design, simulation, and evaluation of automated container ...ioannou/2003update/d68.pdf · design,...

12 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 3, NO. 1, MARCH 2002

Design, Simulation, and Evaluation ofAutomated Container Terminals

Chin-I. Liu, Hossein Jula, and Petros A. Ioannou, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—Due to the boom in world trade, port authorities arelooking into ways of making existing facilities more efficient. Oneway to improve efficiency, increase capacity, and meet future de-mand is to use advanced technologies and automation in order tospeed up terminal operations. In this paper, we design, analyze,and evaluate four different automated container terminal (ACT)concepts. These concepts include automated container terminalsbased on the use of automated guidance vehicles (AGVs), a linearmotor conveyance system (LMCS), an overhead grid rail system(GR), and a high-rise automated storage and retrieval structure(AS/RS). We use future demand scenarios to design the character-istics of each terminal in terms of configuration, equipment andoperations. A microscopic simulation model is developed and usedto simulate each terminal system for the same operational scenarioand evaluate its performance. A cost model is used to evaluate thecost associated with each terminal concept. Our results indicatethat automation could improve the performance of conventionalterminals substantially and at a much lower cost. Among the fourconcepts considered the one based on automated guidance vehiclesis found to be the most effective in terms of performance and cost.

Index Terms—Automated container terminal (ACT), controllogic, cost model, simulation.

I. INTRODUCTION

WORLDWIDE container trade is growing at a 9.5% an-nual rate, and the U.S. rate is around 6%. It is antici-

pated that the growth in containerized trade continues as moreand more cargo are transferred from break-bulk to containers[1]. By 2010, it is expected that 90 percent of all liner freightwill be shipped in containers [2]. Every major port is expectedto double and possibly triple its cargo by 2020. To handle thisamount of freight and reduce the cost per “twenty-foot equiv-alent unit” (TEU) slot, shipping companies are forced to orderfaster, larger, and deeper ships. New massive container ships onone hand, and scarcity of the yard land on the other put an enor-mous pressure on port authorities to find and deploy effectivecontainer handling systems in order to increase the throughputof the current container terminals.

The application of information technologies, optimizationtechniques and improvement of management are consideredsolutions that do not require too much investment of physicalfacilities [11]–[13]. Reference [14] proposed an algorithm that

Manuscript received April 2001; revised March 1, 2002. The Guest Editor forthis paper was S. Washino.

C.-I. Liu was with the Electrical Engineering Department, University ofSouthern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA. He is now with Aplus FlashTechnology Inc., San Jose, CA 95131 USA (e-mail: [email protected]).

H. Jula and P. A. Ioannou are with the Electrical Engineering Department,University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA (e-mail:[email protected]; [email protected]).

Publisher Item Identifier S 1524-9050(02)04367-3.

minimizes the ship time at port by choosing an appropriateberth order. Reference [1] proposed solutions that range fromnew infrastructure inventions to improve and technology-assistoperating procedures. Reference [15] addressed a concept ofintegrated centers for the transshipment, storage, collection anddistribution of goods. References [16] and [17] demonstratedusing simulations that the throughput of the terminal couldbe doubled if automated guidance vehicles (AGVs) are used.A wide range of researches for improving terminal operationefficiency has been investigated, but most of them concentrateon the logistic and/or operation strategies. Few of them issuethe new design concept for the terminal to meet the futuredemand.

High-density, automated container terminals are potentialcandidates for improving the performance of container ter-minals and meeting the challenges of the future in marinetransportation. Recent advances in electronics, sensors, infor-mation technologies and automation make the developmentof fully automated terminals technically feasible. This isemphasized by the fact that the Port of Rotterdam is operatinga fully automated terminal using AGVs and automated yardcranes to handle containers whereas the Port of Singaporeand Port of Hamburg [10] are experimenting with similarideas. Sea-Land at the Port of Hong Kong implemented agrid rail (GR) system referred to as the GRAIL designed bySea-Land/August Design, Inc. This is a high-density manuallyoperated terminal where the containers are served by shuttlesmoving on an overhead grid rail system.

In this paper, we consider the design, simulation and evalua-tion of four ACTs. Based on future projections made by severalports, regarding container volume and the use of larger ships tobe served at terminals as fast as possible, we came up with de-sign characteristics an ACT needs to have in order to meet theprojected demand. A general layout of the ACT was developedwhere the interfaces of the storage yard with the ship, inlandtrucks, and trains as well as the desired storage capacity of theyard are specified in order to meet the projected demand. Thelayout is such that different concepts regarding the storage yardand the way containers are transferred between the storage yardand the ship/truck/train buffers can be considered without majorchanges to the configuration of the ACT.

A model is developed that is used to simulate all the oper-ations of the ACT down to the finest detail of the character-istics of each piece of equipment. The model is exercised foreach ACT system based on the same operational scenario, i.e.,based on the same incoming and outgoing traffic of containersat the interfaces. Performance criteria that include throughput inmoves/h/quay crane, throughput per acre, ship turn-around time,

1524-9050/02$17.00 © 2002 IEEE

LIU et al.: DESIGN, SIMULATION, AND EVALUATION OF CONTAINER TERMINALS 13

Fig. 1. General layout of automated container terminals.

and idle rate of equipment, etc., are used to evaluate each systemand make comparisons. A cost model is developed and used tocalculate the average cost for moving a container through theACT. The performance and cost criteria are used to comparethe pros and cons of each ACT system.

The paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the gen-eral layout of the proposed ACT, and calculates the number ofequipment and desired characteristics necessary to meet a pro-jected volume of container traffic. Section III presents the costand performance criteria and simulation and cost models thatare used to evaluate different ACT systems. Sections IV–VIIpresent the design, analysis and simulation of the proposed ACTsystems. In Section VIII, we compare and evaluate the proposedACT systems.

II. ACT AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The general layout of the ACT systems considered in thispaper is shown in Fig. 1. The Fig. 1 shows the interfaces of thegate, train and quay crane buffers with the storage yard. In thecase of the AGV-ACT (see also Section IV), the storage yard is acollection of stacks separated by roads where the containers arestacked and served by yard cranes. AGVs are used to transfercontainers within the terminal and the storage yard. In the caseof the LMCS-ACT the storage yard is the same as in the caseof the AGV-ACT system. The only difference is that shuttlesdriven on a linear motor conveyance system are used for thetransport of containers. For the GR-ACT and AS/RS-ACT, thecontainer storage yard in Fig. 1 is replaced with a number ofGR units and AS/RS modules. AGVs in these cases are used totransfer the containers between the GR (AS/RS) buffers and thegate, train and quay crane buffers.

The gate buffer is designed to interface between the manualoperations (inland side) and the automated ones (internalterminal side). It provides a physical separation between themanual and automated operations for safety reasons and alsofor efficiency. It helps reduce the turnaround time of trucks byproviding a temporary storage area for the export containersand the import containers waiting to be picked by trucks. Thetrain buffer is the area next to the train where loading andunloading between the AGVs and the train takes place.

The design of the ACT and its characteristics such as storagecapacity, number of gate lanes, number of berths, number ofquay cranes, etc., are based on the expected maximum volumeof containers to be processed through the terminal as well as onthe characteristics of the equipment. In the following subsec-tion, we consider the maximum expected volume of containers

arriving or departing by ships, trucks and trains in order to de-sign the various components of the terminal and choose the ap-propriate equipment.

A. Design Considerations

The post Panamax ships have capacities of 6000 TEUs, whilethe largest ships today are 17 containers wide and capable ofover 8000 TEUs. It is important to note that ships with 20 con-tainers wide could be accommodated by major ports to makethem viable in the near future [5]. A current service-windowexpectation for mega-ships (over 6000 TEUs) is 48 h [1]. Ac-cording to the plan for the Port of Rotterdam, the North Westterminal will be able to accommodate container ships of 8000TEUs. It is expected that ten ships will arrive every week (85%loaded) to this terminal. If the maximum in port time is restrictedto 24 h, two berths for these ships with a capacity of 250 moves/hwill be required. This can be accomplished using five cranes perberth, each with a capacity of 50 moves/h [6]. Using similar pro-jections as for the Port of Rotterdam we come up with the fol-lowing design consideration for the proposed ACT systems.

Design Consideration 1:The ACT will serve ships capableof carrying 8000 TEUs. The ships will arrive every 24 h 85%loaded and should be served in less than 24 h. In our design weassume a desired ship turnaround time of about 16 h.

From the Port of Long Beach, U.S.A., approximately 15%of the container traffic is carried directly via rail with no truckmovement involved. From the Port of Los Angeles, U.S.A., 55%of containers are intermodal, and are destined for inland regionsvia rail. However, the port has estimated that approximately onehalf of that number is first moved by truck to the rail yards. ThePort of Los Angeles estimates that by 2020, up to 40% of in-termodal containers will be moved via on-dock rail, while 60%will continue to be moved via trucks [7]. We use the projectionof the Port of Los Angeles to come up with the following designconsideration for the proposed ACT systems.

Design Consideration 2:About 60% of the containers willarrive at the ACT by trucks and about 40% will arrive by rail.

Reference [3] presents various container arrival patterns andindicate the proportion of containers that arrive( to )days before the cutoff time. Some ports advertise cutoff timesfor each ship, after which cargo for that ship is no longer re-ceived in an effort to meet ship departure schedules. For ex-ample, for some ships, containers start trickling in 6 days beforethe cutoff time with a maximum arrival rate the second day be-fore the cutoff time. That is 5%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%, and 20%of container arrive during the six, five, four, three, two, and oneday, respectively, before the cutoff time. According to data fromthe Port of Rotterdam, at the North West terminal the “time instack” (stay time) for import containers is limited to three days,and for the export containers is limited to two days [6]. In ourdesign we decided to adopt the data from the Port of Rotterdamand use reference [6] to come with a design consideration forthe arrival pattern of containers relative to the arrival time of theship.

Design Consideration 3:The export container arrival pat-tern relative to the ship they are bound to is 0.2, 0.5, and 0.3meaning that 20% of containers arrive during the second daybefore the ship arrives, 50% arrive during the first day before


the ship arrives, and 30% arrive the same day and early enoughto be loaded while the ship is at the berth.

There is a tendency to keep the import containers in thestorage yard longer than the export ones. In general imports areretrieved quickly during the first week after the ship arrival,and then at a much slower rate. Castilho [8] claims that eachship carries different categories of containers that are retrievedat different rates. Refrigerated cargo is often picked up imme-diately after it is discharged from the ship. It is also importantto retrieve intermodal containers from the terminal quickly inorder to keep a train schedule, while some domestic containersbound for inland warehouses may be left at the terminal fora longer time to take advantage of the storage space availableat the terminal and relieves space concerns at the destinationwarehouse. With these constraints and current practices inmind and the trend of using IT and improved scheduling anddispatching techniques in the future, we adopted the Port ofRotterdam numbers [6] and came up with the following designconsideration.

Design Consideration 4:The import containers are retrievedduring three days, with retrieval rates 0.5, 0.3, and 0.2 meaning50% of the containers are taken away by trucks and trains duringthe day the ship was served, 30% the second day and 20% duringthe third day. Out of the 50% of the containers that are takenaway the same day, 30% are taken away directly without anyintermediate storage and 20% are temporarily stored in the yardbefore taken away.

In many of today’s ports, trucks operate in cycles of less than24 h. There is a trend however to increase the time to close to24 h in order to meet the demand and avoid traffic delays inthe inland transportation system. This could be proven crucialin areas such as the Los Angeles Metropolitan area where high-ways and surface streets during peak areas are highly congested.In our design we assume the following.

Design Consideration 5:The trucks/trains of the ACT willoperate in cycles of 24 h.

The design considerations 1–5 are used in the following sub-sections for designing the characteristics of the ACT system.The characteristics of the equipment that is specific to each ACTconcept will be developed when the particular ACT concept isaddressed in subsequent sections.

B. StorageCapacity

Given the design considerations 1–5 the storage capacity ofthe terminal should be large enough to accommodate all the con-tainers that are required to be stored. From consideration threethe average number of export containers that have to be storedin the terminal is about 6120 TEUs per day. From considera-tion four the average number of import containers to be storedis about 9520 TEUs per day. This gives a total of 15 640 TEUsrequired storage capacity per day. Therefore, a storage capacitygreater than 15 640 TEUs will meet the demand and operationalrequirements of the ACT as characterized by the design consid-erations 1–5. It is desirable however to have a storage capacityhigher than the 15 640 TEUs in order to meet emergencies suchas military deployment situations and others, have the flexibilityof putting an additional berth or even serving larger ships in thefuture. Given these considerations the desired storage capacity

is taken to be about 45% higher than the one dictated by the de-sign considerations 1–5, i.e., about 22 000 TEUs.

C. Number of Berths and Quay Cranes

The number of berths and quay cranes to meet the design con-siderations 1–5 depends on the speed of the quay cranes. Themaximum physical capacity of a quay crane is assumed to be 50moves/h[6]. We assume that quay cranes can reach their max-imum capacity when they are operating in a single mode (i.e.,either loading or unloading), while the average of 42 moves/his assumed for double mode (i.e., combined loading and un-loading). A 15% variance to the maximum capacity of the quaycranes is considered in our study due to the uncertainties in-volved in the quay crane operations. The number of quay cranesrequired to serve the ship with 3400 40-ft containers is given bythe relationship

where denotes the ship turnaround time and denotesthe number of quay cranes. In design consideration one, weassumed a desired ship turnaround time of about 16 h, whichmeans that five quay cranes are required to meet the expectedloading/unloading demand. Since five quay cranes in a singleberth can meet the demand, the number of berths can be kept asone.

D. Number of Lanes at the Gate

The gate must be designed in such a manner as to provide therequired number of lanes needed at peak. Since both truck ar-rival and service time at the gate are random, we model the gateoperations as an queuing system, where, ,and denote the mean arrival rate and mean service rate ofthe trucks and the number of lanes at the gate, respectively. Themean service time of a truck at the inbound gates is assumedthree minutes and at the outbound gates, two minutes. The min-imum number of lanes can be determined from the inequality:

. It is assumed that 2040 export containers arrive bytrucks per day. Some of these trucks pick up import containers,and the rest leave the terminal without any load. In addition,empty trucks arrive at the gate to pick up import containers. Wehave assumed that the number of empty trucks that arrive at thegate to pick up containers is equal to the number of trucks thatarrive loaded and leave empty. We have assumed that 40% ofthe incoming loaded trucks leave empty which corresponds to816 trucks. Therefore, the total number of trucks that are ex-pected to arrive at the gate for loading and/or unloading per dayis trucks/day.

By assuming a 24-h operation we find that the truck arrivalrate is equal to h h min. Thenfor , we have , which impliesthat a minimum of six lanes is required in the inbound-gate inorder to meet the demand. The mean service time at the out-bound-gates is assumed to be two minutes which givesper min. The arrival rate at the outbound gate is equal to

h h min which is the same as the ar-rival rate at the inbound gates. Since, ,the minimum number of lanes in the outbound-gate required to


meet the demand is equal to four. The number of six lanes, fourlanes for the inbound and outbound gate, respectively, are theminimum possible. As the above inequalities are tight, the useof six lanes, four at the gate will lead to a high utilization of thegate during the assumed scenario. Small deviations from the as-sumed arrival and departure rates may cause saturation at thegates that lead to congestion on both sides of the gates. In orderto avoid such situations we increase the number lanes for theinbound-gate to nine and for the outbound-gate to six.

E. Number of Yard Cranes at the Buffers

We assume that the yard cranes used at the gate buffer havethe following characteristics.

The yard crane’s speed is 5 mi/h. It takes 15 s to line up withthe stack, and an average time of 65 s to unload and load anAGV. These characteristics give an average speed of about 36moves/h/crane calculated by assumings/move where an average of 20 s are used for the lateral mo-tion of the crane along the stack. It is also assumed that thesecranes are gantry cranes of the same type used in the yard. Theyare able to go over stacks of containers (up to four containershigh) and load and unload vehicles from both sides of the stack.The number of containers handled by the yard cranes at thebuffer/day is calculated as follows:

number of containers (40 ft) that arrive by trucks2040.number of containers that arrive to the buffer from the yard2040.number of containers to be loaded on trucks that arrive empty816. Therefore the maximum total number of containers to

be processed by the yard cranes at the buffer per day iscontainers or containers/h.

This implies that the number of yard cranes needed to meet thisdemand is equal to , i.e., six yard cranes will meetthe demand at the gate buffer. The use of six yard cranes givesan expected average throughput at the buffer ofmoves/h/yard crane.

The number of yard cranes to serve the train buffer is calcu-lated similarly. The number of containers to be processed at thetrain buffer is 1360/day or containers/h. Foran assumed crane speed of 36 moves/h we have that

cranes are needed. Choosing two cranes for the train buffer,the expected maximum demand is guaranteed to be met. In suchcase, the expected average throughput at the buffer is

moves/h/crane. For the yard cranes, we assumed a varianceof 10% of the average speed in order to account for the random-ness in the operation.

F. Operational Scenario

The operational scenario is based on the projected demand(design considerations) and will be used to evaluate differentACT systems. It is summarized in Tables I–V.

III. PERFORMANCE/COST CRITERIA AND MODELS

The goal of every terminal is to perform efficiently and main-tain competitiveness by providing low cost and high quality ser-vices to customers. In this section, we present the performanceand cost criteria that are used to evaluate the ACT systems. The

TABLE IARRIVAL RATES OFCONTAINERS

TABLE IINUMBER OF EXPORT CONTAINERS, BOUND FOR ONE SHIP,

ARRIVED BY TRUCKS AND TRAINS

TABLE IIICUMULATIVE NUMBERS OF EXPORT CONTAINERS,

ARRIVING BY TRUCKS AND TRAINS EVERYDAY

TABLE IVNUMBER OF IMPORT CONTAINERS, UNLOADED FROM ONE SHIP

AND RETRIEVED BY TRUCKS AND TRAINS

TABLE VCUMULATIVE NUMBERS OF IMPORT CONTAINERS THAT ARE

RETRIEVED BY TRUCKS AND TRAINS EVERYDAY

average cost for a container to go through the terminal is usedas the criterion for cost comparisons and analysis.

A. Performance Criteria

The performance criteria that are used in this study to evaluateand compare different ACT systems are summarized as follows:

Throughput:Number of moves/h/quay crane.Throughput Per Acre:Throughput/acre.Ship Turnaround Time:Time it takes for a ship to get

loaded/unloaded in hours.


Fig. 2. AGV-ACT layout.

Truck Turnaround Time:Average time it takes for a truck toenter the gate, get served, and exit the gate, minus the actualprocessing time at the gate.

Gate Utilization:Percent of time the gate is serving the in-coming and outgoing container traffic.

Container Dwell Time:Average time a container spends inthe container terminal before taken away from the terminal.

Idle Rate of Equipment:Percent of time the equipment is idle.

B. Cost Model

The average cost per container (ACC) being processedthrough a terminal is among the most important cost measuresconsidered by port authority [9]. It provides a basis for eco-nomic evaluation of container terminal operations. We adoptedthis measure to evaluate and compare the cost associated witheach proposed ACT system. Costs associated with containerhandling and storage operations within a terminal can beclassified into three categories.

— Cost of Locations:Cost of locations where activities(operations) take place, e.g., storage area, berth, etc.

— Cost of Equipment:Cost of yard equipment, e.g., yardcranes, quay cranes, AGVs, etc.

— Labor Costs.

The ACC is equal to the sum of the total annual cost for ac-tivities, equipment and labor divided by the total annual numberof containers that are processed by the terminal [10]. The costmodel is simulated on an excel spreadsheet and is not includeddue to space limitations. The details of the cost model can befound in [10].

IV. ACT USING AGVs

Fig. 2, shows the basic configuration of the proposedAGV-ACT system. In order to meet the desired storagecapacity of about 22 000 TEUs [6] the size and layout ofthe storage is chosen according as follows: The storage yardconsists of 36 stacks of containers and is divided into twosections. The import storage area where the import containersare stored and the export storage for export containers. Eachstack has 288 containers when containers are stacked fourhigh. It leads to the maximum capacity of the storage yard be10 368 containers, i.e., 20 736 TEUs. In addition to the storageyard, containers can also be stored at the gate buffer whosemaximum storage capacity is 1728 TEUs giving a total storagecapacity for the terminal of 22 464 TEUs, which is close to thedesired capacity, and the terminal dimensions are calculated tobe ft (70.29 acres).

Two types of roads are used in the proposed container ter-minal: transit roads, and working roads. The transit roads aredenoted by dashed lines and the working roads by solid lines.No loading or unloading takes place along the transit roads asthese roads are used by AGVs to get to different points in theterminal. Loading and unloading take place along the workingroads. The vertical four-lane transit roads allow direct accessbetween the gate buffer and the berth in order to deliver con-tainers between them without intermediate storage in the yard.A similar access is provided in the rail side.

The terminal operates as follows: A truck arrives at the gate, itchecks in and moves along the gate buffer where it gets unloadedby a yard crane. The truck is either empty or it gets loaded againat the buffer before exiting gates. The yard crane at the gatebuffer loads the container directly to an AGV or if an AGV isnot available it stores the container at the buffer temporarily. An


Fig. 3. Different tasks assigned to AGVs.

export container loaded to an AGV at the gate buffer is eithertransferred directly to a quay crane to be loaded on the ship, orit is transferred to a particular stack to be unloaded by a yardcrane and stored in the yard. Similarly, an AGV loaded with animport container by a quay crane transfers the container to theyard for storage or to the gate or the train buffer.

The main characteristics of the AGV-ACT system are thesame as those of the general ACT described in Section II. Whatis specific to the AGV-ACT system are the number of yardcranes needed in the storage yard and the number of AGVs toperform the various tasks in order to meet the expected containervolume as described in Section II. Before we choose the numberof equipment for the various tasks another design aspect of theyard are the rules and logic that controls the motion of the AGVsin the yard [10]. The AGVs have to follow certain traffic rulesand protocols in order to avoid collision, possible deadlocks andcongestion in the yard and complete tasks in an efficient way.

A. AGV Control Logic and Traffic Rules

The transfer of containers between different transportationmodes and storage area to be carried out by the AGVs in theAGV-ACT system can be divided into three tasks as shown inFig. 3.

Task 1:Under this task the following subtasks are to be per-formed: 1) transfer of containers between the quay crane andgate buffers; 2) transfer of containers between the quay cranebuffers and the storage area; and 3) transfer of containers be-tween the quay crane and train buffers.

Task 2:Under this task containers are transferred between thegate buffer and the storage area.

Task 3:Under this task the containers are transferred betweenthe train buffer and the storage area.

The terminal could be viewed as a network of intersectionswith nodeswhere loading and unloading takes place. In ourdesign the AGVs are allowed to travel on the right lane of atwo-lane road in their moving direction. Therefore, once thepick-up and drop-off points are assigned to a particular AGV,thepathis uniquely determined by using the intermediate nodes.The control logic algorithm must be able to resolve any possibleconflict between AGVs. Aconflictbetween two or more AGVsmay occur during the following situations.

1) Arriving at an intersection from different path segmentsat the same time. Asegmentis defined as a part of a road

Fig. 4. Possible directions of AGVs reached at, and passing through anintersection.

located between two adjacent nodes. To resolve this typeof conflict, we use a “modified first come first pass” pro-tocol [10] as described in the next paragraph. Althoughthe protocol is complicated, it can resolve the conflict inan efficient way by allowing many vehicles to pass the in-tersection without collision.

Fig. 4 shows all possible moves an AGV can makewhen approaching and leaving an intersection. Theincoming directions toward the intersection are labeledeast, west, south, and north based on the direction ofarriving at the intersection. The outgoing directions arelabeled right, left, and straight, based on the directionof the turn the AGV would make when leaving theintersection. For instance, (east, right) means that anAGV is approaching the intersection from the east andwill make a right turn.

Table VI shows the directions of the possible conflictsbased on the timing of AGVs’ arrival at an intersection.For instance, if an (east, straight) AGV arrives first, thenthe (west, left) and (south, straight) AGVs have to stopuntil the first AGV finishes its maneuver, i.e., clears theintersection. If two or more AGVs arrive at the intersec-tion at exactly the same time then the right of the way isgiven randomly.

2) Traveling along the same path with different speeds. An-other possible situation where collisions may occur iswhen AGVs are traveling along the same path with dif-ferent speeds. This situation is possible as loaded AGVsare assumed to have a lower speed than the ones that carryno load. To prevent this kind of collision, we use lowspeed zone(s) in the portion(s) of the transit lanes wheretwo or more AGVs with different traveling speeds mayexist [10]. When a particular AGV enters the low speedzone, it simply reduces its speed down to that of the loadedAGV. For the container yard under consideration, the lowspeed zone is the portion of the horizontal transit lane inFig. 2, which is located adjacent to the berth area.

3) An AGV stops ahead in the moving direction. The inter-vehicle spacing between the AGVs traveling in the samedirection in the same lane is chosen to be 45 ft so that ifa particular AGV stops in order to perform a task or due


TABLE VIFIRST ARRIVING AGV AND THE APPROACHINGAGVS THAT NEED TO STOP TOAVOID COLLISION AT INTERSECTION

Fig. 5. Control logic of AGVs for task 1.

to an emergency the following AGVs have enough timeto stop without colliding with each other.

The control logic that dictates the motion of the AGVs inorder to perform tasks 1–3 without collision, conflicts and dead-locks for the proposed AGV-ACT systems is described by theflowcharts shown in Figs. 5 and 6.

B. Characteristics of Equipment

The characteristics of equipment used by the AGV-ACTsystem are considered to be the same as those described in Sec-tion II for the general ACT layout. The additional equipmentspecific to the AGV-ACT system is that associated with thestorage yard and is discussed below.


Fig. 6. Control logic of AGVs for tasks 2 and 3.

Yard Cranes for Import, Export Storage Yard: The yardcrane’s speed is assumed to be 5 mi/h. It takes 15 s to line upwith the stack, and an average time of 45 s to unload or load anAGV. We assume that one yard crane is used for each stack thatis a total of 36 yard cranes are used in the yard. The assumptionof one crane/stack is made mainly to simplify the control logicof AGVs and cranes.

Speed of AGVs:We assumed that an empty AGV travels witha speed of 10 mi/h while a loaded AGV travels with the speedof 5 mi/h. These speeds are compatible with current AGVs usedfor the same application at the Port of Rotterdam.

Number of AGVs:The minimum number of AGVs that arerequired to meet the demand of the AGV-ACT system is de-termined by exercising the simulation model of the terminalfor different combinations of AGVs. The objective is to havea sufficient number of AGVs to feed the quay cranes fastenough so that the cranes operate close to their maximum ca-pacity. This in turn will guarantee that the ship turnaroundtime is minimized. We assume that the system is loaded,i.e., there are always containers ready to be processed by theAGVs at each buffer. While this scenario may not be true allthe time, the system should have sufficient number of AGVsto deal with such possible extreme situation. The results of thesimulations are presented in Fig. 7.

In Fig. 7, the number of AGVs for tasks 1, 2, and 3 satisfy theratio6 : 3 : 1. For example, the simulation run that has 24 AGVsserving the quay crane buffer is the same simulation run for 12

AGVs serving the gate buffer and four AGVs serving the trainbuffer.

As shown in Fig. 7(a), 48 AGVs are sufficient to meet themaximum expected capacity of the quay cranes, which is 42moves /h/quay crane. Fig. 7(b) and (c) show the throughputs ofthe cranes at the gate and train buffers. The throughput increasesas the number of AGVs increases. The number of AGVs foreach task is calculated by choosing the combination with theminimum total number of AGVs that meet the expected max-imum demand for tasks 1, 2, and 3. Considering that the max-imum expected average throughput of the cranes at the gateand train buffers is 34 and 28.3 moves/h per crane, it followsfrom Fig. 7 that the combination (48, 26, 6)—i.e., 48 AGVs fortask 1, 26 AGVs for task 2, and 6 AGVs for task 3, a total of80 AGVs—will meet the demand for the AGV-ACT system.

C. Performance and Cost Analysis

The characteristics of the AGV-ACT system are used asinputs to the simulation model together with the arrival/de-parture patterns of containers brought in and taken out byships/trucks/trains as shown in Tables I–V. We assume thatthe patterns of container arrivals and departures to/from theterminal by ship, trucks and train are repeated every 24 hso that a 24-h simulation was sufficient to make projectionsabout annual productivity. The results of a one-day (24-hour)simulation are shown in Table VII.

The ship turnaround time obtained from the simulations is16.81 h, which is close to desired one of 16 h. We should note


Fig. 7. (a) Throughput of quay crane. (b) Throughput of buffer crane. (c) Throughput of train crane versus the number of AGVs used.

TABLE VIIAGV-ACT: PERFORMANCERESULTS FORONE-DAY (24-h) SIMULATION

that for a maximum speed of 42 moves/h/crane the best shipturnaround time possible is 16.2 h. The difference between thesimulated and the best possible ship turnaround time is mainlydue to the variance introduced in simulations for the character-istics of the quay cranes and other equipment.

It should be noted that the idle rate of the cranes is calcu-lated over a period of 24 h. Since the ship was at the berthfor only 16.81 h, it means that the quay cranes were idled for

h, which is 30.0% of the time that is close tothe 31.73% obtained from simulations indicating that while theship was at the birth the quay cranes were operating very closeto maximum capacity. Similarly, after the ship is serviced, theAGVs responsible for the task of serving the ship will be idleuntil the next ship arrives about seven hours later. This accountsfor most of the 36.3% idle rate for the AGVs. The throughputof the terminal is close to the maximum possible indicating thatthe AGVs met the service demand imposed by the quay cranes’speeds.

The idle rate of the yard cranes was found to be high. This isdue to two reasons. First, reshuffling has not been considered inour simulation. The second reason is the number of yard craneshas not been optimized. Instead, one yard crane was assumedfor each stack in order to simplify the operations and the controllogic of the AGVs. A smaller number of yard cranes could beused to achieve the same throughput in case of the release of theone yard crane per stack restriction. In addition, the simulationresults obtained together with the characteristics of the terminalare used to calculate the average cost of moving a containerthrough the terminal, i.e., the ACC value, by exercising the costmodel for the AGV-ACT system. A result of ACC equal to $77.3dollars is obtained [10].

V. AUTOMATED CONTAINER TERMINAL USING A

LINEAR MOTOR CONVEYANCE SYSTEM

Linear motor conveyance systems (LMCS) are among thetechnologies recently been considered for cargo handling. A


TABLE VIIILMCS-ACT: PERFORMANCERESULTS FORONE-DAY SIMULATION

prototype of a linear motor conveyance system has been con-structed and successfully tested in Eurokai Container Terminal,Hamburg [10]. LMCS have several attractive characteristics:The motors are very reliable, and last a long time. A system suchas this could be ideally suited for port and terminal operations.

A. Terminal Layout

The LMCS yard layout is identical to that of the AGV-ACTsystem of Fig. 2 except that the paths are pre-built guide ways.For instance, a two-lane road in the AGV-ACT system becomesa two-guide way tracks that allow shuttles to travel in oppositedirections.

The AGVs are replaced with shuttles that are moving on thelinear motors conveyance system. The shuttles can be consid-ered as AGVs moving on a fixed path. Consequently the controllogic of the shuttles is similar to that of AGVs described in theprevious subsection and is not repeated.

B. Characteristics of Equipment

The characteristics of equipment used for the LMCS-ACTsystem to meet the demand are the same as those of the generalACT described in Section II. The characteristics and the numberof yard cranes are the same as in the AGV-ACT system. Thespeed of empty shuttles and loaded shuttles are assumed to bethe same as those in AGVS. We assumed that at each cornerof the guide way, it takes five seconds for the shuttle to changeits direction of movement. Despite this change the number ofshuttles needed to meet the demand was calculated to be thesame as the number of AGVs used in the AGV-ACT system.

C. Performance and Cost Analysis

A simulation model for the LMCS-ACT system is developedand used to simulate the terminal based on the operation sce-nario given in Section II. The results are shown in Table VIII.Since the terminal yard layout, control logic of vehicles, speedof the vehicles, and the characteristics of the yard equipment areexactly the same for both AGV-ACT and LMCS-ACT systems,the performance of the two terminals is almost identical. Thedifference is that AGVs are moving freely in the yard, whileLMCS shuttles are traveling on fixed guide paths. The differ-ences between the AGV-ACT and the LMCS-ACT systems are

in the cost, the ACC for this system is about $147. The differ-ence in cost comes mainly from the cost of installing a LMCS inthe terminal, since the infrastructure cost of LMCS is high [10].

VI. ACT USING A GRID RAIL (GR) SYSTEM

The concept of loading and unloading containers in the yardusing overhead rail and shuttles is another attractive way ofutilizing yard space more efficiently. It uses linear inductionmotors, located on overhead shuttles that move along a mono-rail above the terminal. The containers are stacked beneath themonorail and can be accessed and brought to the ship as needed.The concept of the overhead grid rail (GR) system was used todesign, simulate and evaluate a GR-ACT system [2].

A. GR-ACT: Terminal Layout

The GR-ACT system shown in Fig. 8 is similar to that of theAGV-ACT system with the only difference that the storage yardis replaced with 8 GR units. The use of several GR units insteadof a large one is done for robustness and reliability purposesas well as for simplifying the operations as explained in [2].Eight units is chosen so that the storage capacity of the GR-ACTsystem is the same as that of the AGV-ACT and LMCS-ACTsystems. Due to the high density of the GR units, however, lessland is needed to obtain the same storage capacity. As a resultthe total size of the terminal is ft (63.36 acres)versus 70.29 acres for the AGV-ACT and LMCS-ACT systemsfor the same storage capacity of about 22 000 TEUs.

The 8 GR units communicate with the other parts of the yardthrough the GR gate/train (G/T) buffers: 1a, 2a,, 8a and theGR quay buffers: 1b, 2b, , 8b. There are vertical transit roadsbetween each two units. These transit roads are used for transfer-ring containers—using AGVs—to/from the gate buffer directlyto the berth area. The containers that have to stay in the yardare stored in the GR units. The units number 1, 2 and 7, 8 areused for storing import containers to be taken away by trucksand trains. The units 3, 4 and 5, 6 are used to store export con-tainers brought in by trucks and trains. Note that in each unitonly one operation can take place at each time. For example theshuttles within GR unit 1 can serve either the buffer 1a or 1b butnot both at the same time. The interaction of the GR unit bufferswith AGVs is as follows.


Fig. 8. The GR automated container terminal.

One AGV in one cycle goes from gate or train buffer withan export container, unloads the container at the G/T buffer (ei-ther 3a or 4a) and travels empty to the G/T buffer (either 1a or2a) where it is loaded by an import container and travels backloaded to the gate or train buffer. The AGVs at the rest four unitsare operating as follows: When the ship is present, an AGV inone cycle goes from the quay buffer (either 5b or 6b) with an ex-port container, unloads the container at the quay crane, loads animport container from the quay crane and travels to the GR quaybuffer (either 7b or 8b) where it unloads the container to the quaybuffer and travels empty back to the GR buffers 5b or 6b. Whenthe ship is not present then the units 5, 6, 7, and 8 operate similarto the units 1, 2, 3, 4, i.e., one AGV in one cycle goes from thegate or train buffer with an export container, unloads the con-tainer at the G/T buffer (either 5a or 6a) and travels empty to theG/T buffer (either 7a or 8a) where it is loaded by an import con-tainer and travels back loaded to the gate or train buffer.

B. Control Logic of AGVs for the GR-ACT System

The tasks to be performed by the AGVs in the GR-ACTsystem are the same as tasks 1–3 given in Section III for theAGV-ACT system. The only difference is that the GR unitsare replacing the storage yard (see Fig. 3). The control logicof the AGVs for the GR-ACT system is similar to that of theAGV-ACT system. The difference is that the AGVs in theGR-ACT system do not have to travel long distance inside thestorage area, (exception is the case of JIT loading/unloadingoperations) since they only have to serve the buffers of theGR units. Because of that, the design of logic is simplifiedby assuming the same speed for loaded/unloaded AGVs. Inparticular all traffic roads are designed to be low speed zones.

C. Characteristics of Equipment

According to [2], the characteristics of the equipment associ-ated with the GR units are as follows.

Speed of Loading and Unloading the GR Buffers:It is as-sumed that it takes 30 s with a 10% variance to load or unloada container to/from an AGV.

Number of Shuttles:The number of overhead shuttles in eachGR unit is 15.

Speed of AGVs:The speed of AGVs serving the GR buffersand the quay cranes, gate and train buffers is 5 mi/h (loaded orempty).

Number of AGVs:Simulations were used to calculate the min-imum number of AGVs that are needed in order to meet the de-mand in the GR-ACT system. In Fig. 9 the number of AGVsfor tasks 1, 2, and 3 satisfy the ratio6 : 3 : 1. The figure showsthat the combination (42, 21, 6)—i.e., 42 AGVs for task 1, 21for task 2 and 6 for task 3, a total of 69 AGVs—can meet therequired demand for the GR-ACT system.

D. Performance and Cost Analysis

The characteristics of the GR-ACT system together withthose for each GR unit developed in [2] are fed into thesimulation model for the GR-ACT system and simulated forthe operational scenario. By choosing an optimum numberof shuttles and using a new dispatching algorithm to assigncontainers to shuttles within the unit [2]. The results of thesimulation are shown in Table IX.

The simulation results indicate that the GR-ACT system per-forms efficiently by having the quay cranes operate close tomaximum capacity and keeping the ship turnaround time close


Fig. 9. (a) Throughput of quay crane. (b) Throughput of buffer crane. (c) Throughput of train crane versus number of AGVs used.

TABLE IXGR-ACT: PERFORMANCERESULTS FORONE-DAY (24-HOUR) SIMULATION

to the desired one. Similarly, the yard cranes at the train and gatebuffer worked close to maximum capacity. The idle rate of thequay cranes is over a 24-h period. This means that 31.38% ofthe time the quay cranes were idle because the ship was not atthe berth. The same goes for the AGVs dealing with task 1. TheACC obtained for this system is $90.10 [10].

VII. ACT U SING AUTOMATED STORAGE/RETRIEVAL

SYSTEMS (AS/RS)

AS/RS with high-density storage capabilities could playan important role in the future container terminal activities.It can be build on a small piece of land and add capacityby increasing the number of floors. The promise in the highproductivity of the AS/RS lies in its capability to have accessto any container within the storage structure randomly, withouthaving to reshuffle containers.

An AS/RS module has four major components: storage andretrieval machine (SRM), rack structure, horizontal materialhandling system, and planning and controls. The SRM simul-taneously moves horizontally and vertically to reach a certainlocation in the rack structure. The original design of the AS/RSmodule consisted of only two racks served by an SRM [8]. Itwas found that one SRM for two racks was more than needed toachieve a certain input/output throughput. In an effort to meetdemand and at the same time keep the cost low we modified theoriginal design so that one SRM can serve six racks. Therefore,

in each AS/RS module served by a single SRM we have sixrack structures that are built to store containers. The SRM isdesigned to move from one set of two racks to another withinthe module. Each module has two buffers, one on each side.Each buffer has two slots, one for outgoing containers to bepicked up by AGVs and one for incoming containers brought inby AGVs. These buffers are referred to as pick-up and delivery(P/D) buffers.

A. Terminal Layout

In this concept, we replace the import and export containerstorage area in the AGV-ACT system by AS/RS modules. Asshown in Fig. 10, the number of AS/RS modules is chosen sothat the storage capacity is close to 22 000 TEUs. Assumingthat each rack can store 120 ( cells) containers and eachAS/RS module consists of six racks, the storage capacity re-quirement of 10 368 FEU’s can be achieved with 15 AS/RSmodules. The total storage capacity of the AS/RS-ACT systemis equal to TEUs which together withthe 1728 TEUs that could be stored at the gate buffer it gives atotal possible storage capacity of 23 328 TEUs and the dimen-sion of AS/RS-ACT system ft (54.45 acres).

The lanes adjacent to the gate buffer and P/D buffers and theroads adjacent to the train/AGV interface are considered to beworking roads, while all the other roads are transit roads. Thetwo transit roads located on both sides of the AS/RS structure


Fig. 10. Automated terminal yard layout using AS/RS.

Fig. 11. (a) Throughput of quay crane. (b) Throughput of buffer crane. (c) Throughput of train crane versus number of AGVs.

allow the direct transfer of containers that are not required tobe stored in the yard. The containers that need to be stored (re-trieved) in (from) the AS/RS structure are transferred by AGVsfrom (to) quay crane, gate and train buffers. One AGV in onecycle carries an export container from the gate buffer to anAS/RS module P/D buffer where it unloads the container andgets loaded with an import container that it transfers back to thegate buffer. Similarly, one AGV in one cycle goes from the bertharea to a specific P/D buffer (on the ship side) with an importcontainer, delivers it to the P/D buffer, gets loaded with an ex-port container, which it transfers back to the berth area.

B. Control Logic for AGVs

The control logic that dictates the motion of the AGVs withinthe AS/RS-ACT system is similar to the case of the GR-ACT

system. Similarly the tasks performed by the AGVs are the sameas indicated in Fig. 3.

C. Characteristics of Equipment

According to [4], the characteristics specific to theAS/RS-ACT system are the following.

Speed of loading/unloading at the P/D buffers:In [4] the op-erations within the AS/RS module were optimized so that at theP/D buffers an AGV can be served (load it and unload it) within45 s with 10% variance.

Speed of AGVs:The speed of AGVs is 5 mi/h (loaded orempty).

Number of AGVs:The AS/RS-ACT system was simulatedwith different combinations of AGVs performing tasks 1–3 in


TABLE XAS/RS-ACT: PERFORMANCERESULTS FORONE-DAY

TABLE XIPERFORMANCE ANDCOST RESULTS FORDIFFERENTCONCEPTS

order to calculate the minimum number of AGVs that is nec-essary to keep the quay cranes operating close to maximumcapacity. Fig. 11 shows that the combination (36, 14, 5)—i.e.,36 AGVs for task 1, 14 for task 2, and 5 for task 3, a total of55 AGVs—can meet the required demand for the AS/RS-ACTsystem.

D. Performance Analysis

The characteristics of the AS/RS-ACT system are fed intothe simulation model, which was then exercised for the opera-tional scenario presented in Section II. The results of the simula-tion are shown in Table X. The performance of the AS/RS-ACTsystem is comparable with that obtained with the other concepts.The throughput per acre, however, is higher due to the less landrequired by the system. The ACC obtained for this system is$102.24 [10].

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The simulation results are summarized in Table XI. Sincethe number of equipment and vehicles in each ACT system ischosen so that the ACT system can meet the same demand it isnot surprising that the performance for each system is almost

identical for all measures with the exception of the throughputper acre. The highest throughput per acre was obtained for theAS/RS-ACT system since it requires less land to be imple-mented for the same storage capacity. Next comes the GR-ACTsystem that also requires less land for the same storage ca-pacity. All the ACT systems operated close to the maximumpossible capacity of the quay cranes that was assumed to be 42moves/h/crane for combined loading/unloading. This is muchhigher than the average of about 28 moves/h measured in manyof today’s conventional terminals.

The significant difference between the various systems is theaverage cost per container. The LMCS-ACT was found to bethe most expensive due to the high infrastructure cost associ-ated with the LMCS. The second most expensive system is theAS/RS-ACT, due to the infrastructure cost of the AS/RS struc-ture. The AGV-ACT system was found to be the most cost ef-fective followed by the GR-ACT. As the cost of land increases,however, our model shows that after a certain land cost theAS/RS-ACT becomes more attractive.

Our results demonstrate that automation could dramati-cally increase throughput and reduce cost. For example theAGV-ACT system could increase capacity from the averagecurrent values of 28 to 40 moves/h/quay crane and reduce the


ACC value from the range of $140–$200 in most of today’sterminals to $77.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank Prof. K. Vukadinovic,H. Pourmohammadi, Dr. A. Asef-Vaziri, P. Wright of Hanjin,P. Ford of Sea-Land Mearsk, Port of Long Beach, andCapt. T. Lombard of American Presidents Lines (APL) fornumerous discussions regarding terminal operations, terminaltechnologies and cost analysis. They would also like to thankS. Wheatley of CCDoTT, B. Aird of MARAD and K. Seamanof USTRANSCOM for their inputs and constructive com-ments. Also, they would like to acknowledge the kind supportof August Design, Inc. In particular, they would like to thankE. Dougherty, the President of August Design, Inc., for sup-plying them with data and useful information, commenting ontheir work and making himself available for discussions andmeetings.

REFERENCES

[1] N. K. Ryan, “The future of maritime facility designs and operations,” inProc. Simulation Conf., 1998, pp. 1223–1227.

[2] P. A. Ioannou, E. B. Kosmatopoulos, K. Vukadinovic, C. I. Liu, H. Pour-mohammadi, and E. Dougherty, “Real time testing and verification ofloading and unloading algorithms using Grid Rail (GR),” Center for Ad-vanced Transportation Technologies, Univ. of Southern California, LosAngeles, Tech. Rep., Oct. 2000.

[3] M. Taleb-Ibrahimi, “Modeling and analysis of container handling inports,” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1989.

[4] A. Asef-Vaziri and B. Khoshnevis, “Automated storage and retrieval inmaritime container terminals,”Progress Mater. Handling, pp. 165–178,2000.

[5] L. W. Nye, “Planning intermodal capability at west coast container ter-minals,” inProc. Ports, vol. 2, 1998, pp. 907–916.

[6] J. J. M. Evers and H. Boonstra, “Coaster express: An option forlarge-scale coastal container feedering,” inProc. 3rd European Re-search Roundtable Conf. Shortsea Shipping, F. A. J. Waals, Ed. Delft,The Netherlands: Delft University Press, 1996.

[7] Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., “Gateway cities trucking study,”Gateway Cities Council of Governments Southeast Los AngelesCounty, Los Angeles, CA, 1996.

[8] B. DeCastilho, “High-container terminals: Technical and economicanalysis of a new direct-transfer system,” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ.California, Berkeley, 1992.

[9] T. Toth, “Analysis of a simulated container port,” M. S. thesis, Univ.Delaware, Newark, 1999.

[10] P. A. Ioannou, H. Jula, C. I. Liu, K. Vukadinovic, and H. Pourmoham-madi, “Advanced material handling: Automated guided vehicles inagile ports,” Center for Advanced Transportation Technologies, Univ.Southern California, Los Angeles, Tech. Rep., Oct. 2000.

[11] T. B. Wan, E. L. C. Wah, and L. C. Meng, “The use of IT by thePort of Singapore Authority,”World Development, vol. 20, no. 12, pp.1785–1795, 1992.

[12] K. V. Ramani, “An interactive simulation model for the logistics plan-ning of container operations in seaports,”Simulation, vol. 66, no. 5, pp.291–300, 1996.

[13] Y. Merkuryevet al., “A modeling and simulation methodology for man-aging the Riga Harbor container terminal,”Simulation, vol. 71, no. 2,pp. 84–95, 1998.

[14] I. Akio, N. Ken’Ichiro, and W. T. Chan, “Efficient planning of berthallocation for container terminals in Asia,”J. Advanced Transport., vol.31, no. 1, pp. 75–94, 1997.

[15] J. W. Konings, “Integrated centers for the transshipment, storage, collec-tion and distribution,”Transport Policy, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 3–11, 1996.

[16] C. I. Liu, H. Jula, and P. A. Ioannou, “Automated guided vehicle systemfor two container yard layouts,” Transport Res. Part-C, submitted forpublication.

[17] C. I. Liu, H. Jula, K. Vukadinovic, and P. A. Ioannou, “Comparing dif-ferent technologies for containers movement in marine container termi-nals,” inProc. 3rd IEEE Int. Conf. ITS, 2000, pp. 488–493.

Chin-I. Liu received the B.S. degree fromChung-Yuan Christian University, Chung-Li,Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1989 and the M.S. degree fromCleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, in 1994,both in mechanical engineering. He received theM.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineeringfrom the University of Southern California, LosAngeles, in 2001.

Previously, he was a Research Assistant at the Uni-versity of Southern California, Los Angeles. He is

currently with Aplus Flash Technology, Inc., as a Senior Design Engineer re-sponsible for the design of the next generation of flash memory. His interestsinclude VLSI systems, ASIC design, automated ports, and optimization.

Hossein Julareceived the B.S. degree in electricalengineering from Sharif University of Technology,Tehran, Iran, and the M.S. degree in electrical engi-neering from Tehran University, Tehran, Iran, in 1991and 1994, respectively.

Since 1996, he has been a Research Assistant at theUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, inthe field of electrical engineering-systems with em-phasis on control and automation. His research inter-ests include automated highway systems, automatedports, and optimization.

Petros A. Ioannou (S’80–M’83–SM’89–F’94)received the B.Sc. degree with First Class Honorsfrom University College, London, U.K, in 1978 andthe M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University ofIllinois, Urbana, in 1980 and 1982, respectively.

From 1979 to 1982, he was a Research Assistantat the Coordinated Science Laboratory at the Uni-versity of Illinois. In 1982, he joined the Departmentof Electrical Engineering-Systems, University ofSouthern California, Los Angeles. In fall 1988, hewas a Visiting Professor at the University of New-

castle, Newcastle, Australia, and in summer 1992, the Technical University ofCrete. He served as the Dean of the School of Pure and Applied Science at theUniversity of Cyprus, in 1995. Currently, he is a Professor in the Departmentof Electrical Engineering-Systems, University of Southern California and theDirector of the Center of Advanced Transportation Technologies. He was theauthor and coauthor of five books and over 150 research papers in the areaof controls, neural networks, nonlinear dynamical systems and intelligenttransportation systems. His research interests are in the areas of adaptivecontrol, neural networks, nonlinear systems, vehicle dynamics and control,intelligent transportation systems, and marine transportation.

Dr. Ioannou held a Commonwealth Scholarship from the Associationof Commonwealth Universities, London, U.K., from 1975 to 1978. He wasawarded several prizes, including the Goldsmid Prize and the A. P. HeadPrize from University College. In 1984, he was a recipient of the OutstandingTransactions Paper Award for his paper, “An Asymptotic Error Analysisof Identifiers and Adaptive Observers in the Presence of Parasitics,” whichappeared in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, in August1982. He is also the recipient of a 1985 Presidential Young Investigator Awardfor his research in Adaptive Control. He has been an Associate Editor for theIEEE TRANSACTIONS ONAUTOMATIC CONTROL and theInternational Journalof Control and Automatica. Currently, he is an Associate Editor of the IEEETRANSACTIONS ONINTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATIONSYSTEMS and an AssociateEditor at Large of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL. Heis a member of the Control System Society’s Council Committee on IEEEIntelligent Transportation Systems and Vice-Chairman of the InternationalFederation on Automatic Control (IFAC) Technical Committee on Transporta-tion Systems.

design, simulation, and evaluation of automated container ...ioannou/2003update/d68.pdf · design,...

Documents