Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
MATERIALS ENGINEERING
Delft University of Technology Department Marine and Transport Technology
Mekelweg 2
2628 CD Delft
the Netherlands
Phone +31 (0)15-2782889
Fax +31 (0)15-2781397
www.mtt.tudelft.nl
Confidential: no
This report consists of 67 pages and 5 appendices. It may only be reproduced literally and as a whole. For
commercial purposes only with written authorization of Delft University of Technology. Requests for consult are
only taken into consideration under the condition that the applicant denies all legal rights on liabilities concerning
the contents of the advice.
FACULTY OF MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND
MATERIALS ENGINEERING
Delft University of Technology Department of Marine and Transport Technology
Mekelweg 2
2628 CD Delft
the Netherlands
Phone +31 (0)15-2782889
Fax +31 (0)15-2781397
www.mtt.tudelft.nl
It is expected that you conclude with a recommendation for further research opportunities based on
the results of this study.
The report should comply with the guidelines of the section. Details can be found on the website.
The professor,
Bjorn de Keyzer
Transport Engineering and Logistics,
TU Delft
June 4, 2013
Abstract
Materials such as coal or iron ore are transported over the world in bulk carriers. These bulk
carriers are unloaded in so called bulk import terminals. A common practice at these terminals
is to unload the vessels with grab unloaders. The capacity of these grab unloaders determines
the unloading time of the bulk carriers. The grabs on the unloaders are subject to wear, from the
abrasive properties of the bulk material, but also from the shocks in the wires during hoisting.
Due to this wear, a grab can break during unloading, resulting in delays for the bulk carrier. To
obtain practical data on grab handling, the situation at the Europees Massagoed en Overslagbedrijf
(EMO) is analysed. EMO has data from four unloaders on four berths, but it is possible to split
the terminal in two sections with two unloaders on two berths. A calculation sheet is developed
for two unloaders on two berths to calculate the delays per subfunction during unloading and the
total delay per vessel. In order to find a better storage solution for the grabs and spare grabs and
reduce the delays during unloading, five concepts for grab handling are proposed:
Randomly store grabs on the quay, without taking spare grabs to the vessel
1 Introduction 4
1.1 Bulk material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1 Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2 Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Large scale bulk transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1 Bulk export terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.2 Bulk carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.3 Bulk import terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Problem definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.1 Goal of this research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 Report overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Situation at EMO 12
2.1 Unloading at the EMO terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.1 Layout of the terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.2 Unloading process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.3 Grab breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Grab handling process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.1 Unloading of vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.2 Grab breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.3 Relocating grabs on the quay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2
4.1.4 Grab storage at midships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1.5 Grab mover and central grab storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2 Calculation sheet of the concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.1 Causes of delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.2 Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.3 Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3.1 Number of grabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3.2 Storage capacity of T1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3.3 Safe working regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3.4 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.4 Best concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
B Crane specifications 50
C Grab specifications 54
D Calculation sheets 58
E Calculation sheets 64
3
Chapter 1
Introduction
In this report, an analysis is performed on grab handling in a bulk import terminal. The delays
due to grab breakdowns are influenced by the way the grabs are stored in the terminal, as will
be shown in the next chapters. In this chapter, an introduction to bulk materials will be given in
Section 1.1, followed by the transport process of large scale bulk transport in Section 1.2. Then
the problem definition will be given in Section 1.3, with the goal of this research. Finally, at the
end of this chapter, in Section 1.4 a graphical overview of the contents of this report will be given.
1.1.1 Properties
The definition of bulk solid materials is as follows: A bulk solid material is any assembly of dis-
crete solid components or particles of whatever size range, substantially in contact or near contact
with immediate neighbors. Important properties of bulk solid materials are the bulk density and
the angle of repose, which is defined as the critical angle beyond which the material flows freely,
see Figure 1.1. These two properties are dependent on other properties of the bulk solid material,
such as the particle size, particle shape and moisture of the material. The angle of repose, density
and particle size of some common bulk solid materials are given in Table 1.1. For some bulk
materials, degradation can be a problem. Degradation is the decline in quality or value of the bulk
material. It can occur in several ways, for example if the material breaks during transport or if the
moisture content becomes too high.
4
Figure 1.1: Angle of repose [15]
Table 1.1: Common dry bulk materials and their main properties [10]
1.1.2 Markets
The location for supply and demand of different bulk solid materials often do not coincide. For
example in the coal market, the largest suppliers are Indonesia, Australia and Russia, while the
largest consumers are China, Japan and South Korea, as can be seen in Table 1.2. Another ex-
ample is the iron ore market. The largest iron ore suppliers are Australia, Brazil and India, while
the largest consumers are China, Europe and Japan, as can be seen in Table 1.3. As a conse-
quence, large scale transport is needed between suppliers and consumers of the different bulk
solid materials.
5
Top 3 iron ore exporters Top 3 iron ore importers
Supply [M T ] Demand [M T ]
Australia 414 China 642
Brazil 324 Europe 145
India 87 Japan 133
Table 1.3: Top 3 iron ore exporters and importers in 2011 [12, 14]
Figure 1.2: Typical layout of a bulk export terminal (Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, Australia)
[5]
6
(a) Stacker reclaimer [8] (b) Bulk carrier loader [9]
7
Figure 1.4: Typical layout of a bulk import terminal (Europees Massagoed- en Overslagbedrijf,
The Netherlands) [5]
that is in contact with the bulk material. Two types of grabs are common: the scissors grab and
the clamshell grab. These grabs are shown in Figure 1.6. Both grabs perform well with a wide
range of bulk materials, but the scissors grab has limited vertical movement of the grab shells
while closing or opening. This is an advantage when clearing material from the bottom of the
holds [11]. As presented in Section 1.1.1, different bulk materials have different densities. To
prevent overload on the unloader, but to be close to the maximum working load as well, different
sizes of grabs are used for different types of bulk material.
8
(a) Lemniscate crane [1] (b) Bridge type crane [4]
Figure 1.6: Two types of grabs for coal and iron ore [11]
9
order to find a better storage solution for the grabs and spare grabs and reduce the delays during
unloading. This will be performed with a detailed calculation sheet of the unloading process.
Bulk materials
Large scale bulk transport
Introduction
Problem definition
Concepts
Time consumption of concepts
Two cranes on two Limitations
berths Best concept
Concepts
Time consumption of concepts
Three cranes on Best concept
two berths
Conclusions
Conclusions and
Recommendations
recommendations
10
Chapter 2
Situation at EMO
This chapter gives an overview of the unloading process at EMO, the process of grab handling
and an analysis of the data obtained from EMO. Section 2.1 gives an introduction to EMO, the
layout of the terminal, the unloading process and grab breakdowns at EMO. Section 2.2 gives an
exact overview of all the grab actions during unloading, grab breakdown and grab relocation on
the quay. In Section 2.3, a statistical analysis is performed of the data obtained from EMO, to
create a representative data set of the EMO terminal.
12
Figure 2.1: Unloader section of the EMO terminal [6]
13
2.2 Grab handling process
During unloading of bulk carriers, there are different situations where grab handling is needed.
In ideal circumstances, cranes unload vessels continuously without breaking down. However,
breakdowns happen regularly as will be shown in Section 2.3. To minimize delays during oper-
ation, the distance that a crane travels and the number of grab handlings should be kept as low
as possible. With a maximum crane speed of 25 m/min, travelling the length of a berth costs at
least 12 minutes and (de-)coupling a grab costs 5 minutes. In this research, three situations are
identified:
Unloading of vessels
Grab breakdown
Relocating grabs on the quay
In the following sections, each situation will be explained according to the present operation
method at EMO.
14
Start unloading
new vessel
Changing grab
Yes
No
Drive to midships of
Detach spare grab vessel to be
unloaded
Unloading vessel
Drive to hatch to be
unloaded
Grab
Yes Drive to grab storage Detach grab
breakdown?
No
Hatch empty? No
Yes
All hatches
unloaded? No
Yes
Finish unloading
15
Drive to grab
Detach grab
storage location
Grab relocation
Drive to grab to be
relocated
Attach grab
Drive to grab
storage location
Detach grab
All grabs
Yes No
relocated?
Drive to unloading
location
Continue unloading
16
Table 2.1: Data set of 2009-2010 before and after statistical analysis
17
Figure 2.4: Outliers of the data sets of BR1+2 and BR3+4
Table 2.2: Data set of 2009-2010 before and after statistical analysis compared to wire replace-
ments
18
2.4 Summary
In this chapter an overview is given of the unloading process at EMO, with a focus on grab
handling. For this report, the quay of EMO is divided in two sections each with two berths and
two cranes. The following chapters will focus on the section with berth 3 and 4 and two 85
tons unloaders (BR3 and BR4). The unloading process is described and the influence of a grab
breakdown is analysed. For the current situation at EMO, unloaders carry a spare grab to the
midships of the vessel that needs unloading. In case of a grab breakdown, the unloader travels to
its spare grab and exchanges it for the broken one. The broken grab will be fixed on the location
on the quay where the unloader decoupled it. Between vessels carrying different types of bulk
material, a change of the main grab is required to prevent too heavy or too light loads on the crane.
At EMO, the grabs are stored randomly along the length of the quay on T1. In case storage on T1
is required, the grabs have to be moved to a safe location away from the bulk material. In order to
determine the impact of grab breakdowns on the unloading process, operational data from EMO
is used. This data contains delays during unloading of vessels due to a grab change after a grab
breakdown. Because the data points in this set are spread over a wide range, a statistical analysis
is performed to exclude the outliers. The filtered data set is cross checked with closing wire data
and assumed to be representative for the EMO terminal.
19
Chapter 3
In this chapter a calculation sheet is created and evaluated using the data set from EMO. In the
next chapters, this sheet will be used to analyse new concepts for grab handling. Section 3.1
describes the details of the calculation sheet. The input parameters are discussed in Section 3.2
and the output of the sheet is presented in Section 3.3. In Section 3.4, the values of the output are
compared with the data set from EMO.
The relevance of including time for boom lift actions and waiting for grab transport will be further
explained in Chapter 4. At the end of each section, the total time of the section is multiplied by
the number of times it occurs during unloading of one vessel. At the bottom of the sheet, the total
time consumed by grab actions is calculated by adding all sections and subtracting the time that
a crane needs to move one berth length. Due to this subtraction, the outcome of the calculation
sheet is the actual time needed for grab handling only.
20
Without grab change With grab change
distance [m] activity code duration [min] distance [m] activity code duration [min]
Drive to storage 0,0 0,0
Detach grab 0,0 0,0
Change grab
3.2 Parameters
Several parameters influence the outcome of the calculation sheet. An overview of these param-
eters is given in Table 3.1. The quay length and number of berths determine the berth length that
is used in the calculation sheet. The average gantry speed is used to convert driving distances to
times. This speed is actually lower than the maximum driving speed, because of the short driv-
ing distances and accelerating and decelerating. The (de-)couple time, boom lift time and grab
mover response time determine the duration of each grab action. All parameters but the gantry
movement between grabs and the grab mover response time are based on data provided by EMO.
The gantry movement between to grabs positioned next to each other is estimated to be 15 m on
average, based on the width of the grabs. The grab mover response time is estimated by adding 2
(de-)coupling actions and 5 minutes response/driving time at 10 km/h.
21
Parameter Value Unit
Quay length 640 m
Number of berths 2
Gantry speed 16 m/min
Gantry movement between grabs 15 m
(De-)couple time 5 min
Boom lift time 5.4 min
Grab mover response time 15 min
Number of grab defects per vessel 1.4
Table 3.1: Input parameters for the calculation sheet, for details see Section 3.2
22
3.4 Verification of the calculation sheet
To compare the output of the calculation sheet with the data provided by EMO, only the section
unload vessel can be used. The delays due to grab actions, other than during unloading of a ves-
sel, are not available. However, if the output of the section unload vessel shows no significant
differences with the data provided by EMO, then it can be assumed that the output of the other
two sections is valid as well, because the method used and the magnitude of the input are compa-
rable. The output of section unload vessel is 29.3 minutes for 1.4 grab change, see Figure 3.2.
This results in a grab change time of 20.9 minutes per grab change. Compared to the 21 minutes
from the data from EMO (see BR3+4 filtered in Table 2.1), it can be concluded that the input used
for the calculation sheet is correct for the operations needed for grab changes. While there are
no significant differences between driving distances and grab changes for the section unloading
vessel and the other sections, it is concluded that the entire calculation sheet is representative for
the situation in reality.
3.5 Summary
In this chapter, a calculation sheet is developed to analyse the subfunctions of grab handling in
detail. This calculation sheet will be used later in this report to compare the delays due to grab
handling between several new concepts. The consists of several subsequent driving and grab
handling actions, following the scheme in Figure 2.2 of the previous chapter. Most parameters
used in the calculation sheet are derived from the situation at EMO. With these input parameters,
an analysis is performed on the present situation. To check if the calculation sheet represents the
situation in practice, the output is compared to the filtered data set from the previous chapter. No
significant differences appeared, so it is concluded that the output of the data set represents the
situation in practice.
23
Chapter 4
In this chapter, the situation with two unloaders on two berths will be discussed. This is the same
scenario as the present situation at EMO. In Section 4.1, new concepts for grab storage on the
quay will be proposed in order to reduce delays due to grab handling. In Section 4.2, the grab
handling times for the different concepts will be calculated using the calculation sheet presented
in Chapter 3. Time consumption is not the only restriction for determining the best concept,
therefore other limitations will be discussed in Section 4.3. In Section 4.4, the different criteria
will be compared in a multi criteria analysis, and the best concept will be chosen.
4.1 Concepts
The concepts in this section are based on minimizing delays due to crane travel or grab handling
actions, compared to the present situation at EMO. Figure 2.2 and 2.3 are used to identify subpro-
cesses of unloading where crane travel or grab actions can be reduced. At each concept, normal
crane operation with grab breakdowns and relocation of grabs due to storage on T1 will be dis-
cussed. Every concept is clarified with a picture, where the two types of grabs are drawn in red
and green and a shielded storage as a grey box with blue boundary.
Normal operation
If a grab change is needed between two vessels, no extra travel time is needed for a grab change
between vessels. When travelling between berths, the crane exchanges grabs when it passes the
right grab.
24
In this concept, the spare grab is not brought to the vessel that is unloaded. Because of the large
number of grabs stored along the quay, there should always be a right type of spare grab near the
vessel if needed. The time needed for moving spare grabs is therefore minimized.
If a grab change is needed due to grab breakdown, the crane detaches the grab on the nearest open
spot on T1. Then the crane travels to the nearest grab of the type needed, attaches it and drives to
the hatch that needs unloading.
Relocating grabs
A problem can occur when the storage capacity of T1 is needed. Because the grabs are located
randomly along the entire length of the quay, grabs need to be relocated before bulk material can
be stored at T1.
Normal operation
If a grab change is required between vessels, no extra travel time is needed to the location of the
new grab. Only delays due to decoupling and coupling grabs need to be taken into account.
When the grabs are stored on the crane, moving spare grabs to the new location of the crane is no
longer needed.
If a grab breaks down during unloading, the spare grab is on the crane, so again travel time is
saved and only (de-)coupling time needs to be taken into account.
Relocating grabs
With this concept, grabs are no longer stored on T1. If the storage capacity of T1 is needed, bulk
material can be unloaded to T1 directly, because the grabs are not on T1, but on the cranes.
25
Figure 4.2: Grab storage on the crane
Normal operation
If a grab change is required between vessels, the travel time to the new grab is minimized, because
the crane passes the storage always when changing between vessels. During that change between
berths, the crane stops, changes to the other type of grab and continues the travel to the next berth.
Only grab change time is taken into account.
Delays due to moving the spare grab are reduced to zero, because the spare grabs are left in the
storage areas.
If a grab breaks down during unloading, the spare grab needs to be retrieved from the storage
area. Compared to the present situation, some extra crane travel can be needed to get the spare
grab.
Relocating grabs
By using shielded storage areas for the grabs, bulk material can be directly stored on T1 if needed.
No delays occur due to relocating grabs with this concept.
26
4.1.4 Grab storage at midships
This concept is based on the present situation, where a spare grab is brought with the crane to the
vessel that is unloaded. That spare grab is stored at midships position on the quay. In this concept,
halfway each berth a shielded storage is created, with enough space for an entire set of grabs and
spare grabs. Each crane takes its main grab from its own grab storage and cranes share the spare
grab at the berth they are operating on. By operating this way, time is saved both for crane travel
and grab actions. This concept is illustrated in Figure 4.4.
Normal operation
As for the previous concept of a grab storage between two berths, no extra travel time is needed
for a grab change between vessels. With travelling between berths, the crane passes its grab
storage where it can exchange the grabs.
Delays due to moving the spare grab are reduced to zero, because the spare grabs are left in the
storage areas.
If a grab breaks down during unloading, the spare grab needs to be retrieved from the storage
area. Compared to the present situation, the same amount of crane travel can be expected to get
the spare grab.
Relocating grabs
By using shielded storage areas for the grabs, bulk material can be directly stored on T1 if needed.
No delays occur due to relocating grabs with this concept.
Normal operation
If a grab change is needed between vessels, the crane travels to its destination hatch. At that
location, the right grab is brought in with the grab mover and the other grab is transported back
27
to the central grab storage.
Delays due to moving the spare grab are reduced to zero, because the spare grabs are left in the
storage areas. Only the response time of the grab mover has to be taken into account.
If a grab breaks down during unloading, the spare grab needs to be retrieved from the storage
area. This is done by the grab exchanger, which travels faster than the crane. Although travel
distances may be longer, compared to the present situation, the time needed to exchange grabs
could be reduced due to the higher speed of the grab mover.
Relocating grabs
By using a special storage area outside T1 for the grabs, bulk material can be directly stored on
T1 if needed. No delays occur due to relocating grabs with this concept.
4.2.2 Input
The time consumption of the concepts is calculated using the same calculation sheet as the present
situation in Section 3.1. The concepts differ in the average distance of crane travel to the spare
28
(a) Limitations on crane travel due to structures on (b) Limitations on crane travel due to other cranes
bulk carrier
grab and grab (de-)coupling time. The latter is due to boom lift time or waiting time for the
grab mover, as explained in the previous section. Table 4.1 gives an overview of these input
parameters. Distances are expressed as fraction of a berth length (lberth ). Both the distances of
randomly stored grabs and a storage at midships are determined to be on average a quarter of the
length of the berth, for two cranes working on one berth. For the concepts of a storage on the
crane and a grab mover, no crane travel is required to reach the spare grab. There is however a
response time of the grab mover. The distance of the storage between berths is more complicated.
There are two scenarios; the grab at one crane breaks down, it travels on average a quarter of
the length of the berth to reach the spare grab between berths. In the other scenario, the grab at
the other crane breaks down. To reach its spare grab, this crane has to travel on average three
quarters of the length of the berth and the other crane has to move a quarter of the length of the
berth because cranes cannot pass each other. Assuming the change of these scenarios is equal, the
average distance to the spare grab at a storage between berths is 0.625 of the length of the berth
length and boom lift is required.
4.2.3 Output
The calculation sheet is evaluated for every concept described in this chapter. For details of the
separate calculation sheets, see Appendix D. These sheets contain the input data as described in
Table 4.1. The output consists of total grab handling times per concept, as well as grab handling
times as percentage of total unloading time, both for the situation with and without grab change
before unloading. The output is presented in Table 4.2. For comparison, the present situation is
also included in this table. It can be concluded that multiple concepts result in considerable time
29
Concept Without grab change With grab change
Time [min] % of unloading Time [min] % of unloading
Present situation 49 1.35% 61 1.68%
Random stored 29 0.80% 40 1.10%
Storage on crane 14 0.38% 24 0.66%
Storage between berths 65 1.79% 76 2.09%
Storage at midships 29 0.80% 40 1.10%
Grab mover 28 0.77% 38 1.04%
savings. Note that several concepts still save time with a grab change, compared to the present
situation without grab change.
4.3 Limitations
Time savings are not the only factor for determining the best concept for grab handling. A number
of limitations have to be taken into account. These limitations pose restrictions for the position of
the grab storage on the quay, due to limited reach of the crane during operation. The limitations
are the number of grabs available, the storage capacity of T1 and the safe working regulations.
All these restrictions will be discussed in this section.
30
heights applies to every working situation at 2.5 meters or higher. If the situation is determined
to be at height, special safety precautions should be made, such as safe walkways with handrails
and personal fall protection gear.
4.3.4 Cost
Another decision factor is the cost of the concept. The cost are divided in a initial investment
and the running cost. The initial investment is used to realize the concept, and it consists of
engineering, fabrication and installing. The running cost are used to operate the concept, they
consist of manpower, fuel and maintenance.
31
This results in a slightly worse rating than the previous concepts, resulting in -. A grab storage
on the crane requires engineering and fabrication to adapt the crane, resulting in very high initial
cost. Operational cost does not increase compared to the present situation, this concept get - -.
The grab mover requires high initial cost and extra personnel for operation, so this concept gets
- - as well. These ratings are converted to a standardized scale. For the grab handling time and
number of grabs, a linear relationship is assumed between the worst and best value. Interpolating
yields the standardized values. For grab handling time, no delay (0 minutes) is the best value, the
highest time of the concept is the worst value. In case of two cranes, two grabs required is the best
case. Four grabs for two cranes is chosen to be average, so six grabs is the worst value. The other
criteria are rated using - - to ++, where - - represents 0, - is 0.25, 0 means 0.5 in the standardized
scale, + is 0.75 and ++ represents 1. These standardized values are assigned more weight if the
property is more important in Table 4.4. The concept with the highest overall score is chosen to
be the best concept. Time and cost are weighted twice as heavy as the rest of the criteria, because
they have direct impact on the daily performance of the terminal, where the rest of the criteria has
less impact. The concept that proves to be the best is a shielded grab storage at the midships of
every berth, followed by a central grab storage with grab mover.
32
Unit Present situation Random stored Storage on crane Storage between berths Storage at midships Grab mover
Grab handling time min. 49 29 14 65 29 28
Number of grabs 4 4 4 3 4 3
Capacity of T1 ++/- - + + - + + ++
Grab relocation ++/- - -- -- ++ ++ ++ ++
Regulations ++/- - 0 0 - ++ ++ -
Cost ++/- - 0 0 -- - - --
Table 4.3: Rating for the different concepts and limitations, for details see Section 4.4
33
Weight Present situation Random stored Storage on crane Storage between berths Storage at midships Grab mover
Grab handling time 2 0.24 0.55 0.78 0 0.55 0.57
Number of grabs 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.75
Capacity of T1 1 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.75 1
Grab relocation 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Regulations 1 0.5 0.5 0.25 1 1 0.25
Cost 2 0.5 0.5 0 0.25 0.25 0
Weighted average 0.40 0.48 0.45 0.50 0.61 0.52
Table 4.4: Standardized multi criteria analysis for the different concepts
4.5 Summary
In this chapter five concepts for grab handling are proposed:
Randomly store grabs on the quay, without taking spare grabs to the vessel
The aim of the concepts is to reduce the number of grab actions and the travel distance of the
crane to the spare grabs, thus reducing the delays due to grab handling during unloading. In
contrast to the present situation, none of the concepts takes the spare grab with the unloader to the
next vessel. Most concepts do not need relocation of the grabs in case storage on T1 is needed.
Table 4.5 gives an overview of these aspects. To determine the delays per concept, the same
calculation sheet is used as in the previous chapter. For the determination of the best concept,
not only reduction of delays is analysed, but other limitations as well. These limitations are the
number of grabs needed, reduction of storage capacity on T1, safe working regulations and cost.
The concepts are compared using a multi criteria analysis. For comparison, the present situation
at EMO is included as well in this analysis. The concept that proves to be the best is the grab
storage at midships, followed by the central grab storage with grab mover.
34
Chapter 5
In 2013, the situation at EMO has changed to two 50 tons unloaders (BR1 and BR2) and three 85
tons unloaders (BR3, BR4 and BR5). The expectation is that the 85 tons unloaders will be used
primarily at berth 3 and 4. Then two scenarios can occur:
1. Berth 3 and 4 are both occupied; two cranes unload the bulk carrier at one berth, the third
crane unloads the bulk carrier at the other berth.
2. Only one of the berths is occupied; all three cranes unload the bulk carrier at this berth.
In the first case, the calculation sheets of Chapter 4 can be used. Therefore, case one will not be
discussed in this chapter. The second case poses a problem, because the cranes can hinder each
other in case of a grab breakdown. In case of the grab storage at midships, the outer cranes cant
reach the storage without moving the middle crane, see Figure 5.1(a)- 5.1(c).
5.1 Concepts
In this chapter, not all concepts of the previous chapter will be discussed. An adapted version
of the present situation for three cranes, present situation+, and the two best concepts, the grab
storage at midships and the grab mover will be evaluated for the case of three cranes at one berth.
In the following sections, the influence of the third crane on these concepts will be discussed.
36
(a) Grab breakdown at crane 1; crane 2 blocks the grab storage at midships
(c) Grab breakdown at crane 3; crane 2 blocks the grab storage at midships
Figure 5.1: Effect of grab breakdown with three cranes on one berth
37
spare grab is moved to the ship to be unloaded. This is done by the middle crane, because it is
operating near the midships. By doing so, the number of grabs does not need to be changed. In
case T1 is needed for storage, the grabs still have to be relocated as in the original situation.
With the concept of a grab storage at midships, in case a grab breakdown occurs at one of
the outer cranes, the middle crane always stops unloading in order to move out of the way.
The average crane speed remains the same as in Chapter 4. Although the average distance
to the spare grabs changes, it is assumed that the average crane speed does not change.
5.2.2 Input
Due to the fact that in some cases two cranes need to move for a grab change, with the concept
of the present situation+ and a grab storage at midships, the travel distance for these concepts
will be longer with three cranes at one berth. This causes extra delays, which represent the extra
loss of production. The rest remains the same as Chapter 4. See Table 5.1 for an overview of
the input. As explained in the previous section, the average distance to the spare grab increases
38
Concept Distance to spare grab Boom lift Grab mover
Present situation+ 0.33 berthlength No No
Storage at midships 0.33 berthlength No No
Grab mover 0 No Yes
due to the third crane. The average distance of the middle crane to the spare grab is zero meters.
The average distance of the two other cranes to the spare grab is 0.33 berthlength and the
movement of the middle crane is 0.165 berthlength. The average distance of all three cranes
is
0.33 + 0.165 + 0 + 0.33 + 0.165
= 0.33 berthlength
3
5.2.3 Output
The calculation sheet is adapted and evaluated for the two best concepts of the previous chapter.
For details of the separate calculation sheets, see Appendix E. These sheets contain the input data
as described in Table 5.1. The output for the calculation sheets of three unloaders working on one
berth is presented in Table 5.2. There is no practical data of unloading times with three cranes per
vessel. Therefore grab handling times cannot be compared as a percentage of the unloading times.
Therefore the output consists of grab handling times in minutes and as a percentage compared to
the present situation+.
39
Unit Present situation+ Storage at midships Grab mover
Grab handling time min. 43 33 28
Number of grabs 4 4 4
Capacity of T1 ++/- - + + ++
Grab relocation ++/- - -- ++ ++
Regulations ++/- - 0 ++ -
Cost ++/- - 0 - --
Table 5.4: Standardized multi criteria analysis for the different concepts
5.4 Summary
In this chapter, the new situation with three unloaders at berth 3 and 4 of EMO is evaluated. In
case two unloaders are working at one berth and the third at the other berth, the outcome of the
previous chapter can be used. When three unloaders are working on the same berth, a situation
is created where unloaders block each other from reaching the grab storage. Therefore a new
analysis is performed for this new situation. Not all concepts are included in this analysis, only
the grab storage at midships and the central grab storage with grab mover. For comparison,
an adapted version of the present situation to accommodate three unloaders is included as well.
Because no practical data is available, this analysis cannot be compared to the situation in reality.
For the analysis of delays due to grab changes, the same calculation sheet is used as in the previous
chapters. The grab mover needs an extra grab, compared to the situation with two unloaders, the
rest of the other limitations remains the same for all concepts. Again a multi criteria analysis
is performed. The concept of a shielded grab storage at midships again proves to be the best,
followed by the central grab storage with grab mover.
40
Chapter 6
In this report, the present grab handling process at EMO is investigated to determine the time lost
by grab changes after a grab breakdown. Other concepts are proposed and investigated, in order to
find a better storage solution for the grabs and spare grabs and reduce the delays during unloading.
This is performed with a detailed calculation sheet of the unloading process. The EMO terminal
has two 50 tons unloaders (BR1 and BR2) operating on berth 1 and 2, and two 85 tons unloaders
(BR3 and BR4). In this report, only berth 3 and 4, with BR3 and BR4 are considered, unloading
vessels as a pair. From the analysis of the EMO terminal, it can be concluded that time is lost by
taking spare grab with the crane and with grab relocation if bulk material storage on T1 is needed.
EMO only monitors the grab handling times in case a grab breaks and needs replacement. This
is for BR3 and BR4 on average 21 minutes per breakdown. With 1.4 breakdowns per vessel,
the total grab change time becomes 29 minutes. However, due to taking the spare grab with the
crane, extra time is spent on grab handling actions. This total grab handling time per vessel is
calculated using the calculation sheet mentioned earlier. The parameters of the calculation sheet
tuned to fit the process of a grab change in case of a grab breakdown. These parameters are then
used to calculate delays due to taking a spare grab with the crane or a grab change to another type
of grab. From the calculation sheet can be concluded that EMO spends 49 minutes per vessel on
grab handling without a change to another type of grab and 61 minutes with a change of grab.
These values are significantly higher than the EMO data. To reduce the time lost by grab handling,
other concepts for better storage of grabs are proposed. These concepts are based on reduction of
unloader travel distance and less grab actions. Five concepts are proposed:
Randomly store grabs on the quay, without taking spare grabs to the vessel
Grab storage on the back supports of the unloader
Shielded grab storage between two berths
Shielded grab storage at the midships of every berth
Central grab storage with a grab mover
The concepts are analysed for two unloaders working on one vessel using the same calculation
sheet used in the present situation at EMO. Reduction of grab handling times up to 70% is possible
with the concepts, compared to the present situation at EMO, as can be seen in Table 6.1. In
the determination of the best concept, other criteria are included as well. These criteria are the
42
Concept Without grab change With grab change
Time [min] % of unloading Time [min] % of unloading
Present situation 49 1.35% 61 1.68%
Random stored 29 0.80% 40 1.10%
Storage on crane 14 0.38% 24 0.66%
Storage between berths 65 1.79% 76 2.09%
Storage at midships 29 0.80% 40 1.10%
Grab mover 28 0.77% 38 1.04%
number of grabs needed, the reduction of storage capacity on T1, safe working regulations and
cost of the concept. The grab handling times and other criteria are evaluated in a multi criteria
analysis, where the shielded grab storage at midships proves to be the best concept. In 2013,
the situation at EMO has changed from two 85 tons unloaders (BR3 and BR4)to three 85 tons
unloaders (BR3, BR4 and BR5) on berth 3 and 4. Now it can occur that three unloaders work
on one vessel, blocking each other from reaching the spare grab in case of a grab breakdown.
Therefore the analysis is performed again for this new situation. This time, only the best two
concepts, a storage at midships and a grab mover, and an adapted version of the present situation
are considered. The same parameters are used as the situation with two unloaders. However, due
to the third unloader blocking the two other unloaders, the delays due to grab handling increase
compared to the situation with two unloaders. The concepts are compared using the same multi
criteria analysis and again the shielded grab storage at midships proves to be the best concept. An
advantage of this concept is that the grabs are always stored in a safe location, if storage on T1 is
needed, it is immediately available without relocating the grabs on the quay.
6.1 recommendations
This research focussed on reduction of delays due to grab handling, which mostly is caused by
worn closing wires of the grabs. However, the first step should be reducing the number of grab
breakdowns, for example by improving the quality of the closing wires. The conclusion of this
report is that the shielded grab storage at midships is the best concept, but the cost are estimated
for all concepts. The grab mover comes as second best concept, partly because the cost are
assumed much higher than the storage at midships. A more detailed analysis of the cost should
be performed to prove that the storage at midships is indeed the best concept. The calculation
sheet used to determine the grab handling times is simple but effective. Few input parameters
are required to obtain a representative output. Further research can prove the applicability of the
calculation sheet to other terminals. Summarizing, subjects for more research are:
Better quality of closing wires in the grab
Cost and profits of the shielded storage at midships
43
Bibliography
[2] Arbo. Werken op hoogte, 2012. Accessed Februari 11, 2013 on http://www.arboportaal.nl.
[3] World Coal Association. Coal market and transportation. Accessed Januari 6, 2013, 2012.
[4] Biztrademarket. Accessed May 25, 2013 on http://www.biztrademarket.com/.
[5] Google Earth. Accessed Januari 29, 2013 on Google Earth.
[6] Europees Massagoed en Overslagbedrijf. Regulations for vessels, 2012. Accessed Februari
11, 2013 on http://www.emo.nl.
[7] Bulk Carrier Guide. Various bulk carrier sizes and employment guide, 2010. Accessed
Januari 29, 2013 on http://www.bulkcarrierguide.com.
[14] Reuters. Top iron ore exporters, importers. Accessed Januari 6, 2013, Januari 2012.
[15] D. Schulze. Flow properties of powders and bulk solids. Braunschweig/Wolfenbu ttel,
Germany: University of Applied Sciences, 2006.
44
Appendix A
46
P L A N E M O L O C AT I O N A N D L AY O U T
48
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.
-0013_omslag_A5.indd 2
Appendix B
Crane specifications
50
52
Appendix C
Grab specifications
54
56
Appendix D
Calculation sheets
58
Without grab change With grab change
distance [m] activity code duration [min] distance [m] activity code duration [min]
Drive to storage 0,0 80 5,0
Detach grab 0,0 1 5,0
Change grab
Figure D.2: Calculation sheet of the random positioning of grabs on the quay
61
Without grab change With grab change
distance [m] activity code duration [min] distance [m] activity code duration [min]
Drive to storage 0,0 80 5,0
Detach grab 0,0 1 5,0
Change grab
62
Without grab change With grab change
distance [m] activity code duration [min] distance [m] activity code duration [min]
Drive to storage 0,0 0,0
Detach grab 0,0 1 5,0
Change grab
Figure D.6: Calculation sheet of the grab mover and central grab storage
Appendix E
Calculation sheets
64
Without grab change With grab change
distance [m] activity code duration [min] distance [m] activity code duration [min]
Drive to storage 0,0 0 0,0
Detach grab 0,0 1 5,0
Change grab
Figure E.3: Calculation sheet of the grab mover and central grab storage
67