requirement for outbound container inventories in port container terminals. International Journal of Production Economics 133 (1): 293–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo, Y.J., S.H. Jung, and K.H. Kim. 2016. Pricing storage of outbound containers in container terminals. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 28 (4): 644–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaerpour, N., A.H. Gharehgozli, and R. de Koster. 2019. Vertical expansion: A solution for future container terminals. Transportation Science 53 (5): 1235–1251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehendner, E., and D. Feillet. 2014. Benefits of a truck appointment system on the service quality of inland transport modes at a multimodal container terminal. European Journal of Operational Research 235: 461–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, B., C.T. Ng, and T.C.E. Cheng. 2014. Multi-period empty container repositioning with stochastic demand and lost sales. Journal of the Operational Research Society 65 (2): 302–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, M., B. Wiegmans, and L. Tavasszy. 2013. Optimisation of multimodal networks including environmental costs: A model and findings for transport policy. Computers in Industry 64: 136–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhen, L. 2014. Storage allocation in transshipment hubs under uncertainties. International Journal of Production Research 52 (1): 72–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhen, L. 2016. Modeling of yard congestion and optimization of yard template in container ports. Transportation Research Part B 90: 83–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhen, L., L.H. Lee, E.P. Chew, D.F. Chang, and Z.X. Xu. 2012. A comparative study on two types of automated container terminal systems. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 9 (1): 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhen, L., Z. Xu, and K.W. Ding. 2016. Multi-period yard template planning in container terminals. Transportation Research Part B 93: 700–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, J., Z. Sun, and Z. Gao. 2015. Empty container exchange among liner carriers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 83: 158–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, J., Z. Sun, and F. Zhang. 2016. Measuring the perceived container leasing prices in liner shipping network design with empty container repositioning. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 94: 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, C., E.P. Chew, L.H. Lee, and D. Liu. 2016. An introduction and performance evaluation of the GRID system for transshipment terminals. Simulation 92 (3): 277–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, C., E.P. Chew, and L.H. Lee. 2017. Information-based allocation strategy for GRID-based transshipment automated container terminal. Transportation Science 52 (3): 707–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, M., X. Fan, H. Cheng, and Q. He. 2010. Modeling and simulation of automated container terminal operation. Journal of Computers 5 (6): 951–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuidwijk, R.A., and A.W. Veenstra. 2015. The value of information in container transport. Transportation Science 49 (3): 675–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuidwijk, R.A., A.W. Veenstra, and E. van Asperen. 2012. The extended gate concept for container terminals: Expanding the notion of dry ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 14 (1): 14–32.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief and two anonymous reviewers, whose constructive comments and suggestions helped us to improve the quality of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Economics, California State University, Northridge, CA, USA

    Amir Gharehgozli

  2. College of Business Administration, California State University, San Marcos, CA, USA

    Nima Zaerpour

  3. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Rene de Koster

Authors
  1. Amir Gharehgozli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nima Zaerpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rene de Koster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir Gharehgozli.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gharehgozli, A., Zaerpour, N. & de Koster, R. Container terminal layout design: transition and future. Marit Econ Logist 22, 610–639 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00131-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00131-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation