Transcript
  • 712 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, VOL. 56, NO. 4, APRIL 1968

    line for structures, propulsion, and aero-hydro configura- tion; the experience provided in solving system compatibil- ity problems will also be invaluable. For such reasons, JSESPO plans such a test craft and expects it in the water approximately three years from now.

    Much additional work might also be sponsored in ad- vanced propulsion concepts, improved L/D ideas (drag re- duction techniques), and many other bright engineering approaches; funding limitations preclude the shotgun ap- proach and considerable deliberation and objective com- parisons are made before any given project is underwritten.

    In the past, the amount of resources poured into other forms of transportation has been large in comparison with the efforts supported in advanced high-speed ship design, Fig. 17.[] The institution of the JSESPO programs shows a renewed national interest in sea transport and indicates that a breakthrough in high-speed ship design appears to be within reach. The Joint Surface Effect Ships Program Office under the sponsorship of the Navy and Commerce Departments intends to establish carefully the feasibility of such a breakthrough.

    REFERENCES

    [I N. McNeil, Aerotrain and naviplane, Barrons, pp. 5-10, Sep- tember 1967.

    B. V. Nakonechny, Survey of present state of technology and practical experiences with air cushion vehicles, David Taylor Model Basin, Washington, D. C., Rept. 2203, p. 4, July 1966.

    21-25 and 4749, October 1966. A Soviet view of antisubmarine warfare,: Navy Magazine, pp.

    [41 A. J. Tachmindji et al., A research and development plan for CAB vehicles, Inst. for Defense Analyses, Research Paper P-260, May 1%.

    The surface effect ship in the American merchant marine, Booz- Allen Applied Research, Inc., August 1965.

    [61 Surface effect ships for Ocean commerce, U. S. Dept. of Com- merce, Final Rept., February 1966.

    [I Presidents Message to the Senate on Transportation, Congres- sional Information Div., office of Legislative Affairs, U. s. Dept. of the Navy, Rept. 34, pp. 44344439, March 3, 1966.

    F. H. Todd et al., A study of the technical feasibility of future high speed Navy vehicles, David Taylor Model Basin, Washington, D. C., Rept. C-2050, July 1965.

    [I T. von Karman, Aerodynamics. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1954.

    [I A. G . Ford, Captured air bubble vehicle progress report, AIAA- SNAME Paper 67-348, May 1967.

    [11] M. J. Hanley, Surface effect ships, U. S. Naval Institute Proc., November 1966.

    Containerized Shipping and Integrated Transportation

    E. G . FRANKEL

    Abstract-A discassioa of the ratkmde, esgieeerin& .ad econcdc de-

    f a break-in& md other dry cargo is presented. Be concept of coataine&ed

    control, d co~~~ljdafion is descrkd, fdlaed by a m e y of the require- m e n ~ f o r d r t r ~ m d d o c e n e a t c o a t r d m d t h e ~ ~ m t h e o p a r - t i o o n l m d f i e c t i o l n l ~ o f a r g o a n d M ~ t i o n ~ . I b e r e q a i r e - m a t 3 of integrated baqortaticm md tbe remithg aspects are evaluated.

    V e l o p m e a ~ t h t l e d t o t h e ~ ~ ~ o d o p t i o a o f c o a t n i n a i z c d o c e c l e ~ ~

    s b i p g t h e h P n d l i n g o f e o a t . m e r s ~ o r e d o a b o u d , m d t h e i T ~ ,

    1 INTRODUCTION

    N RECENT YEARS container shipping has made major inroads into break-bulk or general cargo shipping operations. It has led to the development of fewer and

    larger organizations operating throughout the overall field of transport services, thereby facilitating rationalized transocean transportation. It has achieved drastic reduc- tions in total overseas transportation costs. The achievable cost reductions of 50 percent would mean a saving of over $2 billion in U. S. general cargo foreign trade transportation costs and could have major effects on the competitiveness

    Manuscript received October 26, 1967; revised December 20, 1%7. The author is with the Advanced Marine Technology Division, Litton

    Industries, Culver City, C a l i f .

    of U. S. exports and imports. Such changes in transporta- tion costs have historically led to large increases in the volume of trade, and encouraged marginal exports to par- ticipate in world trade. Container shipping requires con- solidation of cargoes, integration of transport services, and optimum utilization of transport resources. It therefore leads to fewer shipping lines, fewer ships, fewer ports, highly integrated transfer points, and a smaller but highly skilled and highly paid labor force. Major cost savings in container shipping result from the proven dramatic increase in the utilization of the capital-intensive transport resources through reduction of time in transit, consolidation of cargo and documentation, and savings in inspection, pilferage, and loss of cargoes en route.

    For the present general cargo volume handled in U. S. overseas trade, more than 82 percent of which could be handled in containers, the total number of container berths required would be less than 60 compared to several thou- sand general cargoberths currently in use in U. S . ports. It has been shown that, with containerization, ship produc- tivity increases by a factor of about 3 while the productivity of dock labor and terminal resources increases by a factor

  • FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING 713

    of 10. Container shipping introduces economies of scale not achievable with break-bulk shipping, due to the virtual in- dependence of port time and unit container ship load. As a result, major incentives accrue for container concentration in a few ports served by regularly scheduled, large container ships. These incentives feed back to the rail, road, or inland water feeder lines as a result of concentrated resource utilization with consolidation or distribution points re- moved from the pierside. Container shipping permits the functional integration and operational separation of trans- port elements. Basically, it allows optimum utilization of the capability, capacity, and rate of the various productive transport factors and reduces nonproductive transport factors.

    Results of container shipping therefore are expected to lead to:

    1) dramatic transport cost reductions; 2) stimulated increased trade with resulting overall in-

    3) integrated inland transport consolidation and dis-

    4) fewer but large and more efficient transfer facilities; 5 ) shorter time of delivery; 6) reduced document, control, and inspection require-

    7) lower insurance cost and pilferage or loss; 8) increased capital intensity in transportation re-

    9) labor-extensive transportation;

    crease in transportation sales;

    tribution system;

    ments;

    sources ;

    10) functional integration and operational separation of transport elements and information flow as well as control.

    In short, container shipping may permit the introduction of integrated production flow techniques and the advantages of batch processing into overseas transportation.

    HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Since World War 11, major changes in the economics of

    operating dry cargo ships have occurred which have forced a reevaluation of conventional methods of dry cargo move- ment in Ocean transportation. The factors which forced these changes are the ever-increasing percentage of crew costs as a function of total operating cost and the relative reduction of fuel costs. Similarly, the large increase in the capital costs of ships makes it imperative to increase the utilization of the ship by reducing the turnaround time. These and other considerations leading to the reduction of port time and costs have had major effects upon the eco- nomics of ship size, ship speed, and cargo handling. Con- ventional break-bulk cargo operations in a multiport trade route seldom result in more than 60 percent of actual sea or transport time with over 40 percent of the active ships time spent in port unproductively. Since all costs except fuel costs continue to be incurred by the ship while in port and additional expenses accrue as a function of port time, the cost/productivity, costlrevenue, or potential profit factor becomes a direct function of the percentage time a ship spends at sea.

    As a result of these considerations, larger and faster cargo ships have been developed for scheduled and un- scheduled services. Simultaneously, cargo handling meth- ods have been improved. About a decade ago, it was found that lift-on lift-off operations using modem cargo handling equipment could only be effectively utilized if cargo is unitized. Large sling and palletized unitization handling methods, therefore, became standard practices. It was found that the hnit weight and volume unitization feasible with sling or pallet operations was limited. This resulted in investigations of large metal pallets with or without side walls or containers for the unitization of cargo. Various methods of handling large pallets containing a number of smaller pallets or filled containers from pier to shipboard were used and evaluated. For many years, discussion per- taining to the relative advantages of roll-on roll-off of pallets and containers on wheeled bodies versus lift-on lift- off operations continued. While roll-off roll-on cargo hand- dling operations are normally found to be more efficient, reducing handling time and effort while assuring better integration with feeder line land operations, the large amount of wasted volume and deadweight on the ship resulting from the carriage of the chassis led many operators to adopt straight nonwheeled container operations.

    The first oceangoing use of containers in regular service goes back to 191 1 when lift vans very similar in size to our present 20-foot containers were used. Integrated trailer ship operations were first accomplished after World War I1 using converted LSTs as towed barges between Florida and Puerto Rico. After initial acceptance problems this slow, makeshift operation became the established forerunner of the modem container or trailer ship operation. The wider availability of wheeled trailers initially led to the adoption of roll-on roll-off (RoRo) ships, but the better space, dead- weight, and equipment utilization of integrated lift-on lift-off container ship operations has made the straight con- tainer ship more popular now.

    The various types and codgurations of container ships are classified in Fig. 1. The reader will note that the basic approach of handling cargo in integrated metal boxes has led to a wide proliferation of ship types, each designed to meet specific trade requirements. Basically, container ships can be classified as conventional displacement hull ships or novel ship forms on one hand, and by the manner in which containers are handled on the other hand. Containers may be lifted on, rolled on, or floated on. They may be solely cargo containers, or form an integral part of the ship or the feeder system when it serves for example as part of a seg- mented ship, a barge, or a trailer.

    The choice of container system depends on the number of port calls, the average size of unit load, the length of the trade route, the type and effectiveness of terminals and feeder lines, the value of the cargo, the form of the cargo, and a number of qualitative factors. Much work is currently in progress to develop not only more effective container ships but integrated container transportation systems.

    The relative advantage of shipboard gantries or cranes versus land-based handling and transfer equipment for

  • 714 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1%8

    CONTAINER s w s

    CONVENTIONAL DISPLACEMENT HULLS DISPLACEMENT HULLS

    CONVENTIONAL

    I

    I CONTAINER

    SHIPS CARRY1 N G TRAILER CARRIERS

    BARGE CARRYING SHIPS

    SEGMENTED SHIPS CATAMARAN TYPE SHIPS

    I I COMBINATION

    LIFT O N SHIP LIFT ON-RO-RO BARGE RO-RO BARGE FLOAT CONTAiNER BARGE-TUG DISPLACEMENT SEMI SUBMERGED

    MuLnPLE

    O N SHIP SEGMENTS COMBINATION CATAMRAN CATMRAN

    FULL CONTAINER SHIPS

    CONVERTIBLE SHIPS WITH

    , SHIPS DECK FITTINGS SHIPS SHIPS

    GENERAL CONTAINER CONTAINER CARGO SPECIAL TOW

    I COUPLED

    HINGE RIGIDLY COUPLED

    Fig. 1. Classification of container ships.

    containers is still not resolved. A major problem in the evaluation and development of a rationale for container ships, their characteristics, size, and speed, is the resulting interface with the land marshalling, feeder, and consolida- tion requirements. It is now recognized that each link in an integrated transportation system must be designed as a part of the whole system. The sum of a sequence of transporta- tion systems, optimum by themselves, does not necessarily result in an optimum transportation system. Integration of transportation systems is particularly important since the customers ultimate concern is with the total cost of trans- portation from shipper to consignee. Additional factors such as safety, pilferage, insurance, and total time between shipping and delivery are major considerations. Nowadays system engineering approaches and operations research models are being used to develop the design requirements of container ships and their related terminal facilities. These requirements are often found to be quite different from those judged intuitively correct in the past. Container shipping has by now captured a major portion of the break-bulk shipping market on some of our major trade routes.

    ECONOMICS OF CONTAINER SHIPPING Over 72 percent of the worlds trade is carried in bulk (dry

    or liquid) today. This trend is expected to continue and to ltvel off at about 79 percent of total tons shipped by 1980. Of the remaining 21 percent, well over 66 percent can by

    then be expected to be carried in containers, leaving less than 7 percent of the total to be carried as break-bulk. The importance of this rather small element of world trade lies in the fact that the freight charges required for it will be roughly 40 percent of all freight chargeable for worldwide goods carried by sea, if drastic changes in break-bulk terminal operations are not forthcoming. If the cost. of port time required by a break-bulk vessel is added to other port charges, it can easily be shown that over 70 percent of all freight costs occur in port. As a consequence, the actual transport revenue or earnings for transportation provided by a break-bulk cargo carrier are only about 20 to 40 per- cent higher than those of a bulk carrier operating on the same route with an equal density cargo.

    Break-bulk or general cargo ships are usually much smaller than container or bulk carriers and often suffer from lower utilization. In addition, the percentage of lost time (excluding actual port time alongside a pier) as a result of multiple port calls is vastly greater. These factors easily reduce the freight transport earnings of the dry cargo vessel to a figure only about 10 to 25 percent above those of the bulk carrier.

    Although shippers may simply present their bills of lad- ing for collection, a discount is normally applied which makes the capital cost a function of total delivery time.

    So far, we have only discussed the high proportions of shipping freight charges applicable to port operations, and

  • FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING 715

    - - - P O R I G I N

    PACKAGE I

    I i F

    @ FORWARDER F R E ~ G H T

    U N I T I Z E

    k SHORT HAUL

    f UNI~IZE

    I, @ - r ILONG HAUL^

    4 SHORT HAUL

    I, T

    I CONSIGNEE r D E U N I T I Z E SHORT HAUL

    F D E U N I T I Z E ( U N I T I L E )

    1.

    FORWARDER F R E I G H T

    I

    I T STORE i

    I UNI~IZE S H I P P I N G COMPANY f

    OPERATIONS

    I L O A 0 ONTO F S H I P I

    STOW I

    (CONSIGNEE) RECEIPT

    -I-

    @ s T LONG HAUL SHORT HAUL

    1

    STORE

    .I: D E U N I T I Z E

    80

    60

    % 40

    20

    STORE

    1 0

    OFFLOAD FROM SHIP

    _L

    SYMBOLS

    n UNLUC L O A D

    x TRANSFER (CONVEYOR, FORK L I F T ) - - W A I T ( S T A T I C )

    7--1 I I I I H

    FOR PRODUCTIVE TRANSPORT

    28 OPERATIONS 19 WAITS

    Fig. 2. Typical sequence for shipment of general cargo.

  • 716 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1968

    7 CARGO CONSOLIDATION A N D SHORT HAUL TRANSFER

    JC K SHORT M I L HAUL BARGE

    TFAILER FORK LIFT

    Fig. 3. Transportation decision tree network.

    the capital loss incurred by the port holdup of cargoes. In addition, the link of the port with inland transportation systems must be considered. It is found that the proportion of inland shipping charges to or from a port, applicable to port operation, is again exceedingly high. This includes the actual costs of loading or unloading of cargo in the port and the cost of time lost (or waiting time) of the carrier. The turnaround efficiency of inland carriers at port links is much less than that achieved by the same carrier when de- livering or loading at airports, rail terminals, or storage facilities. The inland road transport utilization and con- sequent transport efficiency is, therefore, greatly reduced if linkage of the media at a break-bulk port is required.

    If we assume a conservative estimate of 25 percent of inland transport costs (unloading, loading, lost time, maneuvering, weighmg, etc.) attributable to port opera- tions, then total costs incurred in port in break-bulk opera- tions are roughly 50 to 62 percent of the total shipping costs from consignee to receiver. Assuming foreign port costs about one-half U. S . costs, 33 to 41 percent of the total freight costs are spent in U. S . port operations and related activities. This means that port transfer or the link of land to sea transportation (and vice versa) consumes more of the freight dollars than the transportation factors themselves. It is this factor which has led to the success of container operations.

    The inefficiency of conventional break-bulk shipping operations is best explained by a typical sequence for the shipment of general cargo from the shipper to the consignee as sketched in Fig. 2. In the general situation there is a large choice of routes and methods of transportation as defined for a typical case in the decision tree diagram presented in Fig. 3. Note that the number of individual operations and waiting and storage periods in a typical transport sequence for general cargo is very large. In addi- tion, each of these sections of the transportation process has a proper cost/time input and output affected by internal physical setups, costs, and such external factors as politics and environmental influence. The multiplicity of stochastic inputs to the various sections, which in many instances are cumulative, greatly affect optimum utilization of facilities

    and transport factors with a resulting increase in cost and time. It is obvious that if major or all sections of the process were under one control, more effective techniques for planning, scheduling, routing, cost accounting, and docu- ment control could be applied to reduce time and money losses. The degree of optimization achievable will be greatly affected by the number of choices and the number of parties capable of making decisions for each section of the trans- portation process. Similarly, the size of the population and the overall size of the transportation venture affect the capability for optimal resource use, planning, and sched- uling of cargo and information flow. The problem of co- ordinated and integrated transportation is highlighted by the bottleneck presented by the port and the ship, which introduces a major step function by its intermittent opera- tions on the overall transportation system. As a result, it is advisable to develop integrated transportation systems by .working backwards from the ship loading requirements to the cargo origins in the analysis of an existing system. Con- versely, a new system is normally designed by worhng from the various cargo origins to the ship loading point to estab- lish the planning and scheduling requirements which pro- vide the inputs for the ship design.

    As in many dynamic systems, the transportation venture attains critical size for the optimum solution, which will normally imply effective utilization of the various compo- nents of capital investment and available manpower. In existing shipping systems the size of the venture will also affect the flexibility with which advantage can be taken of improved scheduling and information flow. An integrated transportation system requires the control of time, cost, and a multitude of intangible factors such as good will of customer and government or regulatory agencies. Any in- tegrated transportation system must consider capital re- quirements, market potentials, possibilities of alternate in- vestment use, ability to respond to changing economic conditions, alternate use of transport modes, labor condi- tions, urban development and planning, technological developments in transportation modes, and the potential future plans of competitive transportation systems. Fig. 2 indicates the large proportion of time and cost devoted to

  • FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING 717

    nonproductive operations and waiting periods in the se- quence. It is obvious that any approach to a continuous flow of cargo through the various required transportation pro- cesses would greatly reduce the cost and time requirements. As indicated earlier, the major obstacle to such a continuous flow is the large discrepancy between the transport unit sizes required for the various feeder agents and the ship. This results in the requirements for marshalling and cargo consolidation. The complexity of conventional pier opera- tions is shown schematically in Fig. 4. It appears obvious that direct loading, and off-loading of cargo in large unitized packages is required to eliminate the vast amount of cost and time loss incurred in present-day pier operations. An analysis of the various cumulative operations in this small portion of the total transportation effort shows a comparatively low utilization of the major investment in capital, equipment, and manpower concentrated on the pier. Fig. 5 indicates what can be achieved by effective unitization or containerization of general cargo. Note that not only is cost and time greatly reduced, but the utilization of the various pieces of equipment and stowage area as well as the associated manpower is vastly increased, easily justifying the greater investment of a container shipping system.

    Recent figures of operating experience on the North Atlantic trade route indicate that the port cargo handling cost for container ships is about one-tenth that of a con- ventional ship for the same amount of measurement cargo assuming containers are loaded away from the pier. Even if as much as 80 percent of the containers are stowed or loaded (or unloaded) on the pier the cost is still only 40 percent of the conventional break-bulk ship loading. In addition, there are obviously major savings in time and equipment usage which permit the ship and inland trans- port agents to spend more time in actual transport effort and allow the port or terminal facilities and equipment to serve more ships and vehicles. Although the cost of a con- tainer ship is higher than that of a general cargo ship of equal capacity, the cost of a container shipping system (including container suits and terminal equipment) for equal annual transport capacity requires little if any addi- tional investment. The return on investment though has been shown to be about 5 to 8 times as large as that achiev- able by a conventional (nonsubsidized) cargo ship system on the same trade route.

    World dry cargo ship tonnage is expected to more than double during the next 20 years (Fig. 6 ) ; yet during the same period world dry cargo trade is expected to triple. These forecasts are based on the historic development of trade and marginal freight charges. These same predictions have in the past been too conservative. Additional East- West trade and the development of markets for manufac- tured goods in developing countries may increase world trade by as much as 40 percent above these estimates. Re- duction in transportation costs would stimulate additional trading volume. On the other hand the 20- to 25-year life- time cycle of shipping systems and the long lead time re- quired for the introduction of new shipping capacity indi- cate that not only will cargo tonnage lag seriously behind a

    healthy and effective trade/tonnage ratio but the large increase in length of the average dry cargo trade route re- sulting from the development of new but more distant mar- kets requires faster, larger, and more productive ships. It appears that only effectively integrated large container ship systems can be expected to till this need.

    Port costs vary greatly with the berth throughput. For example, a throughput of 200 000 tons of containerized cargo per year per berth results in a port cost reduction of 75 percent per container compared to the port cost in- curred at a berth handling only 20 OOO tons per year per berth. This is primarily due to the vastly increased utiliza- tion of the capital-intensive port handling equipment and the berth itself. The resulting large-throughput feeder line service introduces a major saving in transport unit cost and makes the operation of small regional ports uneconomical even for local importers and exporters. In general, roll-on roll-off services are found to be about 25 percent more expensive than cellular container ship services on trans- ocean trade routes, though trailer ships compete effectively on trade routes of lo00 miles or less. The optimum size of the container ship is also a function of the trade route dis- tance, and smaller (300 to 500) container ships can compete with larger vessels on intermediatedistance (lo00 to 3000 miles) trade routes.

    The major economic factor impeding a more rapid development of integrated container ship transportation systems is obviously the large fragmentation of the shipping and feeder transport industry. In addition, the coordination or cooperative ownership of containers necessary to handle the massive capital investment and container flow control requires a degree of cooperation that is dficult to introduce into the transportation industry. The elimination of paro- chial viewpoints, bias, and the maintenance of free competi- tion in an integrated, consolidated, overseas transporta- tion industry requires that large economic and political forces be applied. These forces are slowly building up now, but it will probably take another decade until a complete systems viewpoint is accepted by the various parties to the transportation effort to their benefit and the benefit of world trade.

    TRANSP~RTATION INTEGRATION A multitude of parties is involved in the overseas trans-

    portation effort, such as shippers, consignees, freight forwarders, port operators, ship operators, trucking firms, warehouse operators, stevedores, truckers, banks, customs inspectors, pilots, health inspectors, etc. To integrate the sequence of transportation efforts their activities must be coordinated. An integrated transportation system does not necessarily imply concentration of the various functions under a single responsibility but it does imply a logical interface. Consolidation of many of the activities is often advisable and is of particular importance where large numbers of small parcels of cargo are involved. To assure continuity of flow of cargo and to achieve time and cost savings, direct handling of cargo from feeder vehicles such as trucks, rail cars, or barges to the ship must be facilitated. Currently, the majority of break-bulk cargo moving through

  • 718 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1968

    I '

    Fig. 4. (a) Flow diagram of break-bulk loading operation at pier. (b) Simplified schematic of break-bulk cargo loading operation.

  • FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING 719

    0 TRANSPORT PHASE AS DEFINED BY FIG.2 0 CUMULATIM T I M E OF CONTAINER HANDLING AS PERCENTAGE

    OF TOTAL BEAKBULK TIME

    0 CUMULATIM COST OF CONTAINER HANDLING AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BREAKBULK COSTS

    - TOTAL CUMULATIVE COST OF BREAKBULK HANDLING -.- TOTAL CUMULATIVE TIME IN BEAKBULK HANDLING - TOTAL CUMULATIVE TIME IN PRODUCTIVE TRANSPORTATION

    OF BREAKBULK CARGO

    --- TOTAL CUMULATIVE COST OF PRODUCTIVE TRANSPORTATION OF BREAKBULK CARGO

    I .-. 100% COST CURVES 4

    I I t I I COST I I I I I I I

    50%

    COST TIME

    0 0 0 @ 0 Fig. 5. Time and cost distribution of typical cargo transfer.

    REF. OECD MARITIME TRANSPORT COMMITTEE 1 8 0

    1 70

    1 6 0

    I 5 0

    1 4 0

    130

    VI z

    VI ; 120 (3 z 110

    IO - 2 1 0 0 P 9 - ; 90

    2

    ; 0

    2 5 - 2 50

    s 4 -

    2

    c 80

    7 - 5 70

    6 - 9 60 z U

    2- n c= c

    40

    3 -

    10 1 -

    20 2 -

    30

    -

    I 700

    1 5 0 0

    300

    I 0 0

    I950 IWO I970

    Fig. 6. World dry cargo and ship capacity projection.

  • 720 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. APRIL 1968

    our ports still passes through various sheds, which normally contain cargoes designated to an average of six different ships and more than thirty destinations. This requires costly and diflicult sorting, marking, and shed handling efforts. These factors are largely responsible for the im- mense port operating and pier handling costs. Passage of cargo through the sheds also results in an ever-growing congestion of feeder agents such as trucks, rail cars, and barges at the various piers. Direct handling of cargo to the ship and the required acceptance of an appointment system greatly reduces port congestion and port turnaround time for the inland services. The integration of transportation is hampered among other things by the location of ports, their layout, and their relation to the inland transportation arteries. While ship berthing facilities should be close to deep, unrestricted waters and thereby permit port maneu- vering and mooring times, it is equally if not more im- portant to assure direct and efficient access to the major inland transportation networks. Since a majority of cargoes passing through our major ports is generated at some dis- tance from the ports themselves, the location of future port facilities at some distance from the heart of our urban areas and close to major traffic arteries seems warranted. Future continuous-flow, labor-extensive port facilities will need wide open spaces with easy access to rapid and economical inland feeder transport; they will consolidate high utiliza- tion of berths, exclude cargo parcel storage assembly and distribution, and reduce turnaround time of all the trans- port media to a bare minimum. High utilization of the capital-intensive k e d and mobile transport factors will become a prerequisite with a resulting consolidation of activities to fewer ports served by efficient feeder networks.

    Other problems of integration are introduced by the requirement for the provision of alternatives in the cargo transfer sequences. It appears important to attempt to offer overall alternatives of the sequential cargo transfer opera- ations instead of sequential alternatives. This simply im- plies that once cargo is allocated to a predetermined se- quence of transport modes from shipper to consignee an attempt should be made to continue the flow process by the reduction of the risk in schedule or cost. This, obviously, requires such things as through bills of ladings and other coordinating factors. Similarly, buffer storage for consolida- tion of cargo at focal points along the sequential cargo pass should be properly planned and controlled.

    Such an approach may have a major impact on the pre- vention of balking and reneging of cargo. This reduces the freedom of alternative decisions for the shipper or freight forwarder for cargo in transit, but the elimination of such deviations or practices would certainly lead to lower total transport cost and time.

    The revolution in maritime transportation currently taking place appears to be dynamic and irreversible. It is based on a number of fundamental requirements which are increasingly recognized by those who believe in the future of maritime transportation :

    1) The vast majority of goods in intercontinental trade will continue to be carried by ships.

    2) An ever-growing proportion of cargo will be handled in bulk or by specialized ships. a) Many dry goods can be handled in bulk or in

    b) Commodity-oriented handling equipment and the increased size of ships will benefit transport efficiency greatly.

    3) Most manufactured goods and consumer commodi- ties can be effectively carried in containers (trailers, barges, segmented ships, etc.).

    4) Commodities which may not be containerizable or carried in bulk are expected to account for less than 4 percent of the total world trade.

    5 ) Although airfreight is expected to continue to in- crease at a spectacular rate, the simultaneous growth of world trade should result in airfreight handling of less than 2 percent of the total world trade by the year 2000. Airfreight is expected, though, to handle up to 10 percent of the total manufactured goods and consumer commodities, including consumables, handled in world trade.

    6 ) An ever-increasing emphasis will be put on the elimi- nation of speedup of cargo transfer between various modes of transportation. The aim will be complete integration of transportation processes where trans- port modes are designed as part of an integrated system and not as a system by themselves.

    7) Cost effectiveness of transportation is a measure of the total point-to-point relationship of cost, time, safety, cargo maintenance, etc. Here cost and time, for instance, include the packaging and uncrating or deunitizing processes at the shippers and consignees facilities.

    8) A major factor in curtailing serious inroads by air- freight will be the time savings accruing from a con- tinuous flow of cargo without storage and accumula- tion. As a result, the point-to-point delivery time by an integrated transportation system using ships as one of the modes is expected to be appreciably less than an order of magnitude over and above an equiv- alent system using airfreight as the long distance mode, which is generally assumed to be the current delivery time differential.

    9) Ships of the future must be designed as integrated transportation modes. They are expected to be highly specialized, large, fully automated, and completely custom designed to terminal facilities and vice versa.

    10) High-value containerizable cargo will be carried in high-speed ships on medium-to-long trade routes.

    11) Ships of the future will adopt unconventional hull designs, propulsion systems, handling methods, and stowage and storing arrangements, if and when ad- visable by overall integrated transportation system consideration. They will be unshackled from con- ventional approaches and concepts of design, ship building, procurement methods, operation, and management. Ships will form but one link in a co- ordinated chain.

    slurry form.

  • FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING 72 1

    TABLE I CONTAINERIZATION

    Advantages Disadvantages

    Speedup of loading and unloading Protection against pilferage Protection against damage Lower insurance rates Cheaper packaging of cargo Reduced documentation require-

    ments Reduced number of package han-

    dlings Provides temporary protected stor-

    Modification of external character- age

    istics of cargo for easier handling Cargo handling in all weather Easier stowage Effective stow planning Cargo handling while ship on feeder

    not in port

    Cost of containers Tare weight of containers Loss of cubage of containers Cost of returning empties Heavy gear requirement Labor practices Fixed volume not always optimum

    usable size Part-load problem Container routing and handling Container loss and damage

    bulk general cargo customers and to introduce container operations to the trade route. The vast majority of container ships currently in operation are partial container carriers, such as conventional dry cargo ships or tankers converted to container ships. Some of the latter have been completely rebuilt by the introduction of a new container ship mid- shipbody inserted between the old bow and stern section. These vessels, capable of handling 300 to 700 containers as full container ships, proved the economies of full container operations and the resulting economies of size. The char- acteristics of typical container ships in operation or planned are plotted in Fig. 7, which is extracted from data given by Henry and Karsh.['] Full container ships carry about 30 percent of the containers on deck and their average dead- weight to displacement ratio is about 63 percent which im- plies a lightship weight of 58 percent of the deadweight carrying capacity. The economic effect of size and speed of container ships is presented in Fig. 8.

    Shipping containers currently in use vary in length from 2) The general dry cargo tramp will probably be a 17 to 40 ft and have a nominal height and width of about 8

    rarity by the end of this century. ft. Late in 1965 the International Organization for Stan-

    must be reduced or eliminated if ship transportation American Standards Association (ASA) except that strength is to retain or recapture of the high-value dry standards were to be based on stacking containers four cargo. This may also appreciably effect insurance instead of six high. Smaller containers such as Conex boxes

    costs. and 10-foot-long containers are used by the military and 14) Information control, coordinated record- in some limited operations. The ASA standard container is

    cargo are required to reduce costs and account- tion in standard 20- or 40-foot-long cells singly or in pairs. ing delays, and give better utilization of capital. When more than one container is handled on a chassis or

    in a cell at a time, coupling blocks are introduced into the Table I lists the advantages and disadvantages of con- comer fittings between the containers. The standard con-

    tainerization. tainer is a thin-skinned metal box which derives its struc- tural strength from 4 vertical corner posts connected trans-

    During the last decade a large number of container ship bottom. Standard comer fittings with various round and types have been evolved, as shown in Fig. 1 . By far the most oblong holes are attached to the eight comers of the con- important type is the van container ship with cellular holds, tainer to facilitate coupling and tiedown of containers as a conventional displacement hull, and extensive deck con- well as automatic meshing with the lifting attachments on tainer loading capability. The earlier van container ships the spreader frame used for handling containers as shown consisted of World War I1 Liberty, Victory, or T-2 tanker in Fig. 9. Containers are normally stowed in vertical cells ships converted to carry containers ondeck within fixedcell made up of 4 vertical guides normally 8 ft wide and 40 guides. By 1957 a number of C-2-type cargo ships were ft long. Two large container ship operators use cells and converted to full container ships with container cells built containers 24 and 35 ft long, respectively. into the hold and large hatch openings to serve these cells Containers are stacked in these cells supported by the by vertical handling. From these early beginnings, the comer posts of the lower containers. To facilitate entry into greatly increased productivity achievable by larger, faster the cells fixed, attachable, or adjustable guides or centering container ships has led to the development of ships capable devices are fitted to the cell guide entry at the hatch opening of carrying ten times (1400) as many containers at twice the on deck. In addition, the cell guides are normally rounded speed (27 knots) of those early forerunners. off outwards.

    Some operators have elected to convert or construct ships For some cellular applications, particularly where odd- capable of handling containers in some holds or just on sized cargo is handled on pallets or in open-top containers, deck and developed partial container ships. Others are using retractable hinged brackets incorporated into the vertical general cargo ships that can be converted for partial carriage cell guides are used to support and properly space con- of containers in removable cell guides, in their regular tainers. In addition to closed van-type containers, con- holds, or on deck without special fittings. These partial tainers are used for the carriage of refrigerated or venti- container ships are obviously constrained in their operations lated cargo. Refrigerated cargo containers are equipped by the requirements of the break-bulk cargo handled by with either internal combustion engine or electric motor conventional means and are normally designed to satisfy driven refrigerating and ventilating units. The first is for

    _ _ -

    13) pilferage and spoilage of cargo in transfer or storage dardization adopted the standards Of the

    ing, and document generation simultaneous with designed for lengths of 10,20, 307 and ft for ~ccommoda-

    CONTAINER SHIPS versely by headers and longitudinally by rails top and

  • 122 ?ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1%8

    MO m 700 BW 910

    LENGTH FT OA

    Fig. 7. Typical container ship characteristics.

    0 2m 100 600 800 1W 1zm l u x , N U M R OF ZWOOT CONTAINERS CARRIED

    Fig. 8. Economic d e e t of speed and size of container ships.

    Fig. 9. Vertical container handling by spreader frames.

    use on deck while the second type is usually used inside a hold. Lately, well-insulated containers, often filled with inert gas before being brought down to the required temperature on land, have become popular since their use eliminates the mechanical moving equipment on the container with resulting savings in maintenance and better control of cargo. Open-top containers are used for machinery, bulk dry cargo, and some odd-sized cargo. Special auto pallets are available to improve volume utilization and are normal- ly designed on a reverse stacking principle similar to that used in autotrucking trailers. Simple pallets designed for cell handling are used for large vehicle, machinery, or odd- sized cargo loading and also serve to introduce intermediate decks supported by lower containers or cell-guide brackets. These intermediate decks are useful for rolling cargo han- dling by vehicles, forklift trucks, and/or lowboy trailers.

    Flat pallets with comer posts and long tanks supported on rigidly installed brackets are used to transport liquid cargo in container-sized lots. There exist many variations to the above basic configurations. Pallets and open-top containers are available with adjustable or collapsible corner posts. Similarly, rigid as well as partially collapsible van-type containers are in use. These various configurations are required to satisfy the often conflicting need of cargoes as well as the often varying requirements on diferent legs of the trade route.

    A typical container hold with cell guides is shown in Figs. 10 and 11. The cells in a container ship are always provided with direct vertical access and are normally covered with portable watertight pontoon hatch covers, which are deposited on adjacent nonoperative hatches or deck-loaded containers whenever the cell is worked. Lift- able pontoon hatch covers are cheaper and cause less ob- struction during loading operation than hydraulically operated folding hatch covers normally used on modem dry cargo ships. They can also be easily designed to support substantial container weight, are comparatively light, and require little maintenance.

    Most full container ships are provided with cell guides

  • FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING 123

    Fig. 10. Typical container hold.

    Fig. 1 1 . Stacking of containers in typical container hold.

    and cross bracing for deck container loading as well and are equipped with special centering and securing fittings for locking and/or lashing containers securely to the deck.

    Some problems recently encountered in maintaining container deck loads properly lashed to the deck have en- couraged the majority of container ship operators to install fixed container deck-loading guides and cross bracing. The large forces introduced between containers in the verti- cal end transverse direction due to roll accelerations as well as pitch of the ship and the very height of two tiers of con- tainers makes conventional barge methods hazardous.

    Container ships are basically different in design than general cargo ships, primarily due to the fact they need vertical access to all the container hold spaces and unob- structed decks for deck loading of containers. Fig. 12 shows a typical midship cross section of a container ship. Con- tainer ships are practically all hatch ships relying on their longitudinal strength at the top strength deck, on box girders port and starboard, and on 1 to 3 deep longitudinal

    I

    Fig. 12. Typical container ship midship section.

    girders between the hatches. Most container ships have bulkheads interspersed at 40-ft intervals, though only every second or third bulkhead is made watertight. These trans- verse bulkheads provide the transverse strength of the ship, which would otherwise be penalized by the elimination of deep transverse frames at the deck due to the 40-foot-long hatch openings in the longitudinal direction of each cell. The hatch openings, normally covered by pontoon-type hatch covers, are generally designed for 2 or 3 container widths and are normally 40 ft long. Some container ships have the superstructure amidships like an ordinary cargo, but recent developments favor the installation of machinery and superstructure aft. This provides a completely unobstructed clear deck from bow to stem. In addition, the deep girders at the deck port and starboard provide longitudinal access between the fore and aft part of the ship both for human communication and distributed systems. They also provide structural support for rails holding massive deck-straddling gantry cranes used on some ships for loading and off-load- ing of containers. Although, as will be indicated later, con- tainer operators are currently tending to concentrate their off-load devices at the terminals, some container handling is still done by shipboard gantries for specific services where the establishment of expensive shore-based facilities is not warranted.

    Modern container ships are very much larger and normal- ly substantially faster than conventional cargo ships or partial container camers. Ships having displacements of 66 000 tons and speeds of up to 30 knots have been pro- posed and designed with volumetric capacities exceeding 3 million ft3. Ships of over 30 000 deadweight tons and speeds of 25 knots or better have been built and are in service. Recently developed designs, for example, for a large full container ship envision a length of 900 ft, with a beam of over 100 ft, loaded draft of 32 ft, a depth of ship of 72 ft, and a capacity of over 1400 containers, with a speed of 25 knots. A major consideration for this vast increase in ship size and speed is obviously the great reduction in unit transport cost per container which, for this size ship operating at a speed of 25 knots, results in a unit cost of about one-half of that incurred by a ship carrying 300 to 500 containers 20 ft long, at a speed of 16 knots.

    The large power requirements for these super container

  • 724 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1%8

    ships has encouraged the reevaluation of the potential use of nuclear propulsion plants for such ships. A container ship similar in size to the above-noted dimensions with a speed of 28 to 30 knots requires power plants with an output of 72 OOO to 100 OOO shaft horsepower. The high utilization of these large container ships on long trade routes with sea time exceeding 88 percent of operating time makes nuclear propulsion plants competitive with contentionally fueled plants. In addition, on long trade routes, the combined weight of fuel and conventional power plant actually ex- ceed~ the weight of a nuclear plant including its shielding and collision protection structure. Further decreases in nuclear fuel costs and reductions in nuclear fuel processing costs may encourage the actual construction of nuclear- propelled large container ships in the near future. In addi- tion, a nuclear ship which is volume- and not weight- limited would eliminate fuel oil tank capacity requirements without being penalized by any incremental weight intro- duced by a nuclear power plant and its special additional requirements.

    A number of operators have found the advantage of constructing container ships with a capability for roll-on roll-off transfer of van-type containers or trailer vehicles to be attractive. These ships are normally equipped with ex- tensive stem-gate and/or side-port openings. Ramps are provided for the transfer of wheeled cargo through these openings. As indicated earlier, such ships are either equipped with permanent decks for handling wheeled cargo or use container-sized pontoon pallets to form temporary deck levels in the various container holds equipped with cell guides.

    Container ships are normally permitted to exclude the unusable hold volume outside the cell guides at the sides of the ship from capacity measurements used to derive canal and other dues. Some container ship operators have found it useful to forego such reductions and are using the wing spaces outboard of the cellular guides for various liquid storage requirements and/or to carry liquid payloads. This is particularly attractive because as indicated earlier con- tainer ships are not weight-limited and normally have sub- stantial deadweight capacity left over after loading with a full cargo of containers. These wing tanks can normally be installed inexpensively and also do not detract from the potential total container cargo volume because the box girders required at the shear strake upper deck position are seldom less than 8 ft transverse width. The deep transverse girders that have to be introduced at regular intervals any- way can, therefore, be easily sheathed to provide this tankage.

    Container ships require substantially less maintenance at sea due to the vast reduction in deck machnery installed on such ships. Similarly, it is simpler to prepare a container ship for cargo handling operations or for a voyage than an ordinary cargo ship. As a result, container ship operators have been encouraged to make maximum use of automation and remote control equipment for the operation of ship machinery, for damage control, and for ship management and navigation functions. It is also found that the size of crew on a container s h p increases only slightly with the

    increase in size of the vessel because the cargo and the equipment impose so few requirements on the crew while the ship is at sea. The major exception to the above state- ments occurs when a large number of refrigerated containers are carried on deck of the ship when extensive monitoring, surveillance, and possibly maintenance has to be performed by shipboard staff.

    In general, it can be said that a container ship provides more a c i e n t Ocean transport than a cargo ship from all points of view, including better utilization of ship structure, more efficient use of manpower and fuel, and such things as the capability for effectively using technological advantages in ship design, power plant design, and sophisticated mate- rial handling methods. In short, our limited experience with full container ships indicates that they provide a vastly improved utilization of capital and manpower for the transport of general dry cargo.

    CONTAINER HANDLING Containers in their various codigurations are transported

    by trucks, flatcars, or barges in inland or feeder line opera- tions. Transfer of containers from one to the other mode of inland or feeder transport is normally accomplished by jacking systems, straddle trucks, large forklift trucks, and under some conditions by air-cushion-supported pallet devices. We also use lowboy-tractor combinations to move containers for short distances while marshalling. Shipboard loading operations require extensive vertical handling operations and are normally performed by shipboard or land-based gantry cranes. Other crane types such as ship booms, shipboard rotating cranes, or pierside luffing or whirley cranes are also extensively used in less than full container ship operations or where container terminal facility investment is not warranted by the container throughput rate. To lift large containers, we normally use spreader frames equipped with automatic self-leveling de- vices and automatic container-hooking devices matching with the container corner fittings described earlier (Figs. 9 and 13). The self-leveling devices incorporated in spreader frames assure that the container will be maintained hori- zontal during handling operations no matter where the longitudinal or transverse center of gravity of the container might be located. These spreader frames may be supported from a single hook of a crane or ships boom, or may be attached to a multiple hoist of a gantry crane carriage. The speclfic spreader-frame leveling equipment will vary with a type of application. Self-leveling devices used on single-hook-supported spreader frames are normally ar- ranged to adjust the cable lengths at the four comers to assure hooking support directly vertical above the center of gravity of the container in both the longitudinal and trans- verse plane. The cells of a container ship are normally fitted with extensive precentering devices to facilitate the rapid guidance of the lowered containers into the cells without manual adjustment.

    When containers have to be moved horizontally within a ship, which normally only applies to other than full con- tainer ships, monorail systems arranged under the deck structure and/or rails-supported pontoon platforms are

  • FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING 125

    I.

    EVENLY MLANCED LOAD - HORl ZONTAL UFT

    \

    CENTER OF GRAVITY

    v-

    Fig. 13. Self-adjusting spreader frames.

    often used. Some attempt has also been made recently to develop air cushion pallets to raise containers from the deck and move them into the wings of ships and/or along their decks by the use of one or more forklift trucks at- tached to these hover-type pallets.

    To extract containers from their cell positions the spreader frames are lowered into the required cell and will automatically be guided to lock into the comer fittings of the container, with their comer attachments.

    Various methods for automatic mechanical transfer of containers to the side of a ship have been proposed and designed to be operated by an automatic interlock with a gantry lift operation. The simplicity of the pointing opera- tions during the loading or off-loading of containers has resulted in lift cycle times for heavy containers substantially less than those required for much smaller loads of break- bulk cargo in general cargo ship loading operations.

    Some methods currently under investigation for container loading envision container transfer from the pier into the ship by conveyor or other horizontal transfer systems. These proposed methods utilize stem-gate and/or side-port open- ings for the transfer of integrated trains of containers coupled together and moved into the ship as one slug.

    CONTAINER SHIP PORTS AND TERMINALS It appears that any study of port operations must con-

    sider the overall port as the link between different trans- portation media. Any solution will be self-defeating if it only considers the ship loading or unloading or the cargo handling or storing problem. Circulation, separation of in-port movements, marshalling of trucks, trailers, and barges as well as control, marking, storing, mechanical handling of cargo, etc., are all phases of an integrated process, which can only operate optimally if each phase of the process is designed as a logical sequence of the preced- ing phase and a proper input into the next operation. Such an approach will, hopefully, lead to a greater utilization of port facilities and better use of port access routes. An effec- tive process would be a continuous flow in which every component in the system is properly utilized and duplica- tion of actions is prevented. It is believed that such a solu- tion should result in relieving the apparently inevitable chaos presently noticeable on and about many of our piers. The availability of simple computers with instant informa- tion transmittal and retrieval capabilities and large mem- ories should permit single-point control, inspection, mark- ing, and dispatch. Proper sequential planning may permit a larger percentage of direct transfer from inland to trans- port media without intermediate storage and with a mini- mum of lost time.

    A vast proportion of cargo damage and pilferage is directly attributable to uncoordinated cargo movement and inspection on the pier. If this factor could be reduced, a further appreciable reduction in required freight charges could be achieved.

    The factors relating to the transfer of break-bulk cargo include all the input and output transport agents. Time and cost of transfer includes all time and cost accumulated from the arrival of input transport agents to the departure of. output transport agents.

    Novel designs of ports specialized in container handling by lift-on lift-off and/or roll-on roll-off operations have recently been developed. Large specialized container ports, located close to major, fast-moving road or rail intersec- tions, and extensive deep-water channels close to the sea lanes have been developed in Puerto Rico, in Port E l k - beth, South Africa, and at some western U. s. and northern European ports (Fig. 14). In all of these facilities extensive marshalling areas are provided which permit containers to be unloaded or received in the port at a rate different from the port handling rate. A major problem in most lift-on lift-off operation is that only a small proportion of the con- tainers off-loaded from a large container ship can actually be loaded directly onto their trailer bodies for immediate movement inland. A large proportion of the containers has to be marshalled for subsequent movement or for cargo unloading in the port. Similarly, the port must be capable of receiving containers destined for loading on a large con- tainer ship over a longer time than the actual port time of the ship, which again requires an extensive container marshall- ing area in the port. These existing ports are equipped with very extensive control arrangements similar to turnpike turnstiles where arriving as well as departing containers on

  • 126 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1968

    Fig. 14. Typical container port facility. Fig. 16. Container gantry crane.

    Fig. 15. Container ship terminal turnstile.

    their chassis are weighted (Fig. 1 3 , coded, and the complete information requirements for all subsequent movements and operations required are attached to the container. This operation does not even require a halt of the moving vehicles.

    All the existing specialized container port facilities are equipped with their own container cranes. The utilization achievable for a crane mounted on a pier is about five times that achievable for gantry cranes carried on shipboard (Fig. 16).

    To achieve even greater efficiency in container port opera- tions, automatic container marshalling, stowage, and pier handling systems have been developed by a number of design agents and are being seriously considered by port authorities and ship operators. These consist essentially of parking-garage-type, multiple-level container storage fa- cilities equipped with automatic conveyor systems which permit container selectivity and automatic movement of any chosen container in the pile to the side of the ship or a railroad, truck, or barge siding. The selected container is brought automatically to the transfer point and is then transferred from the conveyor to or from any of the above- mentioned transport vehicles by a gantry crane. Such auto- mated container port systems would normally be com-

    puterized and controlled from a single console located to assure complete operational overview by the operator.

    Detailed studies of the requirements of container ports have been made also from the location selection point of view, and it is found that an effective container port must always be located far away from densely populated urban areas and with efficient transfer capability to high-speed, long-distance feeder lines. Recent studies have indicated that effective container ports can be expected to handle vast throughputs of cargo and effect great reduction in transit and distribution costs. They may replace as many as twenty ports normally handling break-bulk cargo as their prime throughput and as a result reduce overall transportation costs of break-bulk cargo by more than half. Their main effect will be an approach to continuous cargo flow where the port provides the accumulator or calling agent to effect the marriage of the continuous flow lines in small parcels by the various feeder agents and the large-block arrival or departure by the ship. Container ports served by compara- tively short feeder lines have been designed to work essen- tially on an appointment system where only a very small proportion of the containerized cargo is marshalled in the port. The majority of container ports will probably have to handle a mixture of long- or short-haul feeder cargo and, therefore, must incorporate marshalling and selection capability.

    The new container ports will look quitedserent from our old port or harbor facilities. They are expected to be well- organized, properly integrated, and efficient production facilities, highly labor-extensive and capital-intensive.

    SEGMENTED SHIPS Containerization can be carried to another limit whereby

    containers do not only form floating or truckable metal boxes to contained cargo, but actually become part of the hull of the ship. In recent years, renewed interest has been generated in segmented or articulated ship Actually, the first segmented ship was put into service in&) in England, and consisted of three hinged parts of which the stem part formed the machinery and basic ship functions, while the

  • FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING 727

    two forward parts formed floating cargo containers coupled to each other. This ship unfortunately was put out of service, a number of years later, due to economic daculties result- ing from post-world-war conditions. In more recent years, Japanese shipbuilders have instigated research into hinged tankers. Their objective was not the development of a ship divisible into multiple cargo units, but a reduction of the hull structural weight resulting from lower bending stresses and lower wave-induced forces due to the wave hugging motion response of such a ship. Although such tankers have not been constructed, detailed designs have been com- pleted and their construction is seriously being considered. Articulated seagoing barge operations which approach segmented-ship-type operations have been successfully performed by an operator on the Pacific coast of the U. S. using a push-tow principle with rigid gimballed couplings.

    Extensive research and development of more general types of articulated or segmented ships where each trans- verse slice of the ship forms a floating container which can be uncoupled from the rest of the ship at its terminals has been investigated. Such ships could be designed with rigid or hinged couplings and the engineering problems have largely been solved. This type of vessel would offer major advantages for both the multiport break-bulk or multi- port container operator as it is expected that the coupling operations would take less than an hour. The large unit size of the decoupled portions of the ship may also permit their decoupling in other than sheltered waters, which appears to be something difficult to achieve with some of the barge systems described before. A major advantage of the seg- mented or articulated ship is the fact that the container serves a dual purpose of cargo box and ship hull. Initial studies indicate that the resulting cost savings should easily pay for the added cost of coupling devices and possible reduction in hydrodynamic efficiency. Obviously, the above assumptions only apply if the port operations performed on the large segmented slices of the ship are performed &- ciently. On the other hand, they would essentially provide a ship in port at all times, which should go a long way in eliminating warehousing requirements. The fact that a segment of a ship may at all times be in any of the ports served is expected to have a major psychological result in that shippers can load their cargo at any time and know a specific departure time of their boarded cargo. Loading operations can, therefore, be spread over a more extended period of time, which may result in additional cost savings. Detailed studies of the economics of such systems were performed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1963 and 1964 (Report 64-13), under the sponsorship of the U. S . Maritime Administration. Considerations have also been given to the advantages of segmented ships in serving feeder line services. Segmented ships offer many advantages where lowdraft or comparatively long-distance feeder line services are required, by eliminating transfer of cargo from one waterborne vehicle to another. Also, it is not necessary for the manned ship to serve as a feeder agent; the de- coupled segmented portions of the ship would normally be unmanned and handled by tug boat with vastly reduced daily operating costs.

    WAREHOUSE SHIPS The ultimate in containerization on shipboard is ob-

    viously achieved where the ship itself becomes thecontainer. Although this would apply to practically every type of cargo ship, we will imply in our discussions that the warehouse or onecontainer ship is a vessel where the cargo volume of the ship is completely horizontally separated from the remain- der of the ship and consists basically of a large container box carried by a ship-type displacement vessel. Such con- cepts, both for roll-on roll-off operations, as well as con- tainer lift-on lift-off operations or unitized cargo handling, have been designed by J. J. Sharpe and other companies. The large amount of flexibility afforded by a horizontal and/or vertical access cargo volume completely rectangular and with a minimum of transverse partitions or watertight subdivisions obviously has many advantages for unitized or containerized operations. Some of these concepts include multihull vessels such as catamarans, designed to straddle finger piers and deposit or lift off complete warehouse-type boxes containing a large quantity of unitized cargo or con- tainers in one lot. Such concepts have been designed in detail and appear to offer major advantages in turnaround time and ship utilization. They also offer savings in cargo and ship handling by eliminating transfer of cargo from a warehouse or container stowage area onto the ship, and the necessity of multiship calls.

    BARGE-CARRYING SHIPS One interesting type of container ship recently developed

    and designed which is expected to be in operation by 1970 is the barge-carrying ship. In this type of ship large floating containers with a deadweight capacity of several hundred tons are carried in numbers varying from 20 to 100 on ships and are stowed in multiple holds or a multideck longitudinal well. Barge-carriers fall into three main categories. The first type of barge-carrying ship carries container barges on deck and handles these barges by ships cranes or booms. This type of service is being successfully performed by some German operators in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf where inland transportation is nonexistent and coastwise transport expensive unless a ship provides its own barges. Two more extensive barge-carrying ship concepts have been developed recently by Friede and Goldmand, and J. J. Henry, naval architects. The first is a ship which carries its barges in transverse holds and transports them along the length of the ship by a gantry crane which, working over cantilever extensions at the stern of the ship, handles barges from or onto the ship. The second is basically a well-type ship with multiple decks into which barges are moved hori- zontally. They are lowered or lifted from their respective storage deck locations by a synchro lift elevator operating at the transom of the ship and capable of handling barges from or to the water. Both of these concepts are designed for operations where fast turnaround is required, but extensive inland container operations are not necessarily feasible. Providing its own barges, the ship is expected to be able to off-load in reasonable sea states without entering port and maintain large break-bulk containers in the form of barges as a kind of floating warehouse at various locations along

  • 728

    Fig. 17. Typical barge-carrying ship.

    the feeder line of its trade route. Fig. 17 shows a typical arrangement of a bargecarrier and its operations.

    SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN CONTAINER SHIPPING Attempts have been made to study the complex individual

    operations and form mathematical models for container- ized cargo shipping systems. The models are designed to allow evaluation of the effects of changes in mechanical han- dling, utilization, arrival distribution, storage facilities, con- trol parameters, loading factors, etc. They permit pro- grammed use of freight booking, cargo characteristic, cargo space, allocation, ship stability, vessel routing, pier storage planning, equipment avaiiability, manpower, cost, and time data.

    Initially, the problem has been studied as a series of re- lated phases, each of which has a number of operational links :

    shipper packaging, unitizing, and loading operations; routing, marshalling, and controlling all input and output agents ; freight-forwarding, feeders, consolidation; unloading and storing and/or transferring.al1 cargoes from input agents ; transferring all container loads to ship berth apron and on board vessel.

    Direct transfer from 1) to 5 ) and the variation in the

    Various problems of individual operations studied in number of transfers in 4), if any, must be included.

    systems analysis and their effect on other operations are:

    1 ) utilization of feeder agents (inputs); 2) in-port versus out-of-port marshalling and cargo

    consolidation; 3) single-point control, inspection, and marking, in-

    cluding allocation of pier storage (as a function of loading sequence) and decision on transfer sequence (direct apron or hook transfer and mechanical equip- ment allocation);

    4) circulation of input transport agents and in-port mechanical handline: eauimnent :

    PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1%8

    5 ) separation of diverse transport functions; 6) pier space utilization (including passive and active

    7) mechanical handling equipment evaluation ; 8) optimization of relative horizontal and vertical cargo

    9) evaluation of lift size and speed ; 10) distribution of loop deviations; 11) control of storage areas; 12) effects of queuing at loop joints and effects on alloca-

    tion requirements; 13) ship mooring; 14) effect of shipboard equipment, all hatch ships, side

    space allocation);

    movement ;

    ports, ramp (linear) loading, self-powered hold- rolling equipment, etc. ; tallying; ship-shore facilities : manpower requirements ; safety factors (fire lanes, slings, pallets, reach, etc.); visibility and lift control ; effects of complete separation of vertical and hori- zontal handling; apron and pier width; linger versus marginal piers; pier control; separation of activities; gangway arrangements; separation of pedestrian and small ship supply movements from pier operations; conveyors ; pier equipment utilization, maintenance, and man- ning ; cargo planning, storing, and ship characteristics, etc. ; pier overhead-possibility of reduction of noncargo handling pier persoanel ; pier utilization-wharfage and storage ; preferential cargo treatment; direct loading cargoes (timing and sequencing) ; in-hold arrangements, methods, and requirements; on-pier mechanical equipment, moving and sta- tionary; capabilities and requirements; experience with different pier arrangements; apron width; marginal versus finger piers; covered versus open storage; effect of storage distance, access, and arrangement on hook delivery time; bioenergetics-stevedoring effects and capabilities; reasons for reduction in productivity; ship mooring; arrangements, time, and manpower required; ship-shore services; inland transport arrival pattern and loading/un- loading methods; time and cost of handling truck, trailer, railcar, barge, etc., loads; inspection requirements and phases.

    CONCLUSIONS The integration of transportation systems requires con-

    sideration of numerous contributory factors; Management decisions will be more concerned with operatiodmntrol than organizational setum. ODtimization of container

  • FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING 729

    shipping can only be achieved by integration which does not necessarily imply close ownership. Coordination of the subsidiary transportation functions such as feeder lines and transfer activities is a prime prerequisite. Integration is sensitive to the size of the venture and its success is greatly dependent on the effectiveness of the planning, scheduling, balance of performance, continuity, and management in- formation system applied. The availability of computers with remote access offers potential for effective real-time control and coordination according to a basic master plan. A major difference between integrated and nonintegrated transportation systems lies in the degree of randomness of the various activities and flows. The usual method of analyzing transportation systems by steady-state cost analysis ignores dynamic and statistical aspects which affect stability, planning, and utilization.

    Operations research techniques, simulation models, and econometrics theory provide effective tools for the analysis

    Corrections Measurement of RF Properties of Materials, A Survey

    Equation (4), page 1047, should have read

    tan 6 = Qs-(Cs + C)/C,. (4) The term in Cs+ C will cancel in the HartshornZWard

    method using (lo), and C, the auxiliary capacitance shunt- ing that of the sample C,, may remain unknown.

    Manuscript received January 22, 1968. H. E. Bussey, Proc. IEEE, vol. 55, pp. 1&1053, June 1967.

    of integration potentials, effects, and payoffs, and can help provide the urgently needed management tools to assist in developing a truly cost effective transportation industry.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author thanks Sea-Land, Inc., for permission to use

    company photographs and J. J. Henry, Inc., for their con- tribution of figures and the barge-carrying ship concept.

    REFERENCES [11 J. J. Henry and H. J. Karsh, Container ships, presented at the

    Soc. Naval Architects and Marine Engrs. (SNAME) AM. Meeting, No- vember 1966.

    12] J. H. Newman, The relationship between ships and terminals, presented at the N. Y. Met. S e c . SNAME Meeting, March 1965.

    13] Comet/Challenger evaluation team report, National Academy of Science, Washington, D. C., Contract DA 30-358-AMC421M.

    [41 E. Frankel, Integrated transportation, presented at the Chese- peake Sec. SNAME Meeting, April 1967.

    15] Containerization the key to low-cost transport, prepared for the British Docks Board by McKinsey and Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., 1967.

    J =

    The Role of Ambipolar Phenomena m the M e c m of the Post-Zero Current in Vacuum Circait Breakers

    N , N N,, exp 0.52 7 (rlvlot2). [m On page 2132, the left-hand side of the unnumbered

    equation slightly above (62) should have read u i instead of The final conclusion of Section V is not affected.

    u,. The equation should have appeared as

    u, N 1.29[%7. Arithmetic Microsystems for the Synthesis of

    The same error was unfortunately carried through (62)-(67), which should have read On page 1914, subscripts of the variables u, y , and z

    must be corrected in Fig. 4, in (15), and in the subsequent

    Fmctim Generators

    ( N U ) , = ~ , v , N O . ~ Z V ~ [ ~ ] KT * . (62) discussion of the product unit (PU) as follows. Replace v i by u j ; yi by yi+j; zip by

    Manuscript received January 29, 1968. Manuscript received February 12, 1968. M. F. Hoyaux, Proc. IEEE,vol. 55,pp. 2123-2133, December 1967. A. Aviiienis, Proc. ZEEE, vol. 54, pp. 191CL1919, December 1966.


Recommended