Automation of Ship-To-Shore Container Cranes: A Review of State-Of-The-Art
Automation of Ship-To-Shore Container Cranes: A Review of State-Of-The-Art
Automation of Ship-To-Shore Container Cranes: A Review of State-Of-The-Art
net/publication/228936324
CITATIONS READS
35 11,498
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
22nd International Conference on Material Handling, Constructions and Logistics, Belgrade, 4th-6th October 2017, www.mhcl.info View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Srđan M Bošnjak on 23 September 2015.
© Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Belgrade. All rights reserved FME Transactions (2005) 33, 111-121 111
evolve and will continue to improve productivity, load. However, it should be noticed, this is nearly twice
although marginally to some other solutions that will long as for the 40 seconds case [5].
not be discussed in this paper.
Table 2. Frequency versus Period
Vessel Size TEU 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Period: Seconds per Lift 120 80 60 48 40
No. of Cranes 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Lifts per Hour Vessel Turnaround Time, Hours
More current STS cranes control systems depend on
20 96 103 107 129
the skill of the operators to put the load in the right
place, quickly and safely. Full crane automation, from
30 64 69 71 86
ship to shore, may be the answer to greater crane speeds
40 48 51 54 64
and productivity demands [9]. The higher operating
50 39 41 43 51
speeds make, the control task more difficult [4]. This is
60 32 34 36 43
Parameters: 1.75 TEU per lift. Turnover 75%. Two eight
difficult to achieve for several reasons: accuracy will be
hour shifts/day required to automatically pick a container from a ship,
Figure 3 [10], and set it on a truck on the quay, Figure 4
For simplicity, Ship-To-Shore cranes are usually [11]; the new container cranes have increasing degrees
discussed as an isolated entity (ESS), without regard to of automation that increase crane productivity [9]. The
the yard capabilities. The STS crane production realization of automation for the cranes at container
numbers are based on the assumption, unrealistic today, terminal has been delayed compared with indoor service
that the yard can keep up with the crane, i.e. assuming cranes caused by various problems at the outdoors
the quay operation is always able to deliver and remove environment.
a container when the crane needs to be serviced [5]. In
most terminals, the actual productivity is between 65
and 80 percent of the computed number, and the crane
numbers are calculated using simulation programs.
Simulation programs often use random times for dwell
times, and calculated times for travel times. Figure 2
presents an example of half-cycle timeline, but this is
only a small portion of the simulated operation [5]. The
timeline in Figure 2 presents the cycle time from the
wharf to the inside the ship's hold. The hoist and trolley
times are parallel and the dwell times are in series. The
longer parallel times governs. The travel times vary, and
depending on the location of the container the hoist or
trolley time will govern [5]. Figure 3. Schematical drawing of crane operation
Acceleration Deceleration
Mode Speed
times times
Hoisting with 70
2,0 s 1,5 s
rated load m/min
Control
System
Table 4. Deflection requirements for a rigid STS container For rigid reeving the swing period depends on the
crane spring stiffness of the reeving and tributary mass. When
Calculated Contributing effects on load is eccentric, the effective mass is not the same at
Direction both ends of the container, but the stiffness of the falls is
deflection members
Stretch of the backstay the same, so the swinging period is different at each
Perpendicular to
4 mm Bending of the portal end, and the load tends to yaw. For vertical falls, the
gantry rails
frame period depends only on the length of the falls. The
Elongation of the difference in mass at each end does not affect the
Vertical 128 mm forestay period, the load does not yaw and trolley motion alone
Stretch of the backstay can eliminate sway. Containers tend to yaw on rigid
Parallel to Rotational stiffness of
reeving and swing on flexible falls. So the reeving that
gantry 49 mm the crane
rails Stiffness of the boom is best for manual control (Figure 22) is not suitable for
automatic control, and visa versa [22]. A new problem
To be super productive, sway (list) and yaw (skew) has developed for load control on Post-Panamax cranes
need to be controlled, where sway is swinging in the with vertical falls. The dynamic interaction between the
direction of trolley travel, and yaw is rotation about the frame, the trolley, and the load can be problematic,
vertical axis [36]. Micro motions of container (possible) Figure 23 [22]. If the natural period of the frames is one
are shown in Figure 20 [37]. half the period of the hanging load, the motion of the
trolley that is expected to control swat will instead
excite the frame. The frame period depends on the mass
and stiffness of the frame. For vertical falls, the natural
period of the hanging load is about 5 or 6 seconds. For
inclined falls the period is less. For typical Panamax
cranes, designed for moderate stowed winds, the natural
period of the frame in the trolley travel direction is
about 1.5 seconds, and dynamic resonance is not the
problem.
2
TROLLEY
ACCELERATING
ACKNOWLEDGMENT