THE VIRTUAL TERMINAL

THE VIRTUAL TERMINAL: VISUALIZING AND STRUCTURING FUTURE AUTOMATED CONTAINER TERMINALS
MICHELE FUMAROLA
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5
2628BX Delft, The Netherlands
E-mail: m.fumarola@tudelft.nl
CORNELIS VERSTEEGT
APM Terminals Management BV, Anna van Saksenlaan 71
2593HW The Hague, The Netherlands
E-mail: cornelis.versteegt@apmterminals.com
Automation in maritime container terminals is gaining momentum as the advantages in terms of productivity and costs have become apparent. However, expertise and experience in the design and development of automated terminals is still limited. Many stakeholders or actors are involved in the design process and the entire process is supported by a substantial amount of documents created by different actors. The actors cover a wide range of perspectives, use specific information carriers and terminology, and have their own interests while having little understanding of the interests of others. A common framework of understanding is lacking which makes the communication within the design process problematic, and results in suboptimal terminal designs. To resolve this, we propose to use a 3D visualization environment to represent the automated terminal. This virtual environment can be used as a common framework of understanding and as an understandable communication medium. However the common practice of developing a 3D impression of a future terminal is a costly and time consuming endeavor which is therefore rarely used as a support throughout the decision making process. We propose a new way of using 3D visualizations of automated terminals, called the Virtual Terminal. The Virtual Terminal is a way of presenting and giving structure to future container terminals. By automating the generation of 3D environments of container terminals based on design drawings and by using this virtual environment as a framework to structure existing knowledge, the Virtual Terminal can support decision makers throughout the whole decision making process. A case study is conducted during the design process of a state-of-the-art automated container terminal to assess the Virtual Terminal.
1. Introduction
In this introduction, we will begin by discussing the challenges faced in the design of container terminals. We will see how different actors are involved in the design of container terminals and which additional difficulties arise when these terminals need to be automated. Hereafter, we will discuss knowledge visualization theory on which our solution is based. After the introduction, this solution will be presented and discussed.
1.1. Automated container terminals
Automation is gaining momentum within the maritime container terminal industry. Automation in container terminals replaces manual labor by computer controlled equipment to handle containers. A number of container terminals have been automated in the recent past, see Table 1. Furthermore, more and more container terminals will be automated in the near future.

Terminal Year Automated technology
ECT (Rotterdam) 1989-1993 Rail Mounted Gantries (RMG)
Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV)
Thamesport (UK) 1982 - 1990 RMG
HHLA-CTA (Hamburg) 2003 RMG and AGV
Euromax (Rotterdam) 2007 RMG and AGV
Table 1 List of existing automated container terminals
Traditionally the transshipment of containers has been a labor intensive industry. The advantages of automation of container terminals compared to manual operated terminals are numerous (Saanen (2004), Versteegt (2004)):
• Automation leads to lower life cycle costs. The higher initial investments are compensated by lower operational costs. Furthermore, automated terminals are less sensitive to shortage in labor and structural increases in labor costs.
• Automation improves safety. Less people required to physically handle containers. There is a reduction of repetitive and dangerous work.
• Automation can significantly reduce the level of damage to containers, cargo and container handling equipment. Automated equipment operates more precise than human operators.
• Automated equipment can easily be electrically driven. This results in less local sound and local air pollution.
• Automation can lead to higher service levels. Automated terminals can operate on a continuous 24/7 basis and with a consistent level of performance. This increases the service levels that can be offered to the customers.
The design of automated logistic systems is not a trivial task (Vis (2002), Saanen (2004), Pielage (2005)). Firstly, there is little experience in designing automated terminals. Only a limited number of (fully) automated terminals have been designed and built. Terminal designers have only limited experience with designing automated terminals. Secondly, automated container handling equipment is more complicated technology. The systems integration of the automated components is also a challenging task. Thirdly, IT systems are more important within automated systems. Fourthly, the solution space in the design of automated systems is larger than in human based systems. More alternatives and possible solutions have to be taken into account. Fifth, the design process has a long time frame. Frequent changes are made to the terminal design throughout the entire design cycle. It is difficult to keep track of these changes. Finally, many actors are involved in the design process. Each actor has its own goals, specific information needs and objectives. The goals and objectives of the involved actors are often conflicting. The information also differs for each actor. This often results in a situation in which there is no common framework for shared understanding. This makes the communication between the actors cumbersome and increases the chances that actors will only focus on their own expertise. The actors will optimize their own part of the entire design and optimize according to their own objectives. This leads to suboptimal designs of automated container terminals.

1.2. Knowledge visualization
Knowledge visualization examines the use of visual representations to improve the transfer and creation of knowledge between at least two persons (Burkhard & Meier, 2004). The analysis in Lin, Bui, & Zhang (2007) on the different schools of thought in knowledge visualization ends in concluding that knowledge visualization differs from information visualization as such that the first fosters visual representation for the purpose of learning, understanding and collaboration, while the second aims at extracting truthful representation of knowledge structures to augment the use of information through visual cognition. Knowledge visualization therefore aims at transferring knowledge.
Burkhard & Meier (2005) recognizes three challenges in the transfer of knowledge in organizations, which thus have to be addressed:
1. Knowledge transfer. Contents are too complex to convey verbally. Therefore visual representations are required to capture attention, to efficiently use the available time and mental capacity of the audience, and to provide relevant information in different levels of detail.
2. Interfunctional communication. The addressed recipients of knowledge vary in backgrounds and interests. As an individual tends to understand something well if it is connected to a known context. Appropriate measures therefore have to be taken in order to target knowledge to a specific group of people.
3. Information overload. The huge amount of information present in an organization is difficult to absorb by individuals. This is due to the limited amount of time and capacity to do so. Trying to present everything at once or unstructured can result in an information overload. To avoid this, we need to be able to catch attention, provide strategies to better filtering and exploring potentially relevant information, and to improve the information quality
The Knowledge Visualization Framework, which is illustrated in Figure 1 (a), covers four perspectives which are: aim, content, recipient, and medium. The first perspective, function type, provides the aim of the visualization. Secondly, knowledge type tells us the contents that we have to present. Subsequently, the recipient type, gives the recipients that are addressed. Lastly, the visualization type provides us the tools to present knowledge.
Complementing the Knowledge Visualization Framework is the Knowledge Visualization Model. This model serves as assistance in the design of knowledge visualization. The model is presented in Figure 1 (b) and illustrates the interaction between knowledge sender and receiver. The sender goes through three stages: getting attention, presenting (by illustrating the context, providing an overview and offering possibilities to act) and pinpointing details. Finally the receiver reconstructs the sender’s knowledge.



Figure 1 (a) The Knowledge Visualization Framework and (b) Knowledge Visualization Model (Burkhard & Meier, 2005)
1.3. Towards a solution
We have discussed the design of automated container terminals in terms of a complex problem embedded in a multi-actor environment. We have discussed which challenges occur and which difficulties have to be faced. Subsequently we have introduced knowledge visualization that can provide us a method to tackle these challenges and difficulties. However, we have yet to discuss how this can be achieved and which direction to take towards a solution.
The first step towards this solution can be achieved by applying the Knowledge Visualization Framework. As discussed, this framework covers four aspects which need to be discussed in terms of automated container terminal design:
1. Function type As there is a limited amount of existing automated container terminals; experience in the design thereof is quite limited. The actors involved in the design process do not have sufficient insight into the complexity of this new mode of operation. Presenting realistic and compelling imagery of non-existing container terminals can: provide a mean of communication and foster discussion; get the attention of the audience; improve the understanding of these new kinds of terminals, thus helping the audience recall; increase the motivation of working in unknown domains; and finally increase insight into these complex systems.
2. Knowledge type There is a vast amount of knowledge that needs to be transferred. This knowledge originates from domain experts; is extracted from past experiences in manual operated or semi-automated container terminals; is reported in research literature, vendor documents, etc.; and is predicted in (computer) simulation models.
3. Recipient type The multi-actor environment which we will sketch in detail in the case study description, illustrates this well. The design of (automated) container terminal is a process wherein various actors are involved with different backgrounds (business, technical, etc).
4. Visualization type Automated container terminals are physical facilities, thus having a visual appearance. Different studies (Fabri, et al., 2008; Terrington, Napier, Howard, Ford, & Hatton, 2008) have shown that 3D visualization provides the means necessary to increase interest and understanding, and facilitate dialogue when physical or tangible objects are being studied. Hou & Pai (2009) further stress: “The traditional approach of representing the knowledge in text or in plane illustration has the defection of information insufficiency. With the 3D visualized simulation technique, knowledge can be represented via the visualization mechanism.”
The second step towards a solution is achieved by shedding light on the knowledge transfer process by using the Knowledge Visualization Model. The knowledge transfer process begins by getting the attention of the receiver of knowledge: compelling and realistic imagery can achieve this effect. In the case of container terminals, the 3D visualization discussed in the previous paragraph, serves this purpose. Subsequently, the knowledge has to be put into context (the container terminal), an overview has to be presented (using a certain structure) and the options to act have to be shown (interaction with the audience). Hereafter, the audience needs to be pointed to the details (possibility to look up information selected by the knowledge sender). Only then, the receiver can reconstruct the knowledge and, in case, provide feedback.
The two steps discussed above can therefore be distilled into a set of requirements for the solution. The solution has to be able to:
• present realistic and compelling 3D imagery of an automated container terminal;
• contain the vast amount of information gathered from different sources;
• serve as a communication medium between actors;
• provide the context and an overview of the knowledge present in the container terminal;
• provide interaction with the actors involved;
• and finally, point the actors towards selected details.
During the design process of container terminals, it is common practice to use 3D visualizations to improve communication and to create a common framework of understanding. However, the current approaches to 3D visualization have a number of disadvantages.
• Constructing 3D visualizations is a costly exercise.
• Constructing 3D visualizations requires long throughput times while the design changes many times during the design phase.
• Creating 3D visualizations requires a high level of expertise that is often not available within a company. Externals have to be hired to execute the visualization.
• The 3D visualizations only cover the perspective of one actor and focus on his goals and objectives.
• They are often prerecorded animations with little user interaction.
These disadvantages result in a limited use of 3D visualizations in container terminal design projects. Moreover, the 3D visualizations which are used nowadays, lack the information and interaction which we found in the requirements mentioned above. This suggests a current lack in support for knowledge visualization which needs to be filled.
2. The virtual terminal
In the previous section, we discussed the Knowledge Visualization Model and Framework presented by Burkhard & Meier (2005). We discussed how this can be used to face problems in the design of automated container terminals. To support the design process, a knowledge visualization software tool has been developed, called the Virtual Terminal.
2.1. Scope and functionality
The “Virtual Terminal” (VT) is a knowledge visualization software tool for automated container terminals. The tool is intended as support during the design of automated container terminals. Four important aspects characterize the VT: the automated extraction of the virtual environment description from design drawings, a realistic 3D visualization of the virtual environment, the possibility to structure information into context and finally the means for communication and presentation.
Creating a virtual environment is a tedious task which usually involves manual labor requiring months of work. During the design process of a container terminal, this waiting-time would be a huge set-back. Commonly, 3D impressions are made only once the design process is over and the design of the new container terminal is finalized. However, during the design process many design drawings are made in authoring tools as AutoCAD. Having a mean of translating these drawings to descriptions of virtual environments, can therefore facilitate the task of constructing the virtual environment and significantly shorten the time needed for it. To achieve this, an AutoCAD-plugin has been developed which translates the design drawings into an XML-file that serves as a description for the virtual environment. The translation is based on an ontology for automated container terminals: this ontology allows a mapping of entities in the 2D design drawing to entities in the virtual environment. This approach on translation can best be described as an extension to the library based approach on data translation from CAD to VR as described by Whyte, Bouchlaghem, Thorpe, & McCaffer (2000).
With a valid description of a virtual environment, a realistic 3D presentation is possible. To achieve this, 3D models have been developed based on blueprints of equipment and detailed photographic material which resulted in high-detailed models. These models are thus visualized in the VT.
The ontology, which is used for the mapping from design drawings to virtual environment, also serves as the structure for information which can be put into context. To each entity in the ontology, and therefore in the 3D virtual environment, existing information can be attached. This information is not limited to any format allowing the use of textual documents, spreadsheets, websites, etc. This freedom is left on purpose as the format in which information is stored for a given project, varies widely. Each entity containing information is thereafter marked, which is intended at getting the attention of the users. Besides information, the ontological structure provides an interface for external sources e.g. simulation and real-time data feeds. The VT therefore results in the central point of resources.
The VT finally serves as a communication medium. The VT provides the possibility to present non-existing automated container terminals to a large audience and it provides a platform for dialogue. It finally provides the possibility of collecting experiences, opinions and ideas by making annotations in the virtual environment, based on the ontological structure.
2.2. Software architecture
To have a better understanding of the VT, a component diagram is presented in Figure 2: the component diagram allows us to present the high-level, architectural view of the system.

Figure 2 Component diagram of the Virtual Terminal
The World component is the central point of the system, as such the meeting point of information. Every activity goes through this component as so keep a consistent state of the system. This component feeds the output components: the 3D visualization and the 2D textual output. The 3D visualization is only in charge of visualizing the automated container terminal in a realistic manner, while the 2D output provides the means to show all other information: textual information, annotations, and documents. The World component is initially fed by the WorldLoader component which on his hand gets the information from the Design Drawing Translator component. These components are thus in charge of translating the design drawings to a format understandable to the VT. The World component continues by gathering information from other external resources as for instance a database, a simulation data feed, or other resources found to be essential in the design process. The last component, the User Input Interface, is in charge of the interaction with the user: selection of entities, input of information, and navigation.
2.3. Applying the Knowledge Visualization Framework and Model
In section 1.3 we studied how the Knowledge Visualization Framework and Model could help us work towards a solution. Now we will reflect on the resulting product in terms of the framework and model.
The framework can be applied in terms of the four types:
1. Function type The VT presents a realistic environment in which an automated container terminal is visualized. This adheres to the goals presented in 1.3
2. Knowledge type The VT has the capabilities of being fed by different types of information sources. These information sources are not restricted in any way, leaving the future possibilities of adding information sources found to be useful.
3. Recipient type The VT can be used by the various actors involved in the design of container terminal.
4. Visualization type A 3D visualization and 2D output provides sufficient ways of visualizing information.
Following the Knowledge Visualization Model, we can identify the knowledge senders and receivers to be both present in the multi-actor environment sketched in section 1.1. The senders can be of two types: the container terminal CAD-designer or other actors involved in the design process (e.g. business analysts). The CAD-designer has the possibility to set a basis for the virtual environment by inputting the environment description. This level of detail of the drawing sets the realism of the future container terminal thus getting the attention of the receivers. The other senders can input their documents, experiences and ideas into the system. The receivers will get an overview by the ontological structure present in the virtual environment, a context for each entity in the environment, and the possibility to act by querying information and adding annotations. The entities that contain information are highlighted providing the possibility for the knowledge sender to get the attention for details from the knowledge receivers. The knowledge receiver thus absorbs the information and becomes a knowledge sender by adding knowledge to the system.
3. Case study: a large scale automated container terminal
The VT is currently being applied in the design of a large scale automated terminal in Europe. The design of this terminal, which is expected to be one the largest terminal in terms of productivity, provides two main challenges which need to be faced: limited amount of space and high productivity. Because of this, major effort has to go in the assessment of novel types of equipment which are able to increase productivity e.g. automated guided vehicles, rail mounted gantry cranes. Moreover, multiple terminal layouts are considered in the design. This results in uncertainties that are not present in the design process of common container terminals.
The design project has the characteristics of having many actors involved and a large design space. We will discuss these two characteristics into depth and will continue by presenting how the VT is being employed in this project. We will also present some preliminary informal evaluation of the environment.
3.1. Actors
Many actors are involved in the design project of the automated terminal:
• Project management team. This team can be seen as the problem owner of the entire project. The terminal is designed for the project management team.
• Operational personal. They have knowledge of terminal operations and are responsible for developing the operational specifications and operational framework.
• Civil engineers. They are responsible for all civil aspects of the terminal design. The main areas of focus: design of the quay wall and pavement.
• Mechanical engineers. They are responsible for the technical design of the equipment that is chosen in the design.
• Simulation engineers. Responsible for modeling the terminal design and evaluate choices in the design.
• IT engineers. Responsible for the design of the IT architecture and especially the terminal operating system (TOS).
• Procurement team. Responsible for the procuring the all equipment for the designed terminal
• Legal team. Responsible for all legal aspects and licenses.
• Safety and environment team. Responsible for all aspect concerning safety and environment.
• Human Resource Management. Responsible for all aspects relating labor.
Several external actors are also involved in the design project, besides the internal actors mentioned above, such as equipment manufacturers, potential customers, local governments and port authorities. Not all actors are involved in the entire process. The contribution of the actors also differs. The actors with the most frequent involvement are listed on top.
3.2. Design space
Besides the large number of actors involved the design space is also very large. The design space within the design project is sketched in Figure 3. The design space is large, since many choices and decisions have to be made in the design of the automated terminal. The most important choices and decisions are:
• Number of quay cranes that will be used.
• The type of equipment that will be used for stacking, including the dimensions and number of stack equipment.
• The type and number of horizontal transport equipment that will be used.
• The interface between stack and rail / road (to the hinterland).


Figure 3: Design space (based on Holsapple (2008))
All these decisions end up in creating a large a complex design space. Decisions made for one part of the terminal direct and indirectly influence other choices that need to be made.
The VT is currently being used to support the design process. The following use cases were identified:
1. Creating a common framework of understanding. The VT is used during design sessions to study the impact of decisions.
2. Communication towards stakeholders. The VT is used to show what the designed terminal will look like in photorealistic 3D view.
3.3. Usage
As soon as a first rough design of the new terminal is established by the design team, a version of is used for the VT. The initial drawings, which are drawn in AutoCAD, only sketch the first ideas on which much iteration will follow. The conversion is based on the ontology which will later be used for structuring information. The ontology provides an overview of each entity which can possibly be present in an automated terminal and also shows the relations between these entities. Using this ontology in the CAD drawing, an almost direct translation can be made between complex CAD drawings and the virtual environment. Once this process, which is illustrated in Figure 4 (a), is done, the 3D virtual environment is ready to be enriched with information from the various actors involved in the design process.
Each object in the environment is selectable and can keep specific information which can be useful for decision making. The information which is deemed to be important is added to the environment so that everybody has access to it. An example of such an object can be seen in Figure 4 (b). In this example, a quay crane is selected and the available information is shown. This object contains information about the specification of the crane, the costs and estimated productivity results. Using the same functionality, annotations can be made which reflects ideas, remarks and questions on a particular item of the new container terminal. This improves communication between the actors.
During the following iterations on the design, the constructed virtual environment is used as a platform for discussion. The actors have achieve a shared understanding of the new terminal which makes it possible for everybody involved in the process, to achieve the required insight for making decisions.

Figure 4 (a) From CAD drawing to the 3D virtual environment. (b) Information can be added to objects in the environment.
3.4. Informal evaluation
The first feedbacks from actors that have worked with the VT are very positive. First, the VT provides more insight by photorealistic images. Traditionally, 2D images and movies are used of terminal designs. The VT generates 3D images and movies of high quality. Furthermore, the VT is a virtual environment in which the users can freely move around. Secondly, the VT can be used before the terminal is implemented. Operators can be trained for their future job using the VT. Thirdly, the users also expect that the VT will have high value for the commercial aspects of the terminal. The VT can be shown to customers and used as a “selling” tool. Finally, the VT will be used for the communication of the design to port authorities, governments and other stakeholders. The design can be presented in an understandable format to all stakeholders.
4. Conclusion and future work
Knowledge visualization presents a possibility to convey knowledge between different people which is important to gain insight into complex multi-actor environments. We presented the design of container terminals as such an environment and explained which difficulties arise when an automated mode of operation is desired. To tackle these problems, we have developed the Virtual Terminal which supports the design process of such novel container terminals. We have seen how the Virtual Terminal is employed and how it helps the different actors in understanding the problem.
Future work on the Virtual Terminal will focus on the sources of information, information visualization and collaboration. As sources of information can be added to the Virtual Terminal, it becomes a challenge to present them all without suffering from information overload. Therefore information visualization techniques will be explored to tackle this problem. Furthermore, collaboration patterns and best practices will be explored to improve the collaboration between actors involved in the design process.
References
Burkhard, R. A., & Meier, M. (2004). Tube map: Evaluation of a visual metaphor for interfunctional communication of complex projects. Paper presented at the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies.
Burkhard, R. A., & Meier, M. (2005). Tube Map Visualization: Evaluation of a Novel Knowledge Visualization Application for the Transfer of Knowledge in Long-Term Projects. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 11(4), 473-494.
Fabri, D., Falsetti, C., Iezzi, A., Ramazzotti, S., Rita Viola, S., & Leo, T. (2008). Virtual and Augmented Reality. In H. H. Adelsberger, Kinshuk, J. M. Pawlowski & D. G. Sampson (Eds.), Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training (pp. 113-132): Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Holsapple, C. W. (2008). Decisions and Knowledge. In F. Burstein & C. Holsapple (Eds.), Handbook on Decision Support Systems (pp. 22-53). Berlin: Springer.
Hou, J.-L., & Pai, S.-T. (2009). A spatial knowledge sharing platform. Using the visualization approach. International Journal of Production Research, 47(1), 25-50.
Lin, X., Bui, Y., & Zhang, D. (2007). Visualization of Knowledge Structures. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Information Visualization.
Pielage, B.-J. (2005). Conceptual Design of Automated Freight Transport Systems: Methodology and Practice. Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Saanen, Y. A. (2004). An approach for designing robotized marine container terminals. Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Terrington, R., Napier, B., Howard, A., Ford, J., & Hatton, W. (2008). Why 3D? The Need For Solution Based Modeling In A National Geoscience Organization. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on GIS in Geology and Earth Sciences.
Versteegt, C. (2004). Holonic control for large scale automated logistic systems. Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Vis, I. F. A. (2002). Planning and control concepts for material handling systems. University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Whyte, J., Bouchlaghem, N., Thorpe, A., & McCaffer, R. (2000). From CAD to virtual reality: modelling approaches, data exchange and interactive 3D building design tools Automation in Construction, 10(1), 43-55.