Você está na página 1de 22

712

PROCEEDINGS
THE
OF

line for structures, propulsion, and aero-hydro configuration; the experience provided in solving system
compatibility 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 advanced propulsion concepts, improved L/D ideas (drag reduction techniques), and many other bright engineering
approaches; funding limitations preclude the shotgun approach and considerable deliberation and objective comparisons are made before any given projectis underwritten.
In the past, the amount of resources poured into other
forms of transportation has been large incomparison 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-speedship design appears to be
within reach. TheJoint Surface EffectShips Program
Office under the sponsorship of the Navy and Commerce
Departments intends to establish carefully the feasibility
of such a breakthrough.

IEEE, VOL. 56, NO. 4, APRIL 1968


REFERENCES

[I N. McNeil, Aerotrain and naviplane,


Barrons, pp. 5-10, September 1967.
B. V. Nakonechny, Surveyof present state of technology and
practical experiences with air cushion vehicles, DavidTaylorModel
Basin, Washington, D. C., Rept. 2203, p. 4, July 1966.
A Soviet viewof antisubmarine warfare,: Navy Magazine, pp.
21-25 and 4 7 4 9 , October 1966.
[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, BoozAllen Applied Research, Inc., August 1965.
[61 Surface effect ships for Ocean commerce, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Final Rept., February 1966.
[I Presidents Message to the Senate on Transportation, Congressional Information Div., office of Legislative Affairs, U. s. Dept. of the
Navy, Rept. 34, pp. 44344439, March 3, 1966.
F. H. Toddet al., A study of the technicalfeasibility offuture 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, AIAASNAME 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
of U. S. exports and imports.Such changesin transportacosts have historically led to large increases in the
f a break-in& md other dry cargo is presented. Be concept of coataine&ed
volume of trade, and encouraged marginal
exports to parsbipgthehPndlingofeoat.mers~oredoaboud,mdtheiT~,
ticipate
in
world
trade.
Container
shipping
requires concontrol, dco~~~ljdafion
is descrkd, fdlaed by a m e y of the requireof cargoes, integration of transport services, and
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 asolidation
rutilization of transport resources. It therefore
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 optimum
em a t 3 of integrated baqortaticm md tbe remithg aspects are evaluated.
leads to fewer shipping lines, fewer ships, fewer ports,
highly integrated transfer points, and a smaller but highly
INTRODUCTION
skilled and highly paid labor force. Major cost savings in
NRECENTYEARS
container shipping has made
container shipping result from the proven dramatic
increase
major inroads into break-bulk
general
or cargo shipping
in theutilization of the capital-intensive transport resources
operations. It has led to the development of fewer and
through reduction of time in transit, consolidation of cargo
larger organizations operating throughout the overall field
and documentation, and savings in inspection, pilferage,
of transport services, thereby facilitating rationalized
and loss of cargoes en route.
transocean transportation. It has achieved drastic reducFor the present general cargo volume handled in U. S.
tions in total overseas transportation costs. The achievable
overseas trade, more than 82 percent of which could be
cost reductions of 50 percent would mean a saving of over
handled in containers, the total number
of container berths
$2 billion in U. S. general cargo foreign trade transportation
required would be less than 60 compared to several thoucosts and could have major effects on the competitiveness
sand general cargoberths currently in use in U. S . ports. It
has been shown that, with containerization, ship producManuscript received October 26, 1967; revised December 20, 1%7.
tivity
increasesby a factor of about 3 while the productivity
The author is with the Advanced Marine Technology Division, Litton
Industries, Culver City, C a l i f .
of dock labor and terminal resources increases by a factor
Abstract-A discassioa of the ratkmde, esgieeerin& .ad econcdc de-

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 ltion
e~~

FRANKEL:

SHIPPING

of 10. Container shipping introduces economiesof scale not


achievable with break-bulk shipping, due to the virtual independence of port time and unit container ship load. As a
result, major incentives accrue for container concentration
in afew ports served byregularly scheduled, large container
ships. These incentives feed backto therail, road, orinland
water feeder lines asa result of concentrated resource
utilization with consolidation or distributionpoints removed from the pierside. Container shipping permits the
functional integration and operational separationof transport 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 increase in transportation sales;
3) integrated inland transport consolidation and distribution system;
4) fewer but large and more efficient transfer facilities;
5 ) shorter time of delivery;
6) reduced document, control, and inspection requirements;
7) lower insurance cost and pilferage or loss;
8) increased capital intensity in transportation resources ;
9) labor-extensive transportation;
10) functional integration and operational separationof
transport elements and information flow as well as
control.
In short,container shipping may permit the introduction
of integrated production flow techniques and theadvantages
of batch processing into overseas transportation.
BACKGROUND
HISTORICAL
Since World War 11, major changes in the economics of
operating dry cargoships have occurred which haveforced
a reevaluation of conventional methods of dry cargomovement 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 thereduction of
port time and costs have had major effects upon the economics of ship size, ship speed, and cargo handling. Conventional break-bulk cargo operations in multiport
a
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.

713

As a result of these considerations, larger and faster


cargo ships havebeen developed for scheduled and unscheduled services. Simultaneously, cargo handling methods have been improved. About a decade ago, it was found
that lift-on lift-off operations using modem cargo handling
equipment could only beeffectivelyutilizedif
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 pertaining tothe relative advantages of roll-on roll-off of
pallets and containers on wheeled bodies versus lift-on liftoff operations continued. While roll-offroll-on cargo handdling operations are normally found to be more efficient,
reducing handling time and effortwhile assuring better
integration with feeder line land operations, the large
amount of wasted volume and deadweight onthe 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 1911 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 betweenFlorida 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 thebetter space, deadweight, and equipment utilization of integrated lift-on
lift-off container ship operations has made the straight container 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. Containersmay
be lifted on, rolled on, or floated on. They may be solely
cargo containers, orform an integral part of the shipor the
feeder system when it serves for example as part of a segmented ship, a barge, or a trailer.
The choice of container system depends on the number
of port calls, the average size ofunit 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 anumber 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

PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1%8

714

CONTAINER s

w s

CONVENTIONAL
DISPLACEMENTHULLS

I
CONTAINER
CARRY1 N G
SHIPS

BARGE CARRYING
SHIPS

TRAILERCARRIERS

I
COMBINATION
LIFT ON-RO-RO

FULL CONTAINER
SHIPS

CONTAINER
SHIPS

CONVERTIBLE
CONTAINER
SHIPS

RO-RO
SHIP

SHIPS WITH
SPECIAL
DECK FITTINGS

BARGE
LIFT O N

BARGE
FLOAT
ON

CATAMARAN
TYPE SHIPS

SEGMENTED SHIPS

MuLnPLE
CONTAiNER
SHIP SEGMENTS

I
BARGE-TUG
DISPLACEMENT
SUBMERGED
SEMI
COMBINATION
CC
AA
TT
AM
MR
RA
AN
N

GENERAL
CARGO
SHIPS

TOW

I
RIGIDLY
COUPLED

HINGE
COUPLED

Fig. 1. Classification of container ships.

then be expected to be carried in containers, leaving less


than 7 percent of the total tobe carried as break-bulk. The
importance of this rather small element of worldtrade 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 otherport
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 percent higher than those of a bulk carrier operating on the
equal density cargo.
same route with an
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 (excludingactual 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.
ECONOMICS
OF CONTAINER SHIPPING
Although shippers may simply present their bills of ladOver 72 percent of the worlds trade is carried in bulk (dry ing for collection, a discount is normally applied which
or liquid) today. This trend is expected to continue and to makes the capital cost a function of total delivery time.
So far, we have only discussed the high proportions of
ltvel off at about 79 percent of total tons shippedby 1980.
Of the remaining 21 percent, well over 66 percent can by shipping freight charges applicable to portoperations, and

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 consolidation requirements. It is now recognizedthat each link in an
integrated transportation system must bedesigned as a part
of the whole system. The sumof a sequence of transportation systems, optimum by themselves, does not necessarily
result in an optimum transportationsystem. Integration of
transportation systems is particularly important since the
customers ultimate concern is withthe total cost of transportation from shipper to consignee. Additional factors
such as safety, pilferage, insurance, and total time between
shipping and delivery are majorconsiderations. Nowadays
systemengineering approachesand 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 traderoutes.

715

FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING

ORIGIN

- - -PACKAGE
I

i
F

UNITIZE

SHORT H A U L

RECEIPT
(CONSIGNEE)

r
I

CONSIGNEE

DEUNITIZE

SHORTHAUL

SYMBOLS

nUNLUC

DEUNITIZE
(UNITILE)

LOAD

1
.

UNI~IZE

I,

FRE~GHT
FORWARDER

@-r

ILONG
HAUL^

s
-I-

FREIGHT
FORWARDER

4
SHORT H A U L

FORK L I F T )

W A I T( S T A T I C )

T
LONGHAUL

SHORT HAUL

80

I,

TRANSFER
(CONVEYOR,

I
I

SHIPPING
COMPANY
OPERATIONS

T
STORE

60

STORE

.I:

L O A 0 ONTO S H I P

STOW

40

DEUNITIZE

I
I

I
I

20

UNI~IZE

7--1

STORE

OFFLOADFROMSHIP

_L
FOR PRODUCTIVE

TRANSPORT

28 OPERATIONS

19 W A I T S

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

716

PROCEEDINGSOFTHE

7
SHORT
HAUL

JC K
MIL
BARGE
TFAILER
FORK LIFT

IEEE, APRIL 1968

CARGO
CONSOLIDATION
A N D SHORT HAUL TRANSFER

Fig. 3. Transportationdecision 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 orfrom 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 delivering or loading at airports, rail terminals, or storage
facilities. The inland road transport utilization and consequent 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 operations, then total costs incurred in port inbreak-bulk operations are roughly 50 to 62 percent of the totalshipping 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 andrelated
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 inefficiencyof conventional break-bulk shipping
operations is best explained by a typical sequence for the
shipment of general cargo from the shipper to theconsignee
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 addition, each of these sections of the transportation process
has a propercost/time input and outputaffected by internal
physical setups, costs, and such external factors as politics
and environmental influence. The multiplicity of stochastic
inputs to thevarious 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 document control could be applied to reduce time and money
losses. The degree of optimization achievable will begreatly
affected bythe number of choices and the number of parties
capable of making decisions for each section of the transportation process. Similarly, the size ofthe population and
the overall sizeof the transportation venture affect the
capability for optimal resource use, planning, and scheduling of cargo and information flow. The problem of coordinated and integrated transportation is highlighted by
the bottleneck presented by the port and the ship, which
introduces a major step function by its intermittent operations 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.Conversely, a new system isnormally designed by worhng from
the various cargo origins to the ship loading point to establish the planning and scheduling requirements which provide the inputs for theship 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 components 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 integrated transportation systemmust consider capital requirements, market potentials, possibilities of alternate investment use, ability to respond to changing economic
conditions, alternate use of transport modes, labor conditions,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

nonproductive operations and waiting periods in the sequence. It is obvious that any approach to a continuous
flow
of cargo through the various required transportation processes wouldgreatly reduce the cost and time requirements.
As indicated earlier, the major obstacle to such a continuous
flowis 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 operations 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 costand 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 canbeachieved 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 isvastly increased, easily
justifying the greater investment of a container shipping
system.
Recent figuresof operating experience ontheNorth
Atlantic trade route indicate that the port cargo handling
cost for container ships is about one-tenth that of a conventional 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 transport 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 container ship is higher than that of a general cargo ship of
equal capacity, the costof a container shipping system
(including container suits and terminal equipment) for
equal annual transport capacity requires little if any additional investment. The return on investment though has
been shown to be about 5 to 8 times as large as that achievable 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 EastWest trade and the development of markets for manufactured goods in developing countries may increase world
trade by as much as 40 percent above these estimates. Reduction in transportation costs would stimulate additional
trading volume. On the other hand the 20- to 25-year lifetime cycle of shipping systems and the long lead time required for the introduction of new shipping capacity indicate that not only will cargo tonnage lag seriously behind a

717

healthy and effective trade/tonnage ratio but the large


increase in length of the average dry cargo trade route resulting from the development of new but more distant markets requires faster, larger, and more productive ships. It
appears that only effectivelyintegrated large container ship
systems can be expected to till this need.
Port costs vary greatly with the berth throughput. For
example, a throughput of200 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 incurred at a berth handling only 20 OOO tons per year per
berth. This is primarily due to the vastly increased utilization of the capital-intensive port handling equipment and
the berth itself. The resulting large-throughput feeder line
service introduces a major saving intransport unit cost and
makes the operation of small regional ports uneconomical
even for local importers and exporters. In general, roll-on
roll-offservices are found to be about 25 percent more
expensive than cellular container ship services on transocean 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 distance, 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 isobviously 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 thatis dficult to introduce
into the transportation industry. The elimination of parochial viewpoints, bias, and themaintenance of freecompetition in an integrated, consolidated, overseas transportation 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 benefitof
world trade.
TRANSP~RTATION
INTEGRATION
A multitude of parties is involved in the overseas transportation 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 theship 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.

719

FRANKEL: CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING

TRANSPORT PHASE AS DEFINED BY FIG.2

CUMULATIM T I M E OF CONTAINER HANDLING ASPERCENTAGE


OF TOTAL BEAKBULK TIME

CUMULATIM COST OFCONTAINER HANDLING ASPERCENTAGE


OF TOTAL BREAKBULK COSTS

TOTAL CUMULATIVE COST OF BREAKBULK HANDLING

-.-

TOTAL CUMULATIVETIME IN BEAKBULK HANDLING

---

TOTAL CUMULATIVETIME IN PRODUCTIVETRANSPORTATION


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

.-.

100%

COST
CURVES

COST

50%

COST
TIME

Fig. 5. Time and cost distributionof typical cargo transfer.


REF. OECD MARITIME TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
180
1 70

I 700

160

I50
VI

1500

140

130

;
VI

120

(3

IO

110

- 22

100

90

9 - ;

2
7 - 5

;6

0
- 9

70

60

2 5 - 2n

2c=
c

80

4 -

50
40

3 -

30

2 -

20

1 -

10

300

I00

I950

W
IO

I970

Fig. 6. Worlddry cargo and ship capacity projection.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. APRIL 1968

720

our portsstill 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 immense 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 therequired acceptance of an appointmentsystem
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, andtheir relation to the inland transportation
arteries. While ship berthing facilities should be close to
deep, unrestricted waters and thereby permit port maneuvering and mooring times, it is equally if not more important 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 distance from the ports themselves, the location of future port
facilitiesat some distance from the heart of our urban areas
and close to major traffic arteries seems warranted. Future
continuous-flow, labor-extensive port facilities willneed
wide open spaces with easy accessto rapid and economical
inland feeder transport; they will consolidate high utilization of berths, exclude cargo parcel storage assembly and
distribution, and reduce turnaround time of all the transport 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 feedernetworks.
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 operaations instead of sequential alternatives. This simply implies that once cargo is allocated to a predetermined sequence 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 consolidation 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 prevention 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
increasinglyrecognized 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
slurry form.
b) Commodity-oriented handling equipment and the
transport
increasedsize of ships willbenefit
efficiency greatly.
3) Most manufactured goods and consumer commodities 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 increase at a spectacular rate, the simultaneous growth
of world trade should result in airfreight handling of
less than 2 percent of the totalworld 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-increasingemphasis will be put on the elimination of speedup of cargo transfer between various
modes of transportation. The aim will be complete
integration of transportation processes where transport 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 shippersand consignees
facilities.
8) A major factor in curtailing serious inroads by airfreight will be the time savings accruing from a continuous flow of cargo without storage and accumulation. 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 orderof magnitude over and above an equivalent 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 advisable by overall integrated transportation system
consideration. They will be unshackled from conventional approaches and concepts of design, ship
building, procurement methods, operation,and
management. Ships will form but one link in a coordinated chain.

ges

72 1

FRANKEL:
TABLE I
CONTAINERIZATION
Advantages
Speedup of loading and unloading
Protection against pilferage
Protection against damage
Lower insurance rates
Cheaper packagingof cargo
Reduced documentation requirements
Reducednumber of packagehandlings
Provides temporary protected storage
Modification of external characteristics of cargo for easier handling
Cargo handling in all weather
Easier stowage
Effective stow planning
Cargo handling while shipon feeder
not in port

Cost of containers
Tare weightof containers
Loss of cubage of containers
Cost ofreturning empties
Heavy gear requirement
Labor practices
Fixed volume not always optimum
usable size
Part-load problem
Container routing and handling
Container loss and damage

2) The general dry cargo tramp will probably be a


rarity by the end of this century.
13) pilferage and spoilage of cargo in transfer or storage
must be reduced or eliminated if ship transportation
is to retain or recapture
of the high-value dry
cargo. This may also appreciably effect insurance
costs.
record14) Information control, coordinated
ing, and document generation simultaneous with
cargo
are required to reduce costs and accounting delays, and give better utilization of capital.
Table I lists the advantages and disadvantages of containerization.
CONTAINER SHIPS
During the last decade a large number of container ship
types have been evolved,as shown in Fig. 1 . By far themost
important type is the van container ship with cellular holds,
a conventional displacement hull, and extensive deck container loading capability. The earlier van container ships
consisted of World War I1 Liberty, Victory, or T-2 tanker
ships converted to carry containers ondeck within fixedcell
guides. By 1957 a number of C-2-type cargo ships were
converted to full container ships with container cells built
into the hold and large hatch openings to serve these cells
by vertical handling. From these early beginnings, the
greatly increased productivity achievable by larger, faster
container ships has led to thedevelopment of ships capable
of carrying ten times (1400) as many containers at twice the
speed (27 knots) of those early forerunners.
Some operators have electedto convert or construct ships
capable of handling containers in some holds or just on
deck and developed partial containerships. Others areusing
general cargo ships that can be converted for partial carriage
of containers in removable cellguides, in their regular
holds, or on deck without special fittings. These partial
container ships are obviously constrained in their operations
by the requirements of the break-bulk cargo handled by
conventional means and are normally designed to satisfy

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 tankersconverted to
container ships. Some of the latter have been completely
rebuilt by the introduction of a new container ship midshipbody 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 characteristics 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 deadweight to displacement ratio is about 63 percent which implies 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
17 to 40 ft and have a nominal height and width of about 8
ft. Late in 1965 the International Organization for Standardization
adopted the standards Of the
American Standards Association (ASA) exceptthat strength
standards were to bebased on stacking containers four
instead of six high. Smaller containers such as Conex boxes
and 10-foot-long containers are used by the military and
insome limited operations. The ASA standard container is
designed for lengths of 10,20, 307 and ft for ~ccommodation in standard 20- or 40-foot-long cells singly or in pairs.
When more than one container is handled on a chassis or
in a cell at a time, coupling blocks are introduced into the
comer fittings between the containers. The standard container is a thin-skinned metal
whichbox
derives its structural strength from 4 vertical corner posts connected transversely by headers and longitudinally by rails top and
bottom. Standard comer fittings with various round and
oblong holes are attached to the eight comers of the container to facilitate coupling and tiedown of containers as
well as automatic meshing with the lifting attachments on
the spreader frame used for handling containers as shown
in Fig. 9. Containers are normally stowed in vertical cells
made up of 4 vertical guides normally 8 ft wideand 40
ft long. Two large container ship operators use cells and
containers 24 and 35 ft long, respectively.
Containers are stacked in these cells supported by the
comer posts of the lower containers. To facilitate entry into
the cells fixed,attachable, oradjustable guides or centering
devices are fitted to thecell guide entry at the hatch opening
on deck. In addition, the cell guides are normally rounded
off outwards.
For some cellular applications, particularly where oddsized cargo is handled on pallets or in open-top containers,
retractable hinged brackets incorporated into the vertical
cellguides are used to support and properly space containers. In addition to closed van-type containers, containers are used for the carriage of refrigerated or ventilated cargo. Refrigerated cargo containers are equipped
with either internal combustion engine or electric motor
driven refrigerating and ventilating units. The first is for

?ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1%8

122

Fig. 9. Vertical container handling by spreader frames.

MO

700

BW

910

LENGTH FT OA

Fig. 7. Typical container ship characteristics.

2m

100

600

800

1W

1zm

N U M R OF ZWOOT CONTAINERS CARRIED

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

lux,

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 downto the required temperature
on land, have become popular since their use eliminates
the mechanical moving equipment on the container with
resulting savingsin maintenanceand 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 improvevolume utilization and are normally 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 oddsized cargo loading and also serve to introduce intermediate
decks supportedby lower containers or cell-guide brackets.
These intermediate decks are useful for rolling cargo handling by vehicles, forklift trucks, and/or lowboy trailers.
Flat pallets withcomer posts and long tanks supported on
rigidly installed brackets are used to transportliquid 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 inuse. 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
providedwith direct vertical access andarenormally
covered with portable watertight pontoon hatch covers,
which are deposited on adjacent nonoperative hatches or
deck-loaded containers whenever the cell is worked. Liftable pontoon hatch covers are cheaper and cause less obstruction 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

123

FRANKEL:CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING

Fig. 12. Typicalcontainer 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 transverse 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
Fig. 10. Typicalcontainer hold.
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. Thisprovides a completely unobstructed
clear deck from bow to stem. Inaddition, the deep girders
at the deck port and starboardprovide longitudinal access
between the fore and aft part of the ship both for human
communication and distributed systems. They also provide
structural support forrails holding massive deck-straddling
gantry cranes used on some ships for loading and off-loading of containers. Although, as will be indicated later, container operators are currently tending to concentrate their
off-load devicesat the terminals, some container handling is
Fig. 1 1 . Stacking of containers in typical container hold.
still done by shipboard gantries for specific services where
the establishment of expensive shore-based facilities is not
and cross bracing for deck container loading as well and warranted.
Modern container ships are very much larger and normalare equipped with special centering and securing fittings
for locking and/or lashing containers securely to the deck. ly substantially faster than conventional cargo ships or
Some problems recently encountered in maintaining partial container camers. Ships having displacements of
container deck loads properly lashed to the deck have en- 66 000 tons and speeds of up to 30 knots have been procouraged the majority of container ship operators to install posed and designed with volumetric capacities exceeding
fixed container deck-loading guides and cross bracing. 3 million ft3. Ships of over 30 000 deadweight tons and
The large forces introduced between containers in the verti- speeds of 25 knots or better have been built and are in
for example,for a
cal end transverse direction due to roll accelerations as well service.Recentlydevelopeddesigns,
as pitch of the ship and the very height oftwo tiers of con- large full container ship envision a length of 900 ft, with
a beam of over 1 0 0 ft, loaded draft of 32 ft, a depth of ship
tainers makes conventional barge methods hazardous.
Container ships are basicallydifferent in design than of 72 ft, anda capacity of over 1400containers, with a speed
general cargo ships, primarily due to the fact they need of 25 knots. A major consideration for this vast increase in
vertical access to all the container hold spaces and unob- ship size and speed is obviously the great reduction in unit
structed decks for deck loading of containers. Fig. 12 shows transport cost per container which, for this size ship
a typical midship cross section of a container ship. Con- operating at a speed of 25 knots, results in a unit cost of
tainer ships are practically all hatch ships relying on their about one-half of that incurred by a ship carrying 300 to
longitudinal strength at the top strength deck, on box 500 containers 20 ft long, at a speed of 16 knots.
The large power requirements for these super container
girders port and starboard, and on1 to 3 deep longitudinal

724

ships has encouraged the reevaluation of the potential use


of nuclear propulsion plants forsuch 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 exceed~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 nuclearpropelled large container ships in the near future. In addition,a nuclear ship whichis volume- andnot weightlimited would eliminate fuel oil tank capacity requirements
without being penalized by any incremental weight introduced 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 extensive 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
levelsin the various container holds equipped with cell
guides.
Container ships are normally permitted to exclude the
unusable hold volume outside the cell guidesat thesides of
the ship from capacity measurements used to derive canal
and other dues. Some container ship operatorshave 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 tocarry liquid payloads. This
is particularly attractive because as indicated earlier container ships are not weight-limited and normally have substantial 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 anyway can, therefore, beeasily 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 avoyage than an
ordinary cargo ship. As a result, container ship operators
have beenencouraged to make maximum use ofautomation
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

PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1%8

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 statements occurs when a large number of refrigerated containers
are carried on deck of the shipwhen extensivemonitoring,
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 useof manpower and fuel, and such things as
the capability for effectively using technological advantages
in ship design, power plant design, and sophisticated material handling methods. In short, ourlimited experience with
full container ships indicates that they provide a vastly
improved utilization of capital and manpower forthe
transport of general dry cargo.
CONTAINER
HANDLING
Containers in their various codigurations are transported
by trucks, flatcars, or barges in inland or feeder line operations. Transfer of containers from oneto 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. Wealso use lowboy-tractor combinations to move
containers for shortdistances 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 operationsor 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 devices and automatic container-hooking devices matching
with the container corner fittings described earlier (Figs. 9
and 13). The self-leveling devicesincorporated in spreader
frames assure that the container will be maintained horizontal 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 arranged 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 thelongitudinal and transverse plane. The cells ofa 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 container ships, monorail systems arranged under the deck
structureand/or rails-supported pontoon platforms are

FRANKEL:CONTAINERIZED SHIPPING

EVENLY MLANCED LOAD

- HORl ZONTAL UFT

125

I.

\
CENTER

OF GRAVITY

v-

Fig. 13. Self-adjustingspreader 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 attached 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 operations 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 breakbulk cargo in general cargo shiploading 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/orside-port openings forthe transfer of integrated trains of containers
coupled together and moved into the ship as one slug.

CONTAINER
SHIPPORTSAND TERMINALS
It appears that any study of port operations must consider the overall port as the link between different transportation 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 preceding phase and a proper input intothe next operation. Such
an approach will, hopefully, lead to a greater utilization of
port facilities and better use ofport access routes. An effective process would be a continuous flow in which every
component in the system is properly utilized and duplication of actions is prevented. It is believed that such a solution should result in relieving the apparently inevitable
chaos presently noticeable on and aboutmany of our piers.
The availability of simple computers with instant information transmittal and retrieval capabilities and large memories should permit single-point control, inspection, marking, and dispatch. Proper sequential planning may permit a
larger percentage of direct transfer from inland to transport media without intermediate storage and with a minimum of lost time.
A vast proportion of cargo damage and pilferageis
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 intersections, 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 portat 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 containers off-loaded from a large container ship can actually
be loaded directly onto their trailer bodies for immediate
movement inland. Alarge 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 receivingcontainers destined for loading on a large container ship over a longer time than the actual port
time of the
ship, which again requires an extensive container marshalling area in the port. These existing ports areequipped with
veryextensive 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. Containergantrycrane.

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 feederlines. Recent studies have indicated
that effective container ports can be expectedto handle vast
throughputs of cargo and effect great reduction in transit
and distributioncosts. They may replace as many as twenty
ports normally handling break-bulk cargo as their prime
throughput and as a result reduce overall transportation
Fig. 15. Container ship terminal turnstile.
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
their chassis are weighted (Fig. 1 3 , coded, and the complete the marriage of the continuous flow lines in small parcels
information requirements for all subsequent movements by the various feeder agents and the large-block arrival or
and operations required are attached to the container. This departure by the ship. Container ports served bycomparaoperation does not even require a halt of the moving tively short feeder lines have been designed to work essenvehicles.
tially on an appointment system where only a very small
All the existing specialized container port facilities are proportion of the containerized cargo is marshalled in the
equipped with their own container cranes. The utilization port. Themajority of container portswill probably have to
achievable for a crane mounted on
piera isabout five times handle a mixture of long- or short-haul feeder cargo and,
that achievable for gantry cranes carried on shipboard therefore, must incorporate marshalling and selection
(Fig. 16).
capability.
To achieve even greater efficiencyin container port operaThe new container ports will look quitedserent from our
tions, automatic container marshalling, stowage, and pier old port or harbor facilities. They are expected to be wellhandling systemshavebeendevelopedby
a number of organized, properly integrated, and efficient production
design agents and are being seriously considered by port facilities, highly labor-extensive and capital-intensive.
authorities and ship operators. These consist essentially of
SEGMENTED
SHIPS
parking-garage-type, multiple-level container storage faContainerization can be carried to anotherlimit whereby
cilities equipped with automatic conveyor systems which
permit container selectivity and automatic movement of containers do not only form floating or truckable metal
any chosen container in the pile to theside of the ship or a boxes to contained cargo, but actually become part of the
railroad, truck, or barge siding. The selected container is hull of the ship. In recent years, renewed interest has been
brought automatically to the transfer point and is then generated in segmented or articulated ship Actually, the
transferred from the conveyor to orfrom any of the above- first segmented ship was put intoservice in&) in England,
mentioned transport vehicles by a gantry crane. Such auto- and consisted of three hinged parts of which the stem part
mated container port systemswould normally be com- formed the machinery and basic ship functions, while the

FRANKEL:

SHIPPING

727

WAREHOUSE SHIPS
two forwardparts formed floating cargo containers coupled
to each other. This
ship unfortunately was put out of service,
The ultimate in containerization onshipboard is oba number of years later, dueto economicdaculties result- viously achieved where
the ship itself becomesthecontainer.
ing from post-world-warconditions. In more recent years, Although this would apply to practically every type of cargo
Japanese shipbuilders have instigated research into hinged ship, we willimply in our discussions that thewarehouse or
tankers. Their objective was not the developmentof a ship onecontainer ship is a vessel wherethe cargo volume of the
divisible into multiple cargo units, but a reduction of the ship is completely horizontally separated from the remainhull structural weight resulting from lower bending stresses der of the ship and consists basically of a large container
and lower wave-induced forces due to the wave hugging box carried by a ship-type displacement vessel. Such conmotion response of such a ship. Although such tankers cepts, both for roll-on roll-off operations, as well as conhave not been constructed, detailed designs have beencom- tainer lift-on lift-off operations or unitized cargo handling,
pleted and their construction is seriously being considered. have been designed by J. J. Sharpe and other companies.
Articulated seagoingbarge operations which approach The large amount of flexibility afforded by a horizontal
segmented-ship-type operations have
been
successfully
and/or vertical accesscargo volume completelyrectangular
performed by an operator on thePacific coast of the U. S. and with a minimum of transverse partitions or watertight
using a push-tow principle with rigid gimballed couplings. subdivisions obviously has many advantages for unitized
Extensive research and development of more general or containerized operations. Some of theseconcepts include
types of articulated or segmented ships where each trans- multihull vessels such as catamarans, designed to straddle
verse slice of the ship forms a floating container which can finger piers and deposit or lift off completewarehouse-type
be uncoupled from therest of the ship at its terminals has boxes containing a large quantity of unitized cargo or conbeen investigated. Such ships could bedesigned with rigid or tainers in one lot. Such concepts have been designed in
hinged couplings and the engineering problems have detail and appear to offer major advantagesin turnaround
largely been solved. This type of vessel would offer major time and ship utilization. They also offer savings in cargo
advantages for both the
multiport break-bulk or multi- and ship handling by eliminating transfer of cargo from a
port container operator as it is expected that the coupling warehouse or container stowage area ontothe ship, and the
operations would take less than an hour. The
large unit size necessity of multiship calls.
of the decoupled portionsof the ship may also permit their
SHIPS
BARGE-CARRYING
decoupling in other than sheltered waters, which appears
to be something difficult to achieve with someof the barge
One interesting type of container ship recently developed
systems described before. A major advantage of the seg- and designed which is expectedto be in operation by 1970
mented or articulated ship is the fact that the container is the barge-carrying ship. In this type ofship large floating
serves a dual purpose of cargo box and ship hull. Initial containers with a deadweight capacity of several hundred
studies indicate that theresulting cost savings should easily tons are carried in numbers varying from 20 to 100 on ships
pay for the added cost of coupling devices and possible and arestowed inmultiple holds or a multideck longitudinal
reduction in hydrodynamic efficiency. Obviously, the above well.Barge-carriersfall into three maincategories. The
assumptions only apply if the portoperations performed on first type ofbarge-carrying ship carries container barges on
the large segmented slices of the ship are performed &- deck and handles these barges by ships cranes or booms.
ciently. On the other hand, they would essentiallyprovide a This type of service is being successfully
performed by some
ship in port at all times, which should go a long way in German operators in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf
eliminating warehousing requirements. The fact that a where inland transportation is nonexistent and coastwise
segment of a ship may at all times be in any of the ports transport expensive unless a ship provides its own barges.
served is expected to have a major psychological result in Two more extensive barge-carrying ship concepts have
that shippers can load their cargo at any time and know a been developed recentlyby Friede and Goldmand, andJ. J.
specific departure timeof their boarded cargo. Loading Henry, naval architects. The first is a ship which carries its
operations can, therefore, be spread over a more extended barges in transverse holds and transports them along the
period of time, which mayresult in additional cost savings. length of the ship by a gantry crane which, working over
Detailed studies of the economics of such systems were cantilever extensionsat the stern of the ship, handles barges
performed at Massachusetts Institute of Technologyin
from or onto the ship. The second is basically a well-type
1963 and 1964 (Report 64-13), under the sponsorship of the ship with multiple decks into which bargesare moved horiU. S . Maritime Administration. Considerations have also zontally. They are lowered or lifted from their respective
been given to the advantages of segmented shipsin serving storage deck locations by a synchro lift elevator operating
feeder line services. Segmentedships offer many advantagesat the transom of the ship andcapable of handling barges
where lowdraft or comparatively long-distance feeder line from or tothe water. Both of these concepts are designed for
services are required, by eliminating transfer of cargo from operations where fastturnaround is required, but extensive
one waterbornevehicle to another.Also, it is not necessary inland container operations are not necessarilyfeasible.
for the manned ship to serve as a feeder agent; the de- Providing its own barges, the ship is expected to be able to
coupled segmented portions of the ship would normally be off-load in reasonable sea states without entering port and
unmanned and handled by tug boat with vastly reduced maintain large break-bulk containers in the form of barges
daily operating costs.
as a kind of floating warehouse at various locations along

728

PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, APRIL 1%8

Fig. 17. Typicalbarge-carrying ship.

the feeder line of its trade route. Fig. 17 shows a typical


arrangement of a bargecarrier andits operations.

SYSTEMSENGINEERING
IN CONTAINER SHIPPING
Attempts have beenmade to study the complex individual
operations and form mathematical models for containerized cargo shipping systems. The models are designed to
allow evaluation of the effects of changes in mechanical handling, utilization, arrival distribution, storage facilities,control parameters, loading factors, etc. They permit programmed use offreight booking, cargo characteristic, cargo
space, allocation, ship stability, vessel routing, pier storage
planning, equipment avaiiability, manpower, cost, andtime
data.
Initially, the problem has been studied as a series of related 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.al1cargoes
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
number of transfers in 4), if any, must be included.
Various problems of individual operations studied in
systems analysis and their effect on other operations are:

5 ) separation of diverse transport functions;


6) pier space utilization (including passive and active
space allocation);
7) mechanical handling equipment evaluation ;
8) optimization of relative horizontal and vertical cargo
movement ;
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 allocation requirements;
13) ship mooring;
14) effect of shipboard equipment, all hatch ships, side
ports,ramp (linear) loading, self-powered holdrolling 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 horizontal handling;
apron and pier width; linger versus marginal piers;
pier control;
separation of activities;
gangway arrangements; separationof pedestrian and
small ship supply movements from pier operations;
conveyors ;
pier equipment utilization, maintenance, and manning ;
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 andstationary; 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 hookdelivery time;
bioenergetics-stevedoring effects and capabilities;
reasons for reduction in productivity;
ship mooring; arrangements, time, and manpower
required; ship-shore services;
inland transportarrivalpatternand
loading/unloading methods; time and cost of handling truck,
trailer, railcar, barge, etc., loads;
inspection requirements and phases.

1) utilization of feeder agents (inputs);


2) in-port versus out-of-port marshalling and cargo
consolidation;
3) single-point control, inspection, and marking, including allocation of pier storage (as a function of
CONCLUSIONS
loading sequence) and decision on transfer sequence
The integration of transportation systems requires con(direct apron orhook transfer and mechanical equipsideration of numerous contributory factors; Management
ment allocation);
4) circulation of input transport agents and in-port decisions will be more concerned with operatiodmntrol
than organizational setum. ODtimizationof container
mechanical handline: eauimnent :

729

FRANKEL:CONTAINERIZEDSHIPPING

shipping can only be achieved by integration which does


not necessarily implyclose 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 ofthe planning, scheduling,
balance of performance, continuity, and management information system applied. The availability of computers
with remote access offers potential for effective real-time
control and coordinationaccording 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 theanalysis

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 thanksSea-Land, Inc., for permission to use
company photographs and J. J. Henry, Inc., for their contribution of figures and the barge-carrying ship concept.
REFERENCES

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


Soc. Naval Architects and Marine Engrs. (SNAME) AM. Meeting, November 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, NationalAcademy of
Science, Washington, D. C., Contract DA 30-358-AMC421M.
[41 E. Frankel, Integrated transportation,
presented at the Chesepeake 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.
[11

Corrections
Measurement ofRF Properties of Materials, A Survey
Equation (4), page 1047, should have read
tan 6

Qs-(Cs + C)/C,.

(4)
J =

The term in Cs+C will cancel in the HartshornZWard


method using (lo), and C, the auxiliary capacitance shunting 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.

The Role of Ambipolar Phenomena m the M e c m of the


Post-Zero Current in Vacuum Circait Breakers
On page 2132, the left-hand side of the unnumbered
equation slightly above (62) should have read u i instead of
u,. The equation should have appeared as
u,

1.29[%7.

= ~ , v ,N

O . ~ Z KVT ~ [. ~ ]

[m

N,, exp 0.52 7 (rlvlot2).

The final conclusion of Section V is not affected.

Arithmetic Microsystems
thefor

The same error was unfortunately carried through (62)-(67),


which should have read
(NU),

N,

Synthesis
of

Fmctim Generators

On 1914,
page
subscripts of the variables u, y , and z
must be corrected in Fig. 4, in (15), and in the subsequent
(62) discussion of the product unit (PU) as follows.
Replace v i by u j ; y i by yi+j;zip by

Manuscript received January


1968.29,
Manuscript received February
1968.12,
Proc. ZEEE, vol. 54, pp. 191CL1919, December 1966.
M. F. Hoyaux, Proc. IEEE,vol.55,pp. 2123-2133, December1967.A.Aviiienis,

Você também pode gostar