4 ms·

More and more ports are going automated. Since the containers are uniform in size the CV required is pretty basic and very fast. Most container ships are only i

by yardie 9y ago

More and more ports are going automated. Since the containers are uniform in size the CV required is pretty basic and very fast. Most container ships are only in port for a few hours and they can load and unload a lot of containers. I think by the time anyone realizes things are off it could be too late.

supahfly_remix 9y ago
Are you saying that the automation of cranes is faster than that of humans and results in a much shorter load/unload time? I would think the unload time would be dominated by the time for the crane to move the container physically rather than the CV problem of identifying a container. Automation could just result in labor cost savings rather than decrease load/unload time significantly.
- yardie 9y ago
  In a port there the big ship to shore cranes and there are the smaller mobile gantry cranes. The smaller gantry cranes look like this [0] and 1 operator may be controlling half dozen simultaneously. There are huge cost savings involved because 1 person can move multiple containers, simultaneously. These systems aren't cheap and it requires more skill closer to IT than your typical stevedore. So it can take years to recoup any savings in labor. Recouping time costs are almost immediate. [0] http://www.konecranes.com/equipment/container-handling-equipment/automated-rmg-armg-system http://www.konecranes.com/equipment/container-handling-equip...
- londons_explore 9y ago
  If load/unload time were a big $$ problem, I can imagine one could design a system which effectively threw containers on and off the ship. ie. acceleration at 1G upwards on the way out, and freefall on the way in. The same acceleration rates can be used for the automated clamps which lock onto the corners of the containers for movement. Assuming a dockside + ship is 100 yards wide, a one second lock/unlock time for clamps, that should work out at 14 seconds per container. Assume we have a grid of cranes over the ship, able to pick up every container on top at once. Assume the worst-case complete unload of the whole ships capacity (10,000 40 ft containers on the largest vessels), and reload of another complete load. That comes out as 8 minutes! Current loading times are multiple hours for even a partial unload of a much smaller ship. That tells me that there isn't enough $$$ involved to get serious engineering efforts to make it quicker.
bkor 9y ago
> Most container ships are only in port for a few hours That's not true at all. The container ships are getting bigger, but port productivity hasn't kept up at all. You can put more cranes on the vessel if it's longer, but lately it's often getting wider, not longer (=which would allow additional cranes to be used). Containers ships are often in a port for a really long time, can be days. That said, containers toppling over has happened in the past, including capsized feeders (small container vessels). Example 1: http://maritimeaccident.org/2010/01/husky-racer-toppled-boxes-top-heavy-due-to-software-glitch/ http://maritimeaccident.org/2010/01/husky-racer-toppled-boxe... Example 2: http://shipsmonthly.com/news/ship-accident-container-ship-capsizes/ http://shipsmonthly.com/news/ship-accident-container-ship-ca... (they noticed a problem, tried to prevent it from capsizing, it took 2 days and still capsized!) Often the cause is not hackers, just wrong data given by shippers. Basically saying that a container is heavy while it is light weight and vice versa. That's why every container loaded now needs their weight to be certified. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/container/Pages/default.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/container/Pages/... Interestingly enough, up to that new requirement loads of containers could get on a container vessel without ever really knowing what their real weight was.
- oasisbob 9y ago
  That Husky Racer incident is interesting - particularly because correct weight data was eventually given by the shippers, but that data didn't propagate through Maersk's systems. Wonder if a dependence on removable media had anything to do with it. > The MAIB preliminary examination of the accident found that the inaccurate container weights were on the loading plan because of a system shortcoming which did not update the operations department when the shipper provided more accurate contents details to the carrier. > The Deputy Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents has written to Maersk Line advising that its operations department should use the most accurate container weights and ship stability data available. [1] [1] https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/collapse-of-containers-on-container-feeder-vessel-husky-racer-in-bremerhaven-germany-resulting-in-the-loss-of-18-containers-overboard https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/collapse-of-containers-on-co...
  - bkor 9y ago

by yardie 9y ago

supahfly_remix 9y ago

Are you saying that the automation of cranes is faster than that of humans and results in a much shorter load/unload time? I would think the unload time would be dominated by the time for the crane to move the container physically rather than the CV problem of identifying a container. Automation could just result in labor cost savings rather than decrease load/unload time significantly.

yardie 9y ago
In a port there the big ship to shore cranes and there are the smaller mobile gantry cranes. The smaller gantry cranes look like this [0] and 1 operator may be controlling half dozen simultaneously. There are huge cost savings involved because 1 person can move multiple containers, simultaneously. These systems aren't cheap and it requires more skill closer to IT than your typical stevedore. So it can take years to recoup any savings in labor. Recouping time costs are almost immediate. [0] http://www.konecranes.com/equipment/container-handling-equipment/automated-rmg-armg-system http://www.konecranes.com/equipment/container-handling-equip...
londons_explore 9y ago
If load/unload time were a big $$ problem, I can imagine one could design a system which effectively threw containers on and off the ship. ie. acceleration at 1G upwards on the way out, and freefall on the way in. The same acceleration rates can be used for the automated clamps which lock onto the corners of the containers for movement. Assuming a dockside + ship is 100 yards wide, a one second lock/unlock time for clamps, that should work out at 14 seconds per container. Assume we have a grid of cranes over the ship, able to pick up every container on top at once. Assume the worst-case complete unload of the whole ships capacity (10,000 40 ft containers on the largest vessels), and reload of another complete load. That comes out as 8 minutes! Current loading times are multiple hours for even a partial unload of a much smaller ship. That tells me that there isn't enough $$$ involved to get serious engineering efforts to make it quicker.

bkor 9y ago

> Most container ships are only in port for a few hours That's not true at all. The container ships are getting bigger, but port productivity hasn't kept up at all. You can put more cranes on the vessel if it's longer, but lately it's often getting wider, not longer (=which would allow additional cranes to be used). Containers ships are often in a port for a really long time, can be days. That said, containers toppling over has happened in the past, including capsized feeders (small container vessels). Example 1: http://maritimeaccident.org/2010/01/husky-racer-toppled-boxes-top-heavy-due-to-software-glitch/ http://maritimeaccident.org/2010/01/husky-racer-toppled-boxe... Example 2: http://shipsmonthly.com/news/ship-accident-container-ship-capsizes/ http://shipsmonthly.com/news/ship-accident-container-ship-ca... (they noticed a problem, tried to prevent it from capsizing, it took 2 days and still capsized!) Often the cause is not hackers, just wrong data given by shippers. Basically saying that a container is heavy while it is light weight and vice versa. That's why every container loaded now needs their weight to be certified. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/container/Pages/default.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/container/Pages/... Interestingly enough, up to that new requirement loads of containers could get on a container vessel without ever really knowing what their real weight was.

oasisbob 9y ago
That Husky Racer incident is interesting - particularly because correct weight data was eventually given by the shippers, but that data didn't propagate through Maersk's systems. Wonder if a dependence on removable media had anything to do with it. > The MAIB preliminary examination of the accident found that the inaccurate container weights were on the loading plan because of a system shortcoming which did not update the operations department when the shipper provided more accurate contents details to the carrier. > The Deputy Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents has written to Maersk Line advising that its operations department should use the most accurate container weights and ship stability data available. [1] [1] https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/collapse-of-containers-on-container-feeder-vessel-husky-racer-in-bremerhaven-germany-resulting-in-the-loss-of-18-containers-overboard https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/collapse-of-containers-on-co...
- bkor 9y ago