Port Planning

7

1PORT PLANNING

Constantine D. MemosNational Technical University of Athens

Zografos, Greece

1.1 Introduction / 71.2 Port planning at the national level / 7

1.2.1 National port policy / 71.2.2 Definition of port functions / 8

1.3 Port planning at the individual portlevel / 101.3.1 Port development planning / 101.3.2 Principles of port design / 111.3.3 Cargo volume forecasts / 141.3.4 Port productivity / 151.3.5 The master plan / 171.3.6 General layout of port works / 17

1.4 Port planning at the terminal level / 301.4.1 Port development / 301.4.2 General cargo terminal / 311.4.3 Container terminal / 371.4.4 Marinas / 461.4.5 Fishing ports / 57

References and recommended reading / 63

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Port development can refer either to the crea-tion of a new port or to the expansion of anexisting one, usually aimed at increasing its ca-

pacity or upgrading port operations. The issueof port development is examined at three dif-ferent levels: national, local, and port terminal.Complete study of the above can be a com-plicated procedure since it presupposes acontribution by many specialists of variousdisciplines. The analysis laid out in the follow-ing pages derives from the discipline of a civilengineer specialized in port planning who hasundertaken the task of conceiving and design-ing the pertinent elements, in most cases as partof an interdisciplinary team charged with theoverall port development planning. In design-ing at the port or terminal level, aspects per-taining to the maritime aspects of ports are alsodealt with. Such issues include the general lay-out of breakwaters and quays and the design ofentrances and maneuvering areas.

1.2 PORT PLANNING AT THENATIONAL LEVEL

1.2.1 National Port Policy

Until recently, ports in many countries haveusually been developed as part of local port

8 PORT PLANNING

development programs. Such programs nor-mally do not take into consideration the cor-responding plans of other ports within thecountry, a factor that would have resulted inbetter coordination for increased national ben-efit. Indeed, in many cases, instead of attempt-ing to achieve mutual complementing of aims,undue competition tends to develop betweenports within the same country. In government-owned ports this situation can result in un-economical investment of national capital incompeting projects, and moreover, in loss ofopportunities to attract a portion of interna-tional maritime traffic.

The competitive tendencies relate to the for-eign trade of the country, foreign goods intransit, and goods being transshipped: theinternational flows that evidence potential fordevelopment as opposed to internal transports,which have more-or-less preset movement pat-terns. These trade flows can be defined as fol-lows:

• Foreign trade flows relate to the exportsand imports of a country, and conse-quently, have their origin or destination inthat country.

• Goods in transit are those goods in inter-national flow whose land transport leg usesthe territory of the country and one of itsports.

• Goods being transshipped, where both or-igin and destination are located outside thecountry but both of whose transport modesare marine. Consequently, in this flow onlythe specific ports of the country are used,not overland transport.

The latter two flows in general make up thetarget of the competition between ports in acountry.

Given that major ports constitute integral el-ements of the transport network of a country,it is evident that some sort of framework for

centralized coordination of port developmentefforts is required at a national level. A sig-nificant service that such coordination wouldproduce refers to determination of the mostsuitable ports for attracting transit or transship-ment movement on a national level. This ac-quires particular significance nowadays, wheresuch cargo movement is conducted mainly incontainers, and the corresponding port instal-lations are very costly.

In more general terms, the existence of anational port policy could broadly define therole of each port in a country, so that in thecontext of the national economy, the availablefunding can be employed as productively aspossible. Depending on a country’s develop-ment and its tendency for privatization, the al-location of roles to each port may be conductedin such a manner as to permit a large percent-age of these ports to be released from nationalcoordination and to undertake their own devel-opment.

1.2.2 Definitions of Port Functions

Today, the port has acquired its standing withinthe intermodal transport system by constitutinga nodal point between two transport modes. Inseaports, one mode concerns maritime trans-port; in river ports, this mode concerns rivertransport. The nodal linkage between two dif-ferent modes of transport should be functional,permitting efficient and secure movement ofpassengers, cargo, and vehicles. A civil port isa passenger, cargo, or combined port depend-ing on the traffic that it serves. In a combinedpart, both passengers and cargo provide a sig-nificant percentage of the traffic. Of course,specialized ports exist, such as marinas (forharboring pleasure craft), fishing ports, and na-val military bases.

There are two basic methods of loading andunloading cargo to vessels. They are lift on–liftoff (Lo-Lo), which refers to the loading andunloading method, employing either the ves-

1.2 PORT PLANNING AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL 9

sel’s gear or quay-side cranes, and roll on–rolloff (Ro-Ro), which refers to the loading andunloading method conducted by horizontallymoving equipment. Vessels allowing this typeof loading and unloading are equipped with aloading ramp that permits the movement ofcargo handling equipment and other vehicles(trucks, forklifts, straddle carriers, tractors,etc.) between quay and vessel.

At cargo ports, the type and packaging ofcargo products determine the manner of load-ing and unloading as well as of other opera-tions. Thus, the following basic categories ofport terminals can be identified, each havingvarying equipment and operational features:

• General cargo terminals. These are ter-minals equipped with conventional cranes,which handle cargo in all types of pack-aging compatible with cranes. The pack-aging could be parcels, sacks, pallets, orcontainers. The latter should not, however,constitute a major percentage of the traffic,because otherwise a specialized containerterminal would be required to improvethroughput performance.

• Container terminals. In this case, contain-ers are handled using special loading/un-loading, transfer, and stacking equipment.They are typified by extensive yard areasfor container stowage.

• Multipurpose terminals. These terminalscombine a variety of functions in a singleterminal, where containers, but also con-ventional general cargo or other packagedproducts, can be handled.

• Ro-Ro terminals. Here cargo is transferredwithin a roll on–roll off system, with load-ing and unloading of cargo by horizontallymoving lorries, forklifts, tractors, and soon.

• Bulk cargo terminals. At these terminals,liquid or dry bulk cargo without packagingis handled. Usually, pumping machinery

with suitable piping or grab cranes is usedat these terminals.

The main quantity that may be affected bya suitably implemented national port policy liesin international cargo flow. Consequently, theinitial and basic step in formulating a country’sport system includes the determination of thoseports that will undertake to serve the flows offoreign trade, transshipment, or transit. Theseflows operate more-or-less independently ofone another, and thus for simplification of theanalysis, may be studied individually.

The basic criteria to be considered in devel-oping a proposition as to the roles of a coun-try’s ports may be classified into the followingfour groups:

1. The national and regional developmentpolicies of the country

2. The transportation infrastructure of thehinterland and its prospects

3. Existing port capacity and potential fordevelopment

4. Cargo forecasts for each port

After each of the three independent inter-national flows has been examined, the findingsshould be pooled, to define the core of thecountry’s port system. Thus, the role of eachport that participates in international cargo flowwill be specified and the basic cargo through-puts can be determined. Considering thesethroughput values, and factoring in the nationalflows, master plans can be drawn up for indi-vidual ports.

Apart from international cargo flow, otheraspects of the overall port development studyare usually examined. Although these are notof primary significance in the formulation ofthe core of a national port system, they do havea role in evaluation of the main subsystems andin developing the final proposal. Such aspectsinclude:

10 PORT PLANNING

• Special bulk cargoes, such as coal, cement,petroleum products, grains

• Industrial ports• Shipbuilding and ship repair• Free zones• Coastal shipping• Passenger movement

1.3 PORT PLANNING AT THEINDIVIDUAL PORT LEVEL

1.3.1 Port Development Planning

1.3.1.1 Port Development and MasterPlanning. The master plan of a port allocatesthe land within the port to the various usesrequired, describes the projects needed to im-plement the plan, and gives an indicativeimplementation scheme by development phase.These phases are related directly to the pro-jected port traffic which has to be monitoredclosely. When in due course a decision isreached to proceed with implementation of adevelopment scheme, this should be integratedsmoothly with, or derive from, the master planfor the port. Therefore, it is important that amaster plan exist, and drafting one should beamong the primary concerns of port manage-ment. Of course, a variety of continuouslyvarying factors have a bearing on such a plan,ranging from statistical data on port traffic tointernational treaties. For this reason, the planshould be revised regularly, at least every fiveyears. Moreover, if during the design of a par-ticular development phase the need arises for areview of the plan, this should be conductedconcurrently, if possible, to ensure compatibil-ity with the other functions and operations ofthe port. However, the lack of a master plan ata particular port should not delay the makingof decisions for small-scale immediate im-provement, although it is recommended that atthe first opportunity an effort should be madeto draft a master plan for the port.

1.3.1.2 Long-Term Planning. In the eventthat a national ports plan does not exist, theconsultant should proceed with drafting a mas-ter plan, after studying the following compo-nents of long-term planning:

1. The role of the port—in particular:a. The servicing of its inland area as

regards foreign tradeb. The support that the port may offer to

the region’s commercial and industrialdevelopment

c. The attraction of transiting and trans-shipment traffic

2. The responsibility of the port for the con-struction of both port and land works.Frequently, more than one agency be-comes involved: for example, when aport area is serviced by a railroad.

3. The land use in the area and the potentialfor expansion of the port. It is importantthat there be general agreement betweeninterested parties over the proposed ex-pansions and land use so that the result-ing master plan meets with wideacceptance.

4. The policy for financing the port devel-opment, which may be formulated on thebasis of its own resources and/or througha state grant.

In general, in modern port development thebasic requirement is for large expanses of landto ensure productive operation of the individualterminals. Therefore, a careful examination ofpoint 3 assumes particular importance.

1.3.1.3 Medium-Term Planning. As stated,each port development scheme should be in-corporated in the master plan and should pro-ceed to implementation following the results ofan appropriate feasibility study. The latterstudy should refer individually to each inde-pendent section of the overall developmentproposal, such as a container terminal or a bulk

1.3 PORT PLANNING AT THE INDIVIDUAL PORT LEVEL 11

cargo terminal. Thus, under a positive but re-duced yield from the overall proposal, the riskof concealment of a nonproductive section isavoided. The drafting of a port developmentplan calls for the conduct of the following spe-cial studies:

1. Analysis of the functionality of the portas regards the services offered in con-junction with capacity

2. Designs, with budgets3. Operational design, with budget4. Financial and financing study

In large port development projects it is cus-tomary to reexamine the organization and man-agement of the port operating agency and torecommend organizational improvements on asmall or larger scale. It is possible that manyof the ports in a country do not warrant a de-velopment effort beyond maintenance of exist-ing structures or appropriate modification, suchas to serve fishing vessels or pleasure craft.Such modifications are nowadays met quite fre-quently, since old ports, traditionally being partof the core of their town, cannot easily incor-porate large land expanses needed in modernport layouts. Also, environmental and social is-sues do not allow in many cases major ex-panses of an old port site. The requirement thatthe citizenship should be granted free access tothe waterfront of their city is gradually beingrespected by more and more authorities. Nev-ertheless, the problem of what to do with theold port installations is a complex one, whereboth the needs of the local community and thebenefits of the relevant port authority should beaccommodated. As noted above a commontrend is to change the character of a past com-mercial port into a marina or fishing vesselsrefuge. There are also examples (London, Mar-seille, etc.) where old ports were completelyrefurbished into commercial or recreationalzones, some of them arousing controversialdiscussions among town-palnners.

Moreover, since ports interact in many wayswith the surrounding township, port masterplanning should take into account, apart fromstrictly engineering issues, such aspects as so-cial, economic, and environmental constraintsand should easily fit within the relevant townand regional plans. This frequently calls for acompromise between the requirements of theport and the local authorities.

1.3.2 Principles of Port Design

1.3.2.1 Guiding Principles. If the undertak-ing involves the development of an existingport, before proceeding with developmentplans it would be prudent to make efforts to (1)increase productivity and (2) improve existinginstallations. Factors that contribute to increas-ing productivity in an existing port are im-provements in loading and unloading practices,to the overall operation of the port terminals,and to modernization of cargo handling andhauling equipment. As pointed out, the expan-sions that may be required additionally to theimprovements above should be incorporated inthe master plan of the port and should be im-plemented within a time horizon in order toconstitute productive projects according to thepertinent feasibility studies.

Particularly as regards the individual termin-als within a port, the respective capacity cal-culations are based on different factors,depending on the nature of each terminal asfollows:

1. In conventional cargo terminals, the re-quired number of berths is determinedfirst, to keep vessels’ waiting time belowa specified limit, determined by eco-nomic and other criteria.

2. In container terminals, the land area re-quired for the unobstructed movement ofcargo flow is calculated.

3. For specialized bulk cargo terminals, thecargo flow during loading and unloading

12 PORT PLANNING

Figure 1.1 Port cost as a function of cargo throughput. 1, Port’s cost; 2, cost of operation; 3, capital cost.

has to be calculated first, to ensure thatvessels will be serviced within acceptableperiods of time.

As arrival times of commercial vessels atports cannot adhere to an exact schedule, en-abling ready scheduling of requisite berthingand eliminating waiting time, to determine thenumber of berths a compromise is usuallymade between two extreme situations: on theone hand, the minimization of vessel waitingtime, and on the other, the maximization ofberth occupancy.

1.3.2.2 Port Costs. Two factors constituteport costs: investment cost, which does not de-pend on traffic, and operating cost, which does.If the cost were to be expressed per unit ofcargo throughput, the relation between cost andtraffic volume is depicted as in Figure 1.1. Aship’s cost in port is also made up of two con-stituents: the cost of the vessel’s waiting timeand the cost of the ship while berthed. Theship’s total port cost curve expressed as aboveis shown in Figure 1.2. The sum of the portcost and the cost of the ship in port provides atotal cost, as shown in Figure 1.3.

Traffic corresponding to point B in Figure1.3 is less than that at point A. This means thatthe optimum traffic volume for a port is lowerwhen the total cost is taken into account thanwhen either the total port cost or the total ves-sel cost is considered. Of course, the differencebetween A and B depends on vessel types,which determines the corresponding vessel costcurves.

A measure often used to describe the levelof service offered to vessels is the ratio of wait-ing time to service time. It is generally rec-ommended that this ratio be lower than, say,20%, but there is a danger here of showing animprovement of service provided through aunilateral increase in service time. This is whyfor the purposes of evaluation, absolute valuesof total vessel waiting time at the port are alsorequired.

1.3.2.3 Traffic Fluctuations. Even a propor-tionally small but persistent increase in the traf-fic of a port may very quickly cause congestionin a port lacking in reserve spaces; the conges-tion will cause a reduction in the productivityof serviced vessels, which aggravates the prob-lem further. The increase in traffic may be


Figure 1.2 Cost of ship in port. 1, Ship cost in port; 2, cost of waiting; 3, cost of berth.

Figure 1.3 Total vessel–port cost curve. 1, Total cost; 2, cost of vessel; 3, cost of port.

caused by a new shipping line, larger cargovolumes, more frequent or occasional vesselcalls, and so on. Even a change in the packingmethod of a product of large throughput mayaffect the efficiency and productivity of a port

adversely. It is assumed that the problems cre-ated by a steady increase in traffic will be metin good time through the implementation ofsuitable development projects based on themaster plan of the port.

14 PORT PLANNING

The fluctuations around more-or-less regularaverage traffic may be faced by a carefully de-signed emergency plan according to which oldquays, anchorages, and so on, on reserve,which are not used as vessel servicing posi-tions, may be brought into operation. Usually,the reserve capacity of a port consists of in-expensive installations, which, however, giverise to a high cost of operation. These reservesshould be allocated equally among all theport’s sections. Other means of a temporary in-crease to port capacity could be an improve-ment in cargo handling: for example, anincrease in work gangs per vessel serviced, thehiring of additional mobile cranes or otherequipment, or the use of lighters for loadingand discharging on two sides.

The size of the cargo to be taken for plan-ning purposes should be selected carefully sothat potential fluctuations may be absorbedwith some acceptable increase in vessel waitingtime. As regards high-cost installations andvessels, a method of smoothing the peaks inwaiting time is that of serving by priority, ac-cording to which, when the vessel arrives at apredetermined time, it will have guaranteed ac-cess. The more such agreements between portsand liner operators are signed, the greater thesmoothing of the traffic curve.

1.3.2.4 The Optimum State. The chief ben-efit from investments in port projects is the pos-sibility if reducing total vessel time at a port.Despite the fact that ships are the first party tobenefit, in the medium term both the port andthe country benefit overall from the develop-ment of ports. From a practical point of view,optimization of the waiting time–quay use is-sue may result in a 75% occupancy factor fora group of, say, five general cargo berths,which produces a wait of half a day, for anaverage service time of 3.5 days. This meansthat over a long period of time: 55% of vesselswill berth immediately, 10% of vessels willwait for 2 days, and 5% of vessels will waitfor 5 days. It can be deduced from the above

that the fact that some vessels experience ex-cessive waiting times does not necessarilymean that the port is congested.

1.3.2.5 Grouping of Installations. De-pending on the type of cargo traffic and on theequipment required, berthing positions andother installations are grouped in more-or-lessindependently operating areas of a port. Thisgrouping implies specialization in the type ofcargo traffic being served in each port section.Thus, better utilization is achieved: for exam-ple, in wharf depths and quicker servicing ofvessels and cargoes. However, there are alsodisadvantages to grouping port installations.Basically, the flexibility obtainable by thegreater number of berths is reduced. This offersa more productive exploitation of both waterand land spaces.

Implementing a sort of grouping thereforeshould proceed when conditions are ripe: forexample, when there is high traffic or when agood number of berths are required. An inter-mediate stage of providing a multipurpose ter-minal serving two (or even three) types ofmovement may be interposed prior to the finalstage of specialized port terminal. This termi-nal will require cargo handling equipment ca-pable of handling more than one type of cargo.Such equipment may be more expensive, so theservicing of vessels and of cargoes may notattain the efficiency of specialized terminals,but there is more than acceptable utilization ofequipment and in general of the entire instal-lation of a multipurpose terminal. A multipur-pose terminal should retain some flexibility sothat in the future it may be converted into aspecialized terminal when conditions permit.

1.3.3 Cargo Volume Forecasts

1.3.3.1 Scope. Cargo volume forecasts for aport provide estimates of:

• The types and quantities of the variousgoods to be moved through the port


• Packing by type of cargo• The number of vessel calls corresponding

to the quantities above

If a national ports policy has been drawn up,the magnitudes above will already be known;otherwise, forecasts are made individually forthe specific port under consideration. There ispotentially great uncertainty in forecasts, andtherefore the planning should accommodateflexibility to enable adaptation to meet futuretraffic. The parameters considered in cargo vol-ume forecasts include:

• Population and national product• Regional development programs• The transport network and its projected fu-

ture• Coastal shipping• Diversion of a portion of the traffic to

other harbors

It is customary to hold interviews with gov-ernment and local authorities, the shippingcommunity, and interested parties to gain anunderstanding of the present and future trafficpatterns. An independent review of global com-mercial and trade prospects that play a majorrole in traffic forecasts should also be con-ducted. Usually, the dependence of the resultson the parameters is estimated on the basis ofsensitivity control of the various calculations.Thus, in addition to the central forecast, wefrequently include both an optimistic and adownside forecast, based on the correspondinggrowth scenario. An important port function in-volves monitoring the accuracy of the forecastsby comparing them with actual traffic.

1.3.3.2 Cargo Flow Combination. Usually,forecasts of significant cargo flows are con-ducted by type of cargo and by route. Bulkcargoes should be distinguished by type ofcargo; container and Ro-Ro cargoes are distin-guished by type of vessel performing the car-

riage. Ro-Ro cargoes may consist of (1)containers, (2) vehicles, (3) general cargo, and(4) products of intermediate unitization.

Container cargoes are calculated in 20-footequivalent units (TEU), inclusive of empty con-tainers. Forecasts should provide for some in-crease in the number of products acceptingcontainerization. The net weight of the TEUranges from 5 to 18 tons, depending on thestowage factor of the cargo within the con-tainer. For instance, if this factor were 2.8 m3/ton, the net weight per TEU would amount to10.4 tons. The results of cargo projections bycargo type and route should be reformulated bycargo category (e.g., dry bulk cargo). The totalprobability of a complex flow depends on thepartial probabilities of the constituent flowforecasts and on the degree of their interde-pendence. It is advisable to analyze the flowsof products with intense seasonal fluctuationseparately and then to add them to the otherflow forecasts.

1.3.3.3 National Transshipment. To esti-mate the transshipment flows either originatedfrom or directed to a national port, and of thecorresponding quays required, the alternativecargo flows between ports A and B should beexamined. The latter implies that the requiredvolume of cargo could be delivered to each porteither directly, or the total volume of cargo di-rected to both locations will be delivered to oneport only, from which it will be transshippedto the other location either by land, or by seausing smaller ships (coasters). For details, con-sult the proceedings of a United Nations con-ference (1978).

1.3.4 Port Productivity

The productivity of a port is the measure of itsability to move cargo through it within a unitof time under actual conditions. It is knownthat cargoes undergo various stages of handlingwhile in port. For example, imported goods un-dergo the following handling procedures:

16 PORT PLANNING

• Discharging while a vessel is berthed• Transport to storage area and stowage• Removal from storage and transport to

area of transshipment or to means of over-land transport

• Loading onto means of overland transport• Departure from the port

Obviously, the total productivity of a port isdetermined by the lowest partial productivity ofeach link in the cargo handling chain. The con-ditions prevailing at the port at any givenmoment, such as weather conditions, humanresources, and condition of machinery, affectthe productivity of the partial procedures con-siderably. Consequently, a substantial timerange representative of prevailing conditionshas to be assumed for the evaluation.

The cargo handling practices pursued ineach port have a decisive bearing on productiv-ity, and any attempt at their improvementshould also factor-in a period of adjustment ofthese practices to the new machinery and han-dling methods. Generally, a reference to anymeasure of productivity should be correlatedwith its corresponding time period. If this in-volves an extensive time period, on the orderof several months, productivity may be reducedto half its value achieved in a short period oftime (e.g., 1 hour). This may apply to all theparticular procedures and handling of cargoflows within the port. For instance, over a shortperiod of time, say a few hours, the containerdischarge efficiency at the dockside phase mayamount to 750 TEU per day per berthing po-sition, whereas over a period of several monthsthe corresponding output for the same berthmay drop to 400 TEU per day. Obviously, thelong-term efficiency rate is important in the de-sign of port installations.

Since the total efficiency of a commercialport or terminal is determined by the lowestproductivity of the partial handling leg, everyintervention for increased productivity should

be directed initially at the least efficient pro-cedure, with the purpose of balancing it outwith handling legs of higher efficiency. The fol-lowing are the most typical pairs of consecutivecargo handling legs in port cargo handling pro-cedures:

• Dock loading and unloading: transportfrom quay to storage area, or vice versa

• Transport from storage area to means ofoverland transport: flow of means oftransport to and from inland areas

An efficiency equalization between each ofthe constituent parts of a cargo handling pairshould be achieved, measured on an hourly (oreven daily) basis. Equalization should also beeffected between the pairs themselves, al-though over a greater time period, that of aweek, during which the cargoes remain in thestorage areas, where the various checks andother procedures are conducted. This require-ment for efficiency equalization ensuressmooth functioning of the storage areas, thusaverting the risk of congestion.

Efficiency increase may be achieved by in-tervention in three areas: (1) human resources,(2) technical matters, and (3) management andprocedures. Intervention in the first area in-volves mainly an improvement in working con-ditions; in the second area, equipment renewal,better maintenance, and backup provisions; andfor the third area, procedure simplification, im-position of a maximum time limit for cargo toremain at the storage areas, and so on.

It should be noted that an increase in pro-ductivity of a terminal by L % does not reducevessel servicing time by the same percentage,but rather by L / (1 � L), as is easily deducedby the definition of loading/unloading produc-tivity at the quay (� cargo loaded or unloaded/vessel servicing time). The efficiency of a portterminal is affected by the quantity of cargo tobe loaded to and unloaded from a vessel. It has


been found that a large quantity of homoge-neous products increases productivity, but usu-ally this is not considered in the relevantcalculations.

1.3.5 The Master Plan

1.3.5.1 Port Categories. From a construc-tion point of view, ports may be classified intothe following categories.

Artificial Ports. Artificial ports are those con-structed along a shoreline by means of earthfill or excavation (Figure 1.4). In both casesthese ports have to be protected from the ad-verse effects of waves and currents. In the for-mer case (Figure 1.4a) the land part of a portis created by means of earth fill, and in thelatter case (Figure 1.4b) the port basin is cre-ated artificially by means of excavation of landadjacent to the shoreline. The geometry of theexcavated basin depends on port size and modeof operation. The excavated harbor is joinedwith the sea via an approach channel. The en-trance to this channel is usually protected fromwaves and current by means of breakwatersand dikes. For more information on excavatedharbors, readers are referred to Memos (1999).

Ports Constructed in a Natural Harbor.Examples are shown in Figure 1.5. Significantfactors to be considered in opting for one ofthe foregoing types of port is availability ofland, land fill material, soil quality, depth ofwater, environmental conditions, and others.

1.3.5.2 Port Location. Traditionally, portsare situated in a location central to the urbanarea they serve. The port is thus surrounded byurbanized area, and both further developmentof the port and access to it are rendered diffi-cult. This situation restricts expansion of theport required to meet modern demands. In mostcases, a feasibility survey for relocation of theport outside the city will have to be conducted.

The prerequisites for such relocation are (1) se-cure maritime approaches, (2) ample availabil-ity of land area, and (3) satisfactory access byland.

For an initial new site evaluation, an exten-sive list of data to be collected is usually drawnup. Some of the items included are:

• Uses and ownership of the land• Topography and access• Existing utilities and structures at the site• Wind and rainfall data• Hydrographic information• Geotechnical data, including potential

sources of construction materials• Environmental assessment of the area

During the initial site evaluation, some as-pects of the project that may affect its devel-opment should be investigated. These mayinclude necessary permissions and ownershipimplications, dredging and spoil disposal re-quirements, environmental constraints, and soon. In cases of inability to relocate, an alter-native to be examined is that of establishingadditional land facilities inland such as an in-land depot.

1.3.5.3 Design Criteria. During the masterplanning stage of a project preliminary designcriteria should be proposed covering aspectssuch as types of operations to be undertaken(e.g., containers, transit and transshipmentflows, import/export; design vessel, operatingequipment).

1.3.6 General Layout of Port Works

1.3.6.1 Guiding Principles. The arrange-ment of port works should be such as to ensureeasy berthing of vessels, secure efficient cargoloading and unloading, and safe passenger em-barkation and disembarkation operations. Spe-cifically, easy access of vessels to a port should

18 PORT PLANNING

Figure 1.4 Conceptual arrangements of artificial ports: (a) created by earthfill; (b) created by excavation. 1–3,Breakwaters, 4, pier; 5, marginal wharf; 6, outfitting pier; 7, dry dock; 8, marina; 9, existing shoreline; 10,approach channel; 11, excavated basin.


Figure 1.5 Ports constructed in natural harbors. (a) Entrance to the harbor is naturally protected by existingislands. (b) Entrance to the harbor is protected by the breakwater. 1, Coastal line; 2, harbor; 3, existing island;4, port facilities; 5, breakwater.

be ensured through an appropriate navigationchannel, a suitably designed port entrance, anadequate maneuvering area, and avoidance ofundesirable erosion or deposition of material inand around the harbor area.

Factors to be considered in drafting a well-designed layout of port works include winds,waves, and currents and also the transportationof deposits in the study area. The existence ofriver or torrent mouths in the vicinity of theworks has to be considered seriously in choos-ing the location and arrangement of the harbor.

The disturbance of harbor basins is a signif-icant parameter, and low agitation should beachieved through a suitable arrangement ofharbor structures. Specifically, the appearanceof reflection and resonance phenomena withinthe harbor should be avoided through the useof absorbing beaches and suitable geometry ofthe structures that delineate it. The problem ofexcess wave agitation should be explored in ei-ther a physical or a mathematical model in or-der to arrive at an optimum layout of portworks. Such models may also be used to op-timize the constituent elements of the port,such as the port entrance.

Several of the subjects above may be tackledsuccessfully by providing for an outer harbor

that functions as a relief zone for the incomingwaves, thus producing easier port-entry condi-tions. Next comes a closer examination of themost important elements that have a direct im-pact on the general layout of the principal portstructures. For issues related to the navigationchannels that serve ports, readers are referredto Chapter 10.

1.3.6.2 Port Entrance. The port entrancedemands careful consideration to ensure quickand safe entry of vessels in the harbor. Theorientation and width of the entrance shouldreconcile two opposing criteria. For reasons ofcomfortable navigation, the harbor entranceshould communicate directly with the open seaand should be as wide as possible. On the otherhand, the narrower and more protected the en-trance, the smaller the degree of wave energyand deposits that penetrate the harbor basin, re-sulting in more favorable conditions for attain-ing tranquility of the in-harbor sea surface.

It is recommended that orientation of the en-trance be such that vessels entering the harborhave the prevailing wind to the fore. Transversewinds and waves create difficult conditions forsteering a vessel through the critical phase ofentering the harbor basin, and a layout of port

20 PORT PLANNING

works that would permit frequent occurrencesof such situations should be avoided.

Naturally, in most cases, the designer isobliged to compromise, as mentioned above.Obviously, the designer should avoid placingthe entrance in the zone of wave breaking be-cause of the difficulties to vessel maneuveringthat may arise. Frequently, the entrance isformed by a suitable alignment of the protec-tion works, whose structure heads are suitablymarked with navigation lights. In the event thatit is not possible to avoid transversal winds andwaves, it is recommended that calm conditionsat the harbor entrance be created by means ofextending the windward breakwater to a satis-factory length beyond the entrance, at least tothe length of one design vessel. In such casesit is advisable that the superstructure of the out-ward port structure be raised so that the windpressures on the sides of the incoming vesselare reduced.

To attain the calmest possible conditions atthe harbor entrance area, it is recommendedthat the external works in its vicinity be formedwith sloping mounds so that wave energy inthe entrance area can be absorbed. Breakwaterswith a vertical front near the entrance maycause difficult navigation conditions there, be-cause of the reflected and semistationarywavetrains created in that region. Moreover, indesigning the layout of the harbor arms thatbound the entrance, care should be taken thatany sedimentation of deposits in the area bereduced. For significant projects, study of theentrance usually culminates in a physicalmodel in which optimization of the arrange-ment is effected by conjoining all the relativerequirements.

The width of the harbor entrance is definedin terms of the smallest length vertical to theentrance axis for which the minimum requireddraft applies. The depth at the entrance is gen-erally determined by the maximum draft of thedesign vessel to be served. This figure shouldbe taken beneath the lowest low water so that

the harbor will always be accessible. In areaswith a large tidal range in which the sea levelcan fluctuate by several meters, the questionarises as to whether it is necessary to ensureaccessibility to the port at all times. To meetsuch a requirement would signify an increasein the dredge depth equal to the range in tidallevel. Alternatively, it could be accepted thatthe entrance be equipped with gates and thatthe port not be accessible during certain low-tide periods. Because such periods are foresee-able, as relying mainly on precise astronomicalpredictions, and because they are of relativelysmall duration, this solution is not to be re-jected offhand, particularly if the harbor is ac-cessible by means of long access channels.Vessels wait in the open sea up to the timewhen the channel is navigable for a specificvessel. Obviously, the internal harbor works ofa tidal harbor will be compatible as regardsdrafts, with the planned navigation channeldrafts suitably increased by a factor to com-pensate for the tidal increase during the openphase of the harbor. Thus, the vessels may al-ways be safely afloat as long as they are in theharbor. Such a solution for periodic operationof the port entrance and channel has shortcom-ings, of course, because of vessel delays andother harbor malfunctions. Consequently, acareful cost–benefit analysis should be con-ducted prior to deciding the extent to which theport will be of free or of limited navigability.Such problems do not arise in ports with rela-tively small tidal fluctuations.

A safety factor of about 15% of the designvessel draft is sufficient for purposes of defin-ing the minimum entrance depth. Alternatively,a margin of about 1.5 to 2.0 m over the draftof a loaded vessel gives a safe water depth atthe port entrance. The width of a free entranceusually ranges between 100 and 250 m, de-pending on the size of the port. It is recom-mended that width be at least equal to thelength of the design vessel the port is to serve.Thus, for small harbors it is possible to specify


Figure 1.6 Layout of a large multipurpose artificial port. 1, General cargo terminal; 2, container terminal; 3,passenger terminal; 4, oil berth; 5, fishing port; 6, dry dock; 7, ship repair area; 8, anchorage area; 9, maneu-vering circle; 10, mooring dolphins; 11, breakwater; 12, tugboat berth; 13, coastal line.

entrance width to be as low as, say, 50 m. Thecorresponding width of a closed port is signif-icantly smaller than the sizes above. For moreinformation, readers are referred to Tsinker(1997) and Chapter 9.

1.3.6.3 Maneuvering Area. When a vesselenters the harbor basin, its speed needs to bereduced to proceed with anchoring and berth-ing maneuvers. In practical terms, these ma-neuvers may be conducted at a normal speedof 8 to 11 knots over a length of 2 to 3L, Lbeing the vessel length, although larger dis-tances may be required for larger vessels withmodern hydrodynamic shapes. A significantconsideration in determining the requiredlength for minimizing speed is the vessel’s fit-tings in maneuvering equipment, as well as thetype of propeller; if the latter is of variablepitch, the distance can be reduced to 1.5L. Themaneuvering area is located either in the outer

harbor, situated between the port entrance andthe main port, or in the main harbor basin clos-est to the entrance.

Apart from reducing speed during an initialstage of straight movement, the vessel conductsmaneuvers for positioning itself appropriatelyfor the berthing position, which has been de-termined beforehand. This expanse of sea,called the maneuvering area or circle, shouldhave dimensions calculated on the basis of theharbor’s design vessel. If the port is sufficientlylarge, more than one maneuvering area may bedesigned and located at intervals of about 1 km.Figure 1.6 depicts the layout of a large artificialport with a maneuvering circle.

The diameter of the maneuvering circle re-quired is affected directly by the type of rud-ders and propellers with which a vessel isequipped, whether or not tugboats will beemployed, or whether anchors or wrappingdolphins will be used. For unfavorable ma-

22 PORT PLANNING

neuvering conditions, no tugs, and vessels withonly one rudder, a 4L diameter is required,whereas in favorable conditions with modernnavigation systems, a 3L diameter may suffice.Instead of a circle, maneuvering requirementsmay be satisfied by an ellipse with 3L and 2Laxes, the main axis being lengthwise of thevessel’s course. If maneuvers are conductedwith the aid of tugboats, the minimum diameterof the maneuvering circle may be reduced to2L. A corresponding decrease is also achievedif the vessel is fitted with a second rudder or alateral propeller, usually a bow thrust.

During towage, a vessel’s engines usuallyare stopped or are in excellent synchronizationwith the tugboats. Furthermore, if a vessel hasthe ability to use bow and stern anchors orwrapping doplhins, the diameter of the maneu-vering circle may reach the minimum dimen-sion of 1.2L.

In the maneuvering area, the sea surface isgenerally calmer than that at the entrance, andit is advisable that the lateral currents in thisarea be weaker than approximately 0.15 m/s.Furthermore, the reduction in available draftdue to squat is insignificant in the maneuveringcircle. Consequently, the required draft in themaneuvering area may be somewhat smallerthan that at the entrance. In most cases, a safetymargin of about 1.5 m below the maximumdraft of the design vessel is sufficient.

To avoid accidents, the maneuvering areashould be surrounded by a safety zone fromfixed structures or vessel moorings. It is ac-cepted that the width of this zone is a minimumof 1.5B, where B is the design vessel’s beam,and in any case it should be above 30 m. Moreinformation is given in Chapter 9.

1.3.6.4 Vessel Anchorage and Mooring.Perhaps the most significant role of a harbor isto provide shelter to vessels and to protect themfrom waves, currents, and strong winds. Onceships enter port, they generally use one or more

anchors for their maneuvers, and while they arepreparing for their berthing, mooring lines arealso used, tied to the dock bollards. It may benecessary to immobilize vessels before entryinto port, either while waiting for a free berthor for the tidal water to rise above the criticallevel at the entrance channel. This is achievedeither by using the ship’s anchors or by usingsuitable mooring buoys or dolphins located inthe waiting area. Detailed information on an-chors and anchorage area is provided in Chap-ters 7 and 8.

1.3.6.5 Wave Agitation in the Port Basin.It was mentioned previously that the basicfunction of a port is provision of a protectedanchorage for vessels and the facilitation ofquick and safe loading and unloading opera-tions and embarkation and disembarkation ofpassengers. Therefore, the absence of disturb-ing waves in the basin that would impede thesmooth functioning of the port is mandatory.The study of disturbances in a harbor basinshould take as input the prevailing wave patternand provide as output the percentage of timeduring which the port, or individual sections ofit, cannot be operational. As stated earlier, themain factor causing an interruption in the op-eration of a port, and indeed one that demandscareful examination, is that of wind-generatedwaves. Apart from penetration through the en-trance, wave transmission and overtopping atbreakwaters should be considered in determin-ing surface agitation in a basin.

It follows that planning the layout of portstructures is of crucial importance in attainingthe necessary tranquility of the sea surface ina harbor basin. That is why particular attentionmust be paid to this problem in the course ofstudying the layout of port works. A satisfac-tory answer may be obtained by laboratorytesting of various designs in a physical model.In these tests, wave disturbance is recorded atsuitably selected locations in the harbor basin,


as well as resulting movements of berthed ves-sels. The acceptable limits of these movementsare determined depending on the loading andunloading method and the type of cargo han-dling equipment being used.

Apart from physical models, a good deal ofinformation can be obtained from mathematicalmodels, which can be developed to various de-grees of accuracy. In this case, the wave heightsin sections of the harbor basin are determinedunder various environmental conditions and de-grees of absorption of the solid boundaries, al-though it is exceedingly difficult to simulatevessel movements. Wavelengths of the incidentwave field have a particularly significant effecton vessel behavior; certain wavelengths pro-duce dangerous conditions, as noted belowwhen we discuss disturbance due to long os-cillations. Any examination of port basin tran-quility does, of course, include an assessmentof the cost of the port works required to obtaineach degree of basin calmness.

Long Oscillations. Apart from wind-generatedwaves, a range of other natural factors can dis-turb a harbor basin, although to a lesser extent.Many of these have to do with extreme events,such as storms and seismically created waves.In such cases, many harbors do not offer sat-isfactory shelter to vessels, which prefer to sailout to the open sea to avoid sustaining or caus-ing damage in port.

Among these factors, those most significantas to continuous effects on harbor basins andtherefore on ships’ operations can genericallybe termed long oscillations (seiches). In effect,these refer to trapped oscillations with periodsin excess of 30 s caused by changes in atmos-pheric pressure, long waves caused in the opensea by barometric lows, surf beats, edge waves,and so on. A serious problem arises when theharbor basin’s geometry favors the develop-ment of resonance at the frequencies of the freeoscillations prevailing in the region. In such

cases, the flow velocity at the nodes of theoscillation of the free surface may reach 0.5m/s even though the vertical surface excur-sions may generally be small. Long waves withperiods usually in the region of 1 to 3 minplace stresses on docked vessels, particularlywhen this involves larger ships with taut moor-ing lines. The phase velocity of these longwaves in relatively shallow harbor waters isgiven approximately by (gd)1 / 2, d being theuniform depth of water. Consequently, for aharbor basin with a rectangular plan of dimen-sions L � W with an entrance on the W (width)side, the resonance period of standing waves,TL, along the two directions will be

4LT � n � 1, 3, 5, . . . (1.1)L 1 / 2n(gd)

with a node of the standing wave at the en-trance and an antinode at the opposite end ofthe harbor basin, and

2WT � n � 1, 2, 3, . . . (1.2)w 1 / 2n(gd)

with antinodes at both opposing docks.A basic means of avoiding resonance in a

new harbor is the design of harbor basins withsuch geometry that the frequencies above arefar from the usual frequencies of long wavesin the region. The latter may be traced throughthe use of recording devices of surface eleva-tion not sensitive to high-frequency waves. Incases where the harbor evidences complex ge-ometry, the typical resonance modes are deter-mined through mathematical models, or eventhrough physical models in some cases, in away similar to examination of the disturbancedue to wind waves. As known, low-frequencywaves may penetrate harbor basins without un-dergoing significant reduction of their ampli-tude. That is why any attempt toward a better

24 PORT PLANNING

layout of the protection works and of the en-trances will be fruitless with regards to theelimination of long waves.

Recommendations for Improving a PortBasin’s Tranquility. It is obvious that a basicelement in designing a port is to achieve thelowest possible disturbance in the harbor basin,particularly close to berths. For this reason, itis recommended that the following factors beexamined:

1. Provision for an adequate extent of theouter harbor area and of all the harborbasins, for dispersion of wave energypenetrating the harbor

2. Provision for spending beaches in suita-ble locations of the harbor, especiallythose attacked directly by waves enteringthe basin.

3. Provision for absorbent wharves withsuitable design for dissipating disturbingwave agitation. It is recommended thatthis type of work be checked throughphysical modeling because the phenom-ena of conversion of wave energy, expel-ling of air, upward loading of the crownslab of the quay, and so on, are suffi-ciently complex and do not easily lendthemselves to analysis through mathe-matical modeling.

In any case, the usefulness of absorbingquay walls is debatable, chiefly because of thewave reflection caused by berthed vessels attheir sea side, a fact that reduces the efficiencyof these structures considerably.

1.3.6.6 General Layout ofProtection Works

Layout of Main Structures. Works whosefunction is to ensure the calmest possible con-ditions within harbor basins and along quays,

particularly from wind-generated waves, aretermed harbor protection works. These may in-clude the following:

1. Breakwaters, usually constructed eitherconnected to the shore or detached.Shore-connected breakwaters are classi-fied as windward or primary and leewardor secondary. The former protect theharbor from the main wave direction,and the latter protect from waves ofsecondary directions. Frequently, leewardbreakwaters are partially protected bywindward breakwaters.

2. Jetties, usually arranged in pairs to formentrances to harbors located inward fromthe shoreline or in rivers. Paired jettiesmay also increase the flow speed and thusprevent sedimentation.

Figures 1.4 through 1.6 depict certain com-mon arrangements of outer port works, de-pending on the type of harbor. The free end ofprotection works is called the structure head,and the remainder is the structure trunk. Theeffect of harbor works to be constructed on thetransport regime of sediments in the region isparticularly important. Quite often, port worksare located in the surf zone, where the largestpercentage of sediment transport takes place.Consequently, the effect of these works oncoastal erosion or deposition may be quite sig-nificant. The phenomena usually caused byharbor protection works as regards sedimenta-tion is a concentration of deposits upstream ofthe windward breakwater, erosion of the shoredownstream of the leeward breakwater, sedi-mentation in the vicinity of the harbor entranceand the approach channel, and others (Figure1.7).

The solution to such types of problems isnot an easy matter, and in many cases recourseto the method of sand bypassing is consideredto minimize the dredging required for mainte-


Figure 1.7 Effects of harbor works on coastal sedimentation. a, Longshore littoral transport; b, accretion; c,deposition; d, erosion; 1, natural shoreline; 2, breakwater; 3, landfill for port construction; 4, artificial harbor.

nance of drafts. The general idea in designingthe layout of protection works should be to fa-vor the transfer of sediment to deeper waters,where they are less harmful. Application of thisgeneral rule is not always easy, of course; thatis why port designers usually resort to labora-tory tests of the general arrangement of a har-bor’s defense works.

The protection structures are in principlelaid out such as to provide the space requiredfor a calm harbor basin, maneuvering areas,and necessary safety margins. Following that,an examination is conducted to ascertain thedegree to which a large portion of the outerworks is located in the wave-breaking zone.Selected values of wave heights are examinedand the required modifications to the layout ofthe works are made so that the works areplaced outside the breaking zone of the crucialdesign waves. This is done to reduce waveloads on the relevant structures and conse-quently, their cost. An important step follows:that of forming the harbor entrance in accord-ance with the guidelines of Section 1.3.6.2. An-other point that relates to the shape of thebreakwaters refers to the avoidance of anglesto the open sea smaller than 180�, to evade aconcentration of wave energy, with adverse ef-fects on the structure’s integrity.

Finally, the possibility of water renewalshould be investigated, to reduce pollution ofharbor basins to the minimum possible. It is noteasy to suggest arrangements that can attainthis target. As regards intervention in the har-bor’s protection works, the matter is usuallyhandled by providing openings across the bodyof the structure, to facilitate water circulation.However, for these openings to be effective,they should be of sufficient width, which ofcourse results in allowing significant distur-bance into the harbor basin. Also, undesirablesediments may enter the harbor and be depos-ited if the openings extend down to the seabed.Therefore, in most cases the openings are notextended at depths beyond the surface layer inwhich the wind-generated water circulationgenerally takes place, to prevent the transfer ofheavy sediments that occurrs at the lower partof the water column.

1.3.6.7 General Layout of InnerPort Works

Geometric Elements. The arrangement ofberths and docking installations follows theprinciples noted in Section 1.3.6.5. Layoutsthat favor enhancement of long oscillationsshould be avoided, and it is also recommended

26 PORT PLANNING

that spending beaches be placed in suitable lo-cations in the harbor basin. The geotechnicalproperties of the seabed in the project area playa significant role in deciding the general layoutof the inner works. If a rocky seafloor is pres-ent, it is usually advisable to place the line ofwharfs close to their final depth, to avoid ex-pensive excavations of the rocky bed. If thelatter is soft, the location of the wharfs is de-termined by, among other factors, a detailedtechnical and economic comparison of reclaim-ing versus dredging.

It has been pointed out that maneuveringsurfaces should have a security distance of be-tween 30 and 50 m from any vessels docked atthe planned berths. Figures 1.4a and 1.6 givethe main elements of a harbor’s inner works.As a general rule, the plan must ensure that theshape of the docks provides for better use ofthe harbor basin and easier navigational con-ditions for vessel maneuvers, and that the func-tioning of dock equipment and machinery isnot hampered. Furthermore, to keep pollutionof harbor basins to a minimum, placing docksand basins in recessed positions of a harborshould be avoided, because the renewal of wa-ter there is weak. If narrow piers are planned(e.g., only for the mooring of small vessels), itis advisable to examine the possibility of de-signing them on piles with openings for facil-itation of water circulation. The developmentof a port over time is generally associated witha required strip of land parallel to the berths.Previously, this strip was planned to be about50 m wide; later, adapting to technological de-velopment in cargo handling, this was in-creased to 100 and 200 m. A result of thischange was a tendency to shift from narrowpiers that created a zigzag layout of docks tostraight quay lines parallel to the shore, whichensures large land areas.

The linear dock arrangement, however, takesup a far greater length of coast, which fre-quently is very expensive, or not feasible toacquire for other reasons. In such cases, wide

piers are used to increase quay length. Theirwidth can be 300 m or more, and they may beplaced at a small angle to the shoreline if thiswould have the benefit of protecting them fromwaves and provide better operational condi-tions.

Quay length is determined by the particularmethod of docking and by the number ofberths. Alongside berthing for a vessel oflength L requires a quay length of b � L � 30to 40 m or b � 1.2L. For Ro-Ro stern (or bow)-to-shore berthing, the required quay length b isdetermined by the vessel’s beam B and isroughly b � 1.2 to 1.5B. The minimum depthh of the sea at the quay is determined by thedesign vessel’s maximum draft dmax. A safetyfactor for this value (i.e., pilot’s foot) in theregion of 1 m should be added to cover for anyheaving motion due to wave disturbance. Thush � dmax � 1 m. The dimensions usually rec-ommended for seaport docks are illustrated inFigure 1.8. Other inner installations apart fromberthing quays, such as dry docks, slipways,and maintenance quays, should be situated in-dependent of the customary loading and un-loading quays and as much as possible inprotected areas of the harbor.

Connections with Inland Areas. It has alreadybeen mentioned that the nature of a moderncargo port resembles more a cargo handlinghub within a combined transport system than asea transport terminal point. Consequently, abasic element in the smooth operation and de-velopment of a terminal are the port’s inlandconnections. These connections, through whichnonsea transport of goods to and from the portis effected, may be road or rail accesses, arti-ficial or natural inland navigable routes, air-lines, or oil product pipelines. Road, rail, andriver connections (to which we refer later) canalso connect a port with specialized cargo con-centration terminals located in suitable inlanddepots. These stations serve to smooth out thepeaks in demand and supply of goods to a port


Figure 1.8 Main dimensions of sea docks.

that has limited storage areas. Figure 1.9 de-picts some general arrangements of such con-nections.

The provision of inland storage areas form-ing part of a port is a modern tendency pro-nounced in container transport, which createsthe need for larger backup areas and also aneed for boxes to stay in port for a shorter time.The transport of goods between port and inlanddepots is thus carried out quickly and effi-ciently, in contrast with the traditional servic-ing of all destination points directly from a portwithout intermediate transshipment. In additionto being effected by road, the connection be-tween port and inland depot may be by rail,particularly when the distance is great. In thelatter case, the loading of trains, when this in-volves imports, may be effected at a small dis-tance from the port, where the goods areforwarded through a system of wheeled trailersfed from the port, as shown in Figure 1.10. Ineach case, the traditional arrangement in gen-eral cargo terminals in which rail (or road)vehicles approach the docks for immediateloading and unloading of cargo through the useof dock cranes is being abandoned. The main

reason for this development is that loading/un-loading vehicles obstruct dock operations, inaddition to the frequent inability to coordinateship–train operations, resulting in vessel delay.Two alternative handling options are availablein this respect: (1) the full cargo can be for-warded inland via port sheds, or (2) ‘‘direct’’loading/unloading to and from rail or road ve-hicles can be retained but conducted at somedistance from the docks. The second alternativedemands an additional fleet of tractors and plat-forms to link docks with transshipment areasto means of overland transportation. This alter-native solution is depicted in Figure 1.11 to-gether with the traditional arrangement, which,as mentioned, is gradually being abandoned bymany ports.

The tendency to shift land transportationaway from docks is even more prevalent incontainer or Ro-Ro port terminals. Inland con-nections are allowed only to reach a deliveryand receiving area, which in container termin-als is generally located near the containerfreight station (for details, see Section 1.4.3).In most cases, road access to ports is appealing,particularly for small and moderate distances.

28 PORT PLANNING

Figure 1.9 Connection of a port with an inland cargo collection terminal. (From United Nations, 1978.)

Figure 1.10 Combination of road–rail connections of the port with the inland depot. (From United Nations,1978.)


Figure 1.11 Restricting the approach of vehicles to the docks: (a) traditional approach; (b) alternative ap-proach. (From United Nations, 1978.)

The variety and types of road vehicles renderthem versatile, and in conjunction with a denseroad network in many regions, make them suit-able for ‘‘door-to-door’’ service. Rail connec-tion at ports offers security, speed, andeconomical transport of bulky goods over largedistances.

Many ports throughout the world are con-structed at the mouths of navigable rivers orcanals, to connect them with other areas by

means of inland navigable routes. Connectionsby inland navigation offer economy and areparticularly suitable for the transport of bulkcargoes and for supporting combined transportsbetween river ports and seaports that servebarge-carrying vessels.

Additional Points to Be Considered. Severalissues of general application to the layout ofland installations of a port are listed below.

30 PORT PLANNING

1. The conventional berthing positions forgeneral cargo require a smaller draft atthe quay (usually 7.70 to 10 m) thanthose required for containers or bulkcargo.

2. Much larger land areas are required interminals where containers are to be han-dled.

3. Care should be taken in drawing up theland use so that smells from bulk cargoescarried by prevailing winds do not dam-age the environment.

4. Security issues should be examined, par-ticularly as regards flammable materialsor explosives.

5. Product compatibility should be exam-ined for cargoes adjacent to their re-spective handling areas. For instance,pairing coal with grains is incompatible,as is pairing grains with fertilizers.

6. The overall traffic pattern in the land areaat a port should be examined, to avoidpotential congestion or a need for bridg-ing.

1.4 PORT PLANNING AT THETERMINAL LEVEL

1.4.1 Port Development

1.4.1.1 Phases of Port Development. Thecourse of development of a port or port ter-minal usually undergoes phases, which also in-dicate its age. Evolution from a traditionalbreak-bulk cargo port to a specialized unitizedcargo port may be gradual. However, it is dis-tinguishable into qualitative changes that takeplace in specific periods throughout the overalllife of the port. These phases are as follows:

Phase 1: Traditional General Cargo Flow. Aport with break-bulk or packaged bulk cargo

terminals, such as for bagged grains or petro-leum in barrels.

Phase 2: Break-Bulk Cargoes. When break-bulk cargo flow exceeds an economically ac-ceptable limit, these cargoes are transported inbulk form and the port develops a special bulk-cargo terminal. At the same time, the break-bulk berths are increased, to accommodate thehigher demand.

Phase 3: Unit Loads. Unit loads start beingcarried on conventional vessels in small quan-tities in units such as palettes, containers, orpackaged lumber. At the same time, break-bulkcargo flows, particularly those of bulked break-bulk cargoes, start diminishing to levels thatrequire separation of cargo terminals for vari-ous cargo categories.

Phase 4: Multipurpose Terminal. Unitized car-goes on specialized vessels start appearing inquantities that do not yet require developmentof a specialized terminal. Thus, a multipurposeterminal is created in which break-bulk cargotraffic is diminished, although unitized cargo isalso handled. At the same time, the speciali-zation of dry bulk cargo terminals continues.

Phase 5: Specialized Terminal. With an in-crease in unit loads beyond certain levels,specialized cargo terminals are created forhandling containers, packaged lumber, and Ro-Ro. The multipurpose terminal of phase 4 isconverted into a specialized terminal, with theaddition of specialized cargo handling equip-ment. Break-bulk general cargo is reduced fur-ther.

It should be noted that in normal situations,the transition from phase 3 to phase 5 shouldprogress through phase 4, so as to provide anopportunity to the port to increase unitizedcargo traffic to volumes that will enable eco-nomically feasible development of a special-

1.4 PORT PLANNING AT THE TERMINAL LEVEL 31

ized terminal in phase 5. Moreover, in the eventthat a port has entered phase 3 of its develop-ment, care should be taken to avoid creatingadditional general cargo berths.

1.4.1.2 Review of Existing Port Installa-tions. The examination of existing installa-tions should precede any decision to expandold, or to construct new, port terminals. Thepurpose of such a study is to identify any func-tional difficulties that would detract signifi-cantly from the theoretical productivity of themarine and land sector of the port terminal. Inmany cases, improved organization of the com-ponent operations of the port terminal producesa significant increase in its productivity. In ad-dition to an improvement in the terminal’s or-ganizational structure, there is the possibility ofintroducing structural changes and upgrades ofport installations, which will usually necessi-tate a considerable expenditure. It should benoted that in many cases, technological devel-opments and changes in packaging and cargohandling methods frequently render the up-grading of existing installations a difficult andcomplicated task. At the same time, the exis-tence of spare capacity is always a desirablefeature in a modern port able to accommodatepeaks in cargo flows, albeit with reduced pro-ductivity. Thus in cases where the recom-mended installation upgrade marginally coversthe expected demand, it is recommended thatold installations be placed on standby to coverunforeseen requirements and that expansion ofan existing, or construction of a new, port ter-minal be opted for.

1.4.1.3 General Cargo Terminal. The firstphase in a design for expansion of an existingbreak-bulk cargo terminal or for the creation ofa new one involves diligent collection and anal-ysis of statistical data regarding the existingterminal’s output. This analysis will also deter-mine the ‘‘age’’ of the existing terminal—inother words, the degree to which the owners of

this break-bulk cargo terminal are prepared tosee it evolve into a multipurpose terminal oreven into a specialized container or bulk-cargoterminal. This decision will be based on thepercentages of the flows and the unit loadingthat conventionally packaged cargoes assumeover time.

Analysis of these data will also revealwhether berth productivity falls short of theo-retical values. In this case, and particularly ifsignificant vessel waiting times are observed,the cause of the reduced output should belooked into carefully. Usually, a standard effi-ciency rating per berth with a high degree ofbreak-bulk cargo traffic is 100,000 tons peryear, whereas if unitized cargoes constitute 30to 40% of the traffic, this productivity figuremay rise to more than 150,000 tons per year.

1.4.1.4 Bulk Cargo Terminal. To decide onthe expansion of a bulk cargo terminal, the datafrom the existing terminal have to be consid-ered. Just as in the case of break-bulk termin-als, the purpose of this examination is todetermine whether the lower productivity ofthe terminal is due to malfunctioning or toincreases in traffic volume. In ore-exportingterminals, the latter case may be due toimprovements in mining technology or to dis-coveries of new deposits. The study should fo-cus on such issues as coordination between thevarious phases of product movement, on lags,if such exist, during which no product is avail-able for loading on the vessel, and on themethod of cargo movement over land. Thefindings of this examination will lead to a de-cision either to improve the operational pro-cedures and the equipment of the existingterminal, or to create an additional bulk cargoterminal.

1.4.2 General Cargo Terminal

Despite the fact that the general cargo terminalis becoming increasingly scarce, the main fac-

32 PORT PLANNING

tors pertinent to its organization and operationare presented below, so they may also be usedin the study of a multipurpose terminal.

1.4.2.1 Vessel Waiting Time. It is generallyaccepted that arrivals of general cargo vesselsfollow a Poisson distribution. According tothis, the probability P(n) for n vessels to arrivein port within a specified period—usually 1day—is

e �N(N) eP(n) � (1.3)

n!

where N is the average number of arrivals perday over a long time period. The observationabove is equivalent to saying that the distribu-tion of the time intervals t between successivearrivals is negative-exponential:

�t / TP(t) � e (1.4)

where T is the average of these intervals overa large time period. On the basis of existingdata it is estimated that the time periods t forservicing of berthed vessels follow an Erlangdistribution with K � 2. The Erlang distributionis expressed by the formula

K�1 (Kt /T)n�Kt / TP(t) � e (1.5)�

n!n�0

where T is the average servicing time. Withinreasonable accuracy, queue theory can providevalues of vessel waiting time for various de-grees of utilization of the system. In the caseof the general cargo terminal, assumptions aremade of random arrivals and distribution ofservicing times according to an Erlang2 distri-bution. This in fact corresponds to an M /E2 /aqueue, where M denotes the Poisson distribu-tion of arrivals and a is the number of berths.

1.4.2.2 Berth Occupancy. The occupancyrate of a group of berths expresses the per-centage of time that berth positions are occu-pied by ships being serviced. The effect ofberth occupancy on waiting time depends onthe probability distributions of arrivals and ofservicing times as well as on the number ofberths available to the sector of the port beingexamined. With regard to a general cargo ter-minal, an M /E2 /n queue is usually assumed, asstated above. The effect that the grouping ofberthing places on vessel waiting times can beseen through the congestion factor, defined be-low, values of which are contained in Table 1.1.In general, a larger number of berths enablesgreater occupancy rates for the same waitingperiods.

For the sake of demonstration, let us assume10 general cargo berths and an average of twovessel calls per day headed for these berths. Ifthe average servicing time is 3.5 days, the oc-cupancy factor k0 is

2 � 3.5k � � 0.700 10

in which case the congestion factor , whichk�0in average terms expresses waiting time as apercentage of servicing time, amounts to 6% or0.2 day. Now, if the total of these berths is di-vided into two independently operating groups,with one vessel call per day per group, the oc-cupancy rate remains the same, while the con-gestion factor is tripled, to 19%. Table 1.1provides an approximation of the waiting timefor the queue above expressed as a percentageof the average servicing time as a function ofthe number of berths and of their occupancy.

The optimum berth use depends on the costratio between berths and vessels. The valuesgiven in Table 1.2 give occupancy factors gen-erally recommended for a 1:4 cost ratio, de-pending on the number of berths of the generalcargo terminal. It should be noted that the


Table 1.1 Congestion factor in queue M /E2 /n

OccupancyFactor

Number of Berths

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0.10 0.08 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.15 0.13 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.20 0.19 0.03 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.25 0.25 0.05 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.30 0.32 0.08 0.03 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.35 0.40 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.40 0.50 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.45 0.60 0.20 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.50 0.75 0.26 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 00.55 0.91 0.33 0.16 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 00.60 1.13 0.43 0.23 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.010.65 1.38 0.55 0.30 0.19 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.020.70 1.75 0.73 0.42 0.27 0.19 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.030.75 2.22 0.96 0.59 0.39 0.28 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.050.80 3.00 1.34 0.82 0.57 0.42 0.33 0.27 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.080.85 4.50 2.00 1.34 0.90 0.70 0.54 0.46 0.39 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.10 0.160.90 6.75 3.14 2.01 1.45 1.12 0.91 0.76 0.65 0.56 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.33 0.30

Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 1978.

Table 1.2 Recommended occupancy factors

Number ofBerths

OccupancyFactor k0 (%)

CongestionFactor (%)k�0

1 40–50 50–752 50–60 26–433 53–65 14–304 56–65 11–195 60–70 9–19

6–10 62–75 2–21�10 70–85 0–26

higher factor values are more fitted for E2 /E2 /n queues, which are more applicable to con-tainer terminals.

1.4.2.3 Number of Berths. The key param-eter in the design of a general cargo port ter-minal is that of the number of berths. Thisparameter depends mainly on the annual cargo

throughput of the terminal and on the prede-termined level of vessel servicing to be offeredby the terminal. The latter depends on the cor-responding waiting periods discussed previ-ously. The number of berths n can be expressedas

Qn � (1.6)

24k qprN0

where Q is the annual cargo flow estimate(tonnes), k0 the berth occupancy factor, q theaverage tonnage handled by one gang per hour(calculated from statistical data of this or a sim-ilar port), p the fraction of time during whichthe berths are operational (e.g., if the total dailyworking hours per berth is 16 over 6 days perweek, this factor would be 16 � 6/24 � 7 �0.572), r the average number of gangs concur-rently loading or unloading an average-sizedvessel (depends on cargo type and vessel size),

34 PORT PLANNING

Table 1.3 Typical cargo densities

CargoStowage Factor

(m3 / ton)Cargo Density

(tons/m3)

Bagged cement 1.0 1.00Plaster, bagged 1.2 0.83Sand, bagged 0.5 2.00Animal feed,

bagged1.5 0.67

Bagged coffee 1.8 0.56Citrus fruits 2.5 0.40Cotton bales 2.7 0.37Bagged flour 1.3 0.77Grapes 3.9 0.26Frozen fish

(boxed)2.1 0.48

Paper rolls 2.5 0.40

and N the days of berth operation in a year(days when berths are in a position to receivevessels, e.g., not closed for maintenance).

The number of berths, n, may also be ex-pressed approximately as a function of cargothroughput, Q, expressed in units of 100,000tons per year as follows:

Qn � (1.7)

k0

where k0 is the occupancy factor. Having de-termined the number of berths in the terminal,berth length is then calculated on the basis ofthe length of the design vessel to be calling atthe terminal. Berth length is generally taken tobe 20% above the design vessel length. Wharfwidth should typically include free sea spaceof at least two design vessel widths. The pro-ductivity per running meter of a general cargoberth usually ranges from 600 to 1200 tons ofcargo per year for average occupancy. Wherecontainer units are handled by conventionalquay cranes or by vessel gear, this output mayreach 1600 tons per year.

1.4.2.4 Storage Area. A small portion ofthe total throughput of a general cargo terminalis either loaded directly to or discharged di-rectly from land transportation means withoutrequiring storage at the terminal. The othercargo is stored for a period of time in sheds,open areas, or warehouses. The required cargostorage area A (thousands of m2) can be ex-pressed as a function of known parameters, byadopting the following simple relation:

1.7 QD pA � 1 � (1.8)� � � �365 dH 100

where Q is the annual tonnage to be stored(thousands of tons; this refers to the portion oftotal cargo flow that requires storage); D theaverage storage duration (days; it is assumed

on the basis of existing statistical data); d thecargo density [tons/m3; this may be calculatedusing the stowage factor (in m3/ton), typicalvalues of which are shown in Table 1.3]; H theaverage stowage height (m; depends on type ofcargo, its packing, and stowage means; an av-erage value is 2 to 3 m; the smaller the stowageheight, the larger the storage areas, but simplermechanical means are required for cargo han-dling; for this reason, comparisons should bemade between various alternatives); and p thepeak factor, multiplies the average area re-quired to accommodate cargo flow peaks (usu-ally, this increase is between 25 and 40%).

The factor 1.7 in eq. (1.8) covers the extraspace required because of the splitting of con-signments into smaller units and accommo-dates areas not used for stacking, such ascorridors and offices. Assuming a rectangularshape of the storage area, the dimensions of theshed may be calculated to have a width ofroughly half the length. In any case the widthshould be above 40 to 50 m.

In ports, cargo is stored in sheds, ware-houses, or in the open. Sheds usually are steelframe constructions at ground level, situated


lengthwise and relatively near the wharves andused for cargo storage over a short period oftime. Conversely, since they are not part of thefast-track cargo handling chain, warehouses areusually situated behind the sheds so as not totake up valuable space near the berths. Cargothat is to remain in port for a substantial periodof time is stored there. Such situations arisewhen the port owners wish to engage in thewarehousing of goods: for instance, goods re-quiring ripening or separation and repackagingfor direct ex-warehouse sale. Contrary to sheds,warehouses may be multistoried buildings, al-though single-storied warehouses are morepractical. A typical layout of a general cargoterminal for three berths is shown in Figure1.12.

1.4.2.5 Sheds. The basic requirements for aport shed are as follows:

1. To be of sufficient width, which shouldextend at least to 40 to 50 m

2. To have as few columns as possiblewithin the storage area

3. To have sufficient ventilation and lighting4. To have a smooth and durable floor sur-

face5. To have an adequate number of large

sliding doors, with easy handling6. To save floor space by placing offices at

a higher level7. To be constructed so as to enable expan-

sion or other envisaged modifications

The shed floor should be adequately slopedto enable drainage. Usually, such a slope isspecified up to 1:40 for purposes of good func-tioning of handling equipment and stackingstability. The shaping of this slope may becombined with the construction of a loadingplatform lengthwise to the land side of theshed, to an approximate height of 1 m. A load-ing platform is needed to connect the shed with

inland areas by road and by rail, if such a con-nection exists. Rail tracks are laid embeddedso as not to protrude from the floor surface. Ifit is not possible to create a permanent platformas indicated above, mobile loading ramps maybe employed. In this case, the shed floor maybe shaped with a double slope, with a water-shed along the lengthwise axis of the shed.

The width of the area between the shed andthe berth (apron) is about 20 to 30 m. Tradi-tionally, conventional portal cranes placed onrail tracks alongside the quay have been usedin this zone, and railcars approached this zoneto load and unload directly from the dockcranes. Experience has shown that it is difficultto load and unload railcars satisfactorily, withthe result that cargo handling efficiency is re-duced. Currently, the practice of approachinggeneral cargo berths by rail has been aban-doned, and cargo flow is effected through shedsand warehouses.

A further development in the dockside zoneis the increasingly reduced presence of dockcranes on rails. Many such cranes, which in thepast were characteristic of general cargo ter-minals, are now being replaced by versatileheavy mobile cranes supplemented, if possible,by a vessel’s gear. Apart from loading and un-loading heavy unitized cargo at the dockside,these cranes, with an approximate 20-ton lift-ing capacity, may assist operations in other ar-eas of a terminal. In general, the number ofcranes and their lifting capacity depend on thetype and volume of cargo and its method ofhandling at the port. The overall width of theland zone required to sustain all cargo handlingoperations in a modern general cargo port ter-minal should extend 200 m from the quay line.

1.4.2.6 Cargo Handling. Following unload-ing by cranes of general cargo onto a dock,transporting and stacking it in sheds follows. Areverse course applies in the case of cargo ex-port. Transfer to and from a shed may be ef-fected in the following ways: (1) use of a

36

Fig

ure

1.12

Typ

ical

layo

utof

age

nera

lcar

gote

rmin

al.


tractor–trailer combination and (2) use ofheavy forklift trucks. Cargo unloaded by dock-side cranes can be placed directly on trailersthat are transported back and forth by tractors.Under normal working conditions, a tractormay service three or four trailers. If forkliftsare used instead of tractors and trailers, thecranes discharge the cargo directly onto thedock floor for forklifts to pick up. Cargo stack-ing at a shed is effected by means of forklifts,while in open storage areas it is performed ei-ther by forklifts or by 10-ton mobile cranes. Inthe absence of statistical data, the cargo han-dling equipment required at break-bulk cargoterminals may be calculated by means of thefollowing approximate norms:

• Number of loading and unloading gangsper vessel: 3 for oceangoing vessels; 11 1– –2 2

for feeder vessels• 3 forklifts per gang, or 2 tractors and 8

trailers per gang• 0.8 forklift and 0.4 stacking crane per gang

Furthermore, for equipment an extra 20 to25%, and for trailers an extra 5%, is requiredfor repair and maintenance purposes.

1.4.3 Container Terminal

1.4.3.1 Cargo Unitization. One of the mostsignificant developments in maritime transportwas the establishment some 40 years ago of thecontainer as a cargo packaging unit. Over thepast 30 years the amount of goods shipped incontainers increased at a rate of about 7% peryear (i.e., more than double the growth in theworld economy and 50% over the expansion inworld trade). In the container terminal, in-creased throughput productivity is attained inaddition to other advantages, such as cancelingthe need for extensive sheltered storage areas,security, and standardization in equipment di-mensions and required spaces.

Containers are transported mainly in spe-cialized vessels, classified into ‘‘generations’’depending on their size. Typical dimensions ofmodern container ships are given in Chapters2 and 10. Most container ships are capable ofcrossing the Panama Canal (Panamax-typevesssels), allowing 13-box-wide storage acrossthe deck. During the 1990s post-Panamax ves-sels appeared, having capacities exceeding8000 TEU with drafts of 14.5 m. These vesselshave beams of 43 m, allowing 17-box-widedeck storage. It has been announced that in2004 two containerships of 9800 TEU will en-ter trans-Pacific service. Engineers considerthat there is no technical constraint to buildinga ship of 15,000 or even 18,000 TEU, the lattersize being imposed by the shallowest point inthe Malacca Strait in Southeast Asia, allowinga draft of 21 m. Such megaships might have alength of 400 m and a beam of 60 m, giving24-box-wide deck storage. Table 1.4 shows theprincipal dimensions of some of the new gen-eration vessels together with the projected12,500 TEU capacity vessel. This latter UltraLarge Container Ship (ULCS) was found to beof an optimal size by a study carried out byLloyds Register of Shipping and Ocean Ship-ping Consultants. These gradually increasingdimensions of new vessels have a significantimpact on the geometric requirements of ports’layout. Thus berths of up to 400-m long withwater depths down to 16 m become increas-ingly the norm for modern container terminals.Also, gantry cranes should be able to cope withincreased beams and the capacity of handlingequipment should be compatible with largerconsignments. Containers can be stacked in thehold or four high on the ship’s deck. Difficul-ties arise with large stacking heights as regardscontainer fastening and other aspects.

The container ships mentioned above areoceangoing vessels and in many cases avoidmaking frequent calls at nearby ports. Thus,smaller, intensively utilized feeder vessels areemployed in short distances for the collection

38 PORT PLANNING

Table 1.4 New generation container ships

Vessel NameLaunch

DateDead-Weight

Tonnage TEULOA(m)

Beam(m)

Draft(m)

Hyundai Admiral 1992 59,000 4,411 275 37.1 13.6NYK Altair 1994 63,163 4,473 300 37.1 13.0APL China 1995 66,520 4,832 276 40.0 14.0Ever Ultra 1996 63,388 5,364 285 40.0 12.7Hajin London 1996 67,298 5,302 279 40.4 14.0Regina Maersk 1996 82,135 6,418 318 42.8 12.2NYK Antares 1997 81,819 5,798 300 40.0 14.0Sovereign Maersk 1997 104,696 8,736 347 42.9 14.5ULCS 120,000 12,500 400 60 14.8

Table 1.5 Typical dimensions of feeder vessels

Feeder VesselType

Dead-WeightTonnage TEU

Length(m)

Beam(m)

Draft(m)

Ro/Ro 4580 176 130 17 6.25Lo/Lo 1260 106 77 13 3.70Combined 2080 111 87 14 4.70Combined 6500 330 115 19 7.40

or distribution of cargoes from a region (e.g.,the eastern Mediterranean). These feeder ves-sels are of 30 to 350 TEU capacity and usuallyhave no lifting gear. Loading and unloading areconducted by means of a single dockside gan-try crane, with a corresponding reduction inoutput. These feeder vessels are usually Ro-Roor combined type. Table 1.5 lists the main di-mensions of typical feeder vessels.

Because of the container terminal’s special-ization and the large investment involved, aminimum level of cargo volume is required torender the investment profitable. This through-out depends on individual conditions andranges typically around 70,000 TEU annually.It is characteristic that the investment cost perTEU for an annual traffic rate of 20,000 TEUis triple that of the corresponding cost for80,000 TEU. Containers are of simple rectan-

gular shape, as shown in Figure 1.13. Table 1.6lists the typical dimensions of various containersizes. It is estimated that in the future the trendtoward greater container length, in the regionof 45 ft, and a weight of over 35 tons will gainmomentum.

1.4.3.2 Cargo Handling. Practice has shownthat the actual productivity of container termin-als is significantly lower than the theoreticalproductivity. An average daily productivity perberth used to be in the region of 450 TEU formany small container terminals, whereas largemodern terminals can achieve up to 2000movements, as in the port of Singapore. A con-cept of narrow docks has been proposed, wherea vessel could be served by cranes at bothsides, thus achieving high productivity, on theorder of 300 movements per hour per berth.


Figure 1.13 Steel container.

Table 1.6 Selected container sizes

ISO Type TEUExternal Dimensions

(m)Maximum Lifting

Capacity (tons)Cubic Capacity

(m3)

1C (20 ft) 1 6.05 � 2.435 � 2.435 20 29.01A (40 ft) 2 12.190 � 2.435 � 2.435 30 60.51B (30 ft) 11–2 9.125 � 2.435 � 2.435 25 45.01D (10 ft) 1–2 2.990 � 2.435 � 2.435 10 14.1

Loading and unloading operations are carriedout by means of powerful dock gantry cranesthat can attain an output of 25 to 30 TEU perhour, although usually their average productiv-ity is lower. The operational life of a typical

gantry crane extends to 15 years and 2,000,000operating cycles. Some typical gantry crane di-mensions are:

• Lifting capacity 30–50 tons• Rail gauge 15–40 m• Maximum lifting height above

dock25 m

• Maximum depth beneath dock 15 m• Maximum seaward overhang 25–40 m• Landward overhang 5–25 m

Large quayside gantry cranes may serve ves-sels up to 18 container rows, while several ter-minals around the world are already operatinggantries capable of serving vessels 22-boxeswide with outreaches more than 60 m, servingsuper post Panamax vessels. Among the ad-vances in gantry technology the twin-liftspreaders are worth mentioning, capable ofhandling two 20-ft boxes simultaneously. Thecritical operating parameter of a dock gantrycrane is its output, which should be as high aspossible to reduce vessel berthing time. For thisreason, methods of making the loading/unload-ing cycle at the dock independent of the trans-port cycle of the boxes to open-air storage areemployed, to attain a continuous supply to andremoval of containers from the dock gantrycrane. Extensive land areas, required for stor-age of containers forwarded through a terminal,constitute the distinguishing characteristic ofspecialized container terminals. In the case of

40 PORT PLANNING

imports, containers are transferred from docksto the stacking yard, for pickup a few days laterfor overland transport. The reverse procedureapplies for exports. The simplest handling pro-cedure involves the use of container chassissuch as the one depicted in Figure 1.13.

The procedure followed in the case of im-ported containers involves the following stages:

• Loading of the container by dock gantrycrane onto a container chassis

• Transport of container chassis by tractor tothe storage area

• Chassis and container retained in storagearea until delivery

Unloaded container chassis are parked in adedicated lot. In a storage area, containers maybe handled by straddle carriers, miscellaneousrubber-tired high-lift (front loader) high-reachstackers, and so on. For details, consult Chapter2. Loaded containers may be stacked to a max-imum height of three or four, depending on thetype of equipment used. Empty containers maybe stacked six or seven high. Representativeexamples are shown in Figures 1.14 through1.16.

The minimum width of corridors betweencontainer rows in a linear layout is approxi-mately 1.20 m, to enable access by a straddlecarrier’s legs. Circulation lanes are provided atregular intervals, forming a road network forthe use of straddle carriers and other vehicles.These lanes have a minimum width of 12 mwhen they have to allow for turning of therubber-tired straddle carrier, and 5.5 m in othercases. Usually, free gaps about 0.80 m wide arealso allowed between the smaller surfaces ofadjacent containers to facilitate handling, in-spection, and so on.

This handling system may be simplified asregards the variety of equipment. Thus, tractorsand chassis may be replaced by rubber-tired

straddle carriers so that the latter also carry outthe transport of containers from docks to thestorage area. However, using straddle carriersfor long distances does not put them to opti-mum use. Other disadvantages of these vehi-cles include the problem of requiring frequentmaintenance and repairs and providing limitedvisibility to the operator; on the other hand,they are exceedingly versatile machines. Re-cent technical developments in straddle carriersinclude the incorporation of twin spreader sys-tems, similar to those used in quayside gantrycranes.

Another method of cargo handling in thestowage area is through use of special gantrycranes with a 45-ton lifting capacity that canstack containers four, or even five, high (Figure1.14). These gantry cranes, usually called por-tainers, may move on rails, spanning about 20container rows. They can also be fitted withtires, in which case they have a smaller span,in the region of six or seven container rows andsmaller stacking capacity; usually three to fourcontainer height. Portainers on tires are, how-ever, more versatile and capable of being ap-plied to various operations.

Stowage gantry cranes are preferred in con-tainer terminals with large throughput, partic-ularly export traffic, and are amenable toadaptation for automated applications in con-tainer placing and identification. It is noted thatinformation technologies are applied increas-ingly in most operations that take place inmodern container terminals, not only in boxstacking. A recent attempt toward full auto-mation between dockside and yard was mani-fested in the design of dockside and stackinggantries with overlapping reaches.

Yard gantry cranes may also be used tomove containers between open-air storage andrail or road vehicles. The handling systemsabove may be combined to suit the require-ments of any particular port terminal. It is ev-ident that with exports, a higher stacking height


Figure 1.14 Containers stacked in storage area by gantry crane.

can be accepted than in the imports section be-cause of the reduced probability for additionalmaneuvers to reach an underlying container inthe stack.

Overhead cranes were recently introduced inSingapore port. These are capable of stackingnine boxes high spanning ten rows across.They are operated remotely, having a high de-gree of automation built in.

New ideas on container storage are also be-ing considered to replace the method of placing

the boxes on the ground with automated rack-ing systems.

1.4.3.3 Storage Yard. Containers remain inopen-air storage areas for a few days until theyare forwarded to either sea or land transport.Indicative average values of waiting time forimported containers is roughly 6 days, and 4days for containers destined for export, whileempty containers usually remain in port about

42 PORT PLANNING

Figure 1.15 Containers stacked by high-reach stackerwith telescopic boom.

Figure 1.16 Container storage area; typical linear container stacking configuration.

10 to 20 days. The required container storagearea depends on the stowage method and avail-able equipment. Table 1.7 lists the area re-quired per container, including space for accessto the corresponding handling equipment.

The vehicle access lanes at the container ter-minal should have a width of 3.5 m for trucksor trailers, 5.5 to 7.0 m for straddle carriers,and 5 m for side loaders. In 90� bends, thewidths above become 6, 12 to 15, and 7.5 m,respectively. Front-loading forklifts require anaccess lane of width equal to the length of thecontainers handled, increased by a safety mar-gin of approximately 1.0 m on each side.

The performance of various transport andstacking equipment may be calculated by thetime it takes to stack (or to remove) a container


Table 1.7 Gross storage area requirements

Stacking MethodContainer Height(no. containers)

Storage Area(m2 /TEU)

Trailer 1 65.0Straddle carrier 3

410.0

7.5Gantry crane 3

45

10.07.56.0

Forklifts, sideloaders

23

19.013.0

and by the average speed of the vehicle. Stack-ing time ranges from 0.5 to 1 min for straddlecarries, 1 to 2 min for forklifts, and 2 to 4 minfor side loaders. Average speed ranges from450 to 500 m/min for trucks, tractors, and sideloaders, to 400 to 430 m/min for straddle car-riers, and 300 to 350 m/min for forklifts.

The storage area, E, in hectares required ina container terminal may be calculated usingthe relation

QD e pE � 1 � (1.9)� �3560 ƒ 100

where Q is the number of containers handledannually (thousands of TEU), D the averagecontainer waiting time (days), e the area re-quired per TEU (m2; taken from Table 1.6 onthe basis of the maximum possible height), ƒthe ratio of average to maximum stackingheight, and p the peak factor (%).

The working surface of an open-air storageyard is designed according to the type of con-tainer equipment used. It could be either pavedor simply gravel covered. Usually, heavy fork-lifts impose stricter requirements on road sur-faces than do tractors or straddle carriers. Therolling zones of portainers on tires are usuallyreinforced. The U.K. guidelines indicate theneed for a minimum thickness of bituminoussurfacing of 18 cm to avoid reflective cracking

due to the cement-bound base. Bituminous sur-facing is relatively inexpensive, but it can bedamaged by corner castings in the containerstorage area. Cast-in-situ concrete is more ex-pensive, inflexible, but generally hard-wearing.The other options include gravel, reinforcedconcrete plinths with gravel or other infill, andblock paving. Gravel is the cheapest option, butit tends to spread onto adjacent readways, toget stuck in corner castings of boxes, and torender slot marking difficult. Block paving isrelatively expensive but is being accepted asthe most flexible surfacing for storage yards,since it allows lifting and relaying of damagedsections.

The yard surface should display a 1:40 to1:50 gradient for efficient runoff of rainwater.However, a yard surface should ideally be hor-izontal for box stacking, so a compromise ofabout 1:100 gradient is generally used. Contin-uous slot drains or individual catch pitsprovided along roadways collect runoffand discharge it to outfall pipes. The terminal-included yard and gates should be amplyilluminated to ensure efficient round-the-clockoperations. Lighting is generally provided byhigh-mast columns, typically 30 to 50 m high.Layout of columns should be considered care-fully to avoid risk of collision or taking up vitalspace in the storage area, achieving at the sametime a more-or-less uniform illuminance. Fire-fighting facilities in the form of fire hydrantsshould also be provided throughout the termi-nal, including the storage yard. Hydrants canbe in pillars or in pits, the latter case requiringa standpipe to be attached before hoses can beconnected. A typical paved surface storageyard is shown in Figure 1.16.

1.4.3.4 Container Freight Station andOther Areas. A percentage of the containershandled at a container stripping terminal passthrough a special shed, where chartering, con-tainer repacking, stuffing, and cargo realloca-tion operations are conducted. This shed, called

44 PORT PLANNING

a container freight station (CFS), should havea capacity calculated on the basis of 29 m3 perTEU. The CFS’s design area, S (in thousandsof m2), can be estimated by the formula

QD 29 pS � (1 � r) 1 � (1.10)� �365 h 100

where Q is the annual CFS container through-put (thousands of TEU), D the average durationof stay (days), h the average stacking height(m), r the access factor (accommodating spacefor lanes, maneuver areas, etc.), and p the peakfactor (%).

Along the two long sides of the shed, con-tainers and trailers are served, respectively, tofacilitate repacking operations. Trucks can parkoutside or even within the station. The CFS isusually located at the rear of open-air storageareas of the terminal. It is possible, however,in case the land required is not available withinthe terminal, to plan for this installation at adistance from the port, and to maintain an ex-clusive connection with it. This arrangement ispreferred, for example, when an expansion ofan existing port within an urban area wouldotherwise be required in an area where ob-taining additional space normally presents aproblem. Figure 1.17 indicates the two arrange-ments in question.

In addition to open-air storage areas andcontainer freight stations, other spaces areneeded to cover requirements, such as maneu-vering for land vehicles (road or rail), person-nel parking, customs, administration building,refrigerated containers, storage of hazardous orflammable materials, and maintenance work-shops. These additional installations amount toabout 2 to 3 ha per berth.

1.4.3.5 Berths. Another parameter requiredfor the design of container terminals is thenumber of berths required. To estimate thisnumber, the number of berth-days needed an-

nually, D, is calculated initially using the re-lation

T 1D � � C (1.11)� �HPm 12

where T is the ship’s cargo to be loaded orunloaded (TEU), H the vessel working time perday, P the average quantity of TEU handledhourly per crane (including work stoppages orbreakdowns), m the cranes per berth (allowingfor an efficiency factor as follows: 1 crane/berth: m � 1.0; 2 cranes/berth: m � 1.9; 3cranes/berth: m � 2.4; 4 cranes/berth or more:80% efficiency per crane), and C the annualnumber of vessels calling at the container ter-minal.

It should be pointed out that the real-lifedata of crane productivity vary significantly be-tween ports. However, a design figure of120,000 TEU per crane per year can be usedfor initial planning purposes. To convert the an-nual number of berth-days into the number ofberths required for the terminal, an optimumlevel of vessel servicing has to be determined,after having analyzed the corresponding wait-ing queue.

For specialized container terminals, the as-sumption is usually made that the time intervalsbetween successive vessel arrivals do not fol-low the negative exponential distribution appli-cable to general cargo terminals (see Section1.4.2.2), but rather, follow an Erlang distribu-tion, with K � 2, because here there is someregularity of container ship arrival compared tothat of general cargo vessels. It is further as-sumed that vessel servicing time follows an E2

distribution as well. Table 1.8 gives the averagewaiting time (congestion factor) for an E2 /E2 /n queue as a percentage of servicing time forvarious degrees of berth use (occupancy). Us-ing the data of Table 1.8, the choice of the suit-able number of berths for a container terminalis calculated by eq. (1.11) through trial and er-


Figure 1.17 Location of a CFS within (a) and outside (b) a port.

Table 1.8 Congestion factor in queue E2 /E2 /n

Occupancy

Number of Berths

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.15 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.20 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.25 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.30 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.35 0.17 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.40 0.24 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.45 0.30 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.000.50 0.39 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.000.55 0.49 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.010.60 0.63 0.22 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.010.65 0.80 0.30 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.020.70 1.04 0.41 0.23 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.040.75 1.38 0.58 0.32 0.21 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.070.80 1.87 0.83 0.46 0.33 0.23 0.19 0.14 0.120.85 2.80 1.30 0.75 0.55 0.39 0.34 0.26 0.220.90 4.36 2.00 1.20 0.92 0.65 0.57 0.44 0.40

46 PORT PLANNING

Figure 1.18 Small craft harbor at Monaco.

ror after estimating the days at berth requiredannually. Typically, a key performance indica-tor for a container terminal is the number ofTEUs handled per annum per linear meter ofquay. Based on data from major internationalcontainer terminals, a design figure of 1000TEU per annum per linear meter of quay maybe used for the initial planning of well-equipped facilities.

1.4.4 Marinas

1.4.4.1 Basic Design Criteria. Marinas pro-vide harboring and supply and repair servicesfor pleasure boats. Recently, marine tourismand other recreational activities, such as ama-teur fishing and sailing, have increased rapidly

worldwide, with a corresponding increase inpleasure craft and in a requirement for mooringspaces. To be classified as a fully developedmarina, a harbor should satisfy certain criteriathat extend beyond the provision of mooringslots. These services include water and bunkersupply, availability of a repair unit, vessel lift-ing and launching arrangements, a supplies andprovisions outlet, and vessel dry berthing. Anexample of a fully developed small craft harboris shown in Figure 1.18.

Pleasure boats fall mainly into two catego-ries: motor-powered and sailboats. Boats ofthese categories differ with regard to the geo-metric characteristics necessary for designingthe moorings and in general, all the elementsof a marina. The percentage of participation of


Table 1.9 Typical design parameters of pleasure boats

Length(m)

Number ofVessels

(%)Powerboats

(%)Sailboats

(%)

Draft (m)

Powerboats Sailboats

Beam (m)

Powerboats Sailboats

0–5 50 40 10 0.80 1.40 2.20 1.805–9 30 21 9 1.00 2.00 3.60 3.009–12 10 5 5 1.20 2.40 4.10 3.40

12–15 7 4 3 1.040 2.080 4.80 3.9015–20 3 2 1 1.660 3.40 5.30 4.40

Total 100 72 28

Figure 1.19 Typical moorings.

each category in the total number of vessels tobe serviced in the marina depends primarily onthe country and the marine region involved.Over time, these percentages vary in accord-ance with the development of this type of rec-reation as well as other parameters. A typicalallocation of pleasure boats into the two cate-gories above and five length classes is given inTable 1.9, where the figures refer to typical di-mensions of the largest vessel in each class.

1.4.4.2 Dock Layout. Marinas possessdocks, often floating docks, for vessel berthing,

which may be either parallel (Figure 1.19b) orperpendicular (Figure 1.19a) to the quay line.Perpendicular berthing is effected either withlight buoys, fixed or dropped anchors, orthrough the use of fingers. Fingers placed per-pendicular to the main dock form single ordouble boat slips. Usually, single boat slips arefor the use of relatively large boats; smallerboats are accommodated in double boat slips.Figure 1.20 indicates a mooring method in adouble boat slip. For purposes of economy, thelength of a finger may be designed to besmaller than that of the largest boat by a per-centage depending on the size of the boat to beserved. The ratio of finger length to the largestboat length may be a minimum (according toBritish Standards) of for boats up to 10 m,3–4

for lengths up to 15 m, and 1.0 for larger7–8boats. Obviously, it is advisable that this re-duction in length be applied in comfortablenavigating conditions and low environmentalloads, such as wind and waves.

Navigation channels within a harbor basinshould be sufficiently wide to permit the nec-essary maneuvers. For comfortable conditions,this width should be 2L for motorboats and2.5L for sailboats, where L is the length of thedesign boat. In sheltered areas and favorableconditions, the channel width can be reducedto 1.75L or even 1.5L, measured between fixedor movable obstacles, such as between fingersor moored boats. The width of boat slips B de-

48 PORT PLANNING

Figure 1.20 Vessel mooring in a double boat slip.


Table 1.11 Floating dock width

Dock Length (m) Dock Width (m)

Up to 100 1.5100–200 1.8Above 200 2.4

Table 1.10 Safety clearances in boat slips

Boat Length (m) C1 (m) C2 (m)

7.3 0.46 0.419.7 0.60 0.51

12.2 0.76 0.6115.2 0.91 0.7124.3 1.06 0.81

pends directly on the beam of the maximumboat W to be served. For a single boat slip it isB � W � 2C1; for a double boat slip it is B �2W � 3C2 where C1 and C2 are the respectivesafety clearances. These depend on boat size,and according to the American Society of CivilEngineers (ASCE, 1994), they are as given inTable 1.10.

Usable water depth at slips and channelsshould be maintained at 0.50 to 1.00 m greaterthan the maximum draft of vessels using themarina. In moorings without fingers, a commontype of mooring arrangement in the Mediter-ranean, safety clearances between mooredboats are maintained at 0.5 m for boats up to7.5 m long, 0.75 m for boats up 12 m, and1.0 m for larger boats. Finger width lies around0.9 m for finger lengths between 9 and 11 mand 1.2 m for lengths between 12 and 15 m.

The width of floating docks at which the fin-gers are connected at right angles depends onthe total length of each dock, which is relateddirectly to the number of people using them.The figures in Table 1.11 are typical dockwidths for marinas of rather high-level speci-fications. Access between floating docks and

fixed marginal quays is achieved by means ofarticulated ramps, as shown in Figure 1.21.These ramps are usually hinged on the fixedquay while the other end, resting on the float-ing dock, is fitted with a connecting plate roll-ing on the floor of the floating dock. Themaximum longitudinal ramp slope is 1:4 (m �4), the usable ramp width W � 1.20 m, and therail height Hr � 1.10 m above the walking sur-face.

1.4.4.3 Floating Docks. Floating docks arecommonly adopted to ensure the availability ofmooring slots in marinas, because of the rela-tively small loads they receive from berthedvessels and operation loads. They are made upof floats on which passageway decking, usuallywooden, is fitted. The floats may be either fullor hollow, and they are basically constructed ofexpanded polystyrene, fiberglass, or plain con-crete. Floating docks are anchored throughgravity anchors and chains or by vertical pilesthat prevent horizontal movement. An exampleof a gravity anchor is depicted in Figure 1.22.Gravity anchor design calculations are madeusing the customary methods for floating bod-ies. In these methods, boat impacts and windforces on berthed boats have to be considered.Dock fingers are lighter constructions designedsimilar to floating docks. For more recent in-formation on mooring systems for recreationalcraft, readers are referred to data from the Per-manent International Association of NavigationCongresses (PIANC, 2002).

1.4.4.4 Marina Services. A well-organizedmarina possesses a range of facilities andequipment for its users.

Freshwater Supply. Water pipes—generally,those of the local water supply network—runthe length of the docks and supply water tovessels through appropriate outlets. Usually,fire hydrants are provided in a water supplynetwork. They are positioned at approximately

50 PORT PLANNING

Figure 1.21 Articulated access ramp to a floating dock.

50-m intervals and are equipped with a 1.5-in.flexible hose kept at special firefighting points.Fire hydrants are attached to water mains ofrelatively large diameter, typically 2 in. ormore. As water is not the most suitable fire-fighting means for a fire caused by fuel or anelectrical short-circuit, there is a tendency toreplace conventional fire hydrants with chemi-cal fire-extinguishing equipment located appro-priately in the marina.

Roughly 1-in.-diameter pipes are needed forwater supply of adequate pressure, excludingfirefighting service, to serve up to 50 mooringslots. Flexible pipe sections are placed at cross-ings between floating elements and at shoreconnections to absorb the corresponding move-ments. Pipelines exposed to the sea are madeof plastic or steel to avoid corrosion. Measure-

ment of water consumption can be made cen-trally for the marina as a whole or individuallyat outlet points. The points of water supply arefrequently combined with the power supplywithin special pillars.

Power Supply. Power supply sockets shouldbe provided along the length of docks to pro-vide an electric current of 20, 30, or 50 A at120 or even 230 V. Typically, every vessel ex-ceeding 6 m in length should have access tothe relative power outlet. Cabling is arrangedin special ducts or suspended lengthwise alongdocks, to satisfy safety regulations. Groundingis provided by means of returns to shore. Themarina lighting network is arranged in parallelwith that of the power supply. The lighting fix-tures are either incorporated in the supply


Figure 1.22 Raw iron gravity anchor used for anchoring of floating docks.

points or are mounted on independent polespreferably 3 m in average height.

Telephone Connection. The telephone systemoffered by each marina depends on the needsof the particular situation and in conjunctionwith cost, on the level of services offered.There have been systems of full coverage, withsuitable supply points at each mooring posi-tion, and others with a telephone switchboardand paging or with the more accessible methodof card-operated phones. In any event, the de-velopment of cellular telephony has nearlyeliminated the need for providing telephoneservice to marinas.

Waste Disposal and Sewerage. An increasingnumber of pleasure boats possess systems for

disposal of their accumulated waste by meansof pumping. It would be useful to provide,preferably on a fixed dock, appropriate intakesand conduits connected to the local seweragenetwork. For solid waste, garbage dumpers areplaced at suitable locations, accessible to gar-bage trucks.

Storage Lockers. Many marinas provide lock-ers for the storage and safekeeping of provi-sions, equipment, and so on, close to themoorings. These lockers may be combinedwith the water or power supply stands de-scribed above.

Bunker Supply. A bunkering point can be sit-uated on an appropriate berth of the marina,connected to shore storage tanks. Pumps with

52 PORT PLANNING

measuring devices are located on this dock.Care must be taken to avoid accidents, such asfuel leakage into the marina basin. Bunker sup-ply points are usually combined with installa-tions for receiving slops and removal ofchemical substances from boats’ tanks. Fre-quently, design of the fuel supply is assignedto companies engaged in marina bunkering.

Cleats and Fenders. Along the length ofdocks, cleats or light bollards are to be pro-vided at suitable intervals. In the case of along-side berthing, these will be located at either endof the berthing place, with one more in themiddle for vessels exceeding 10 m. Cleats aremanufactured of rustproof alloys or of hard-wood. Boats can also be tied fast on piles,placed for this purpose along lines parallel tothe docks, thus delimiting the boundaries of thenavigation channels within the marina. In ad-dition, floating dock guide piles may also beused for mooring purposes. Fenders of fixed orfloating docks constitute serious equipment forthe safety of both vessels and marina installa-tions. Various types of fenders are used, suchas continuous rubberform alongside a dock,single tires hanging vertically on the sides ofthe dock, or vertical wooden or plastic fendersfor soft contact.

Vessel Lifting and Launching Installations.Boat lifting and launching procedures are a sig-nificant part of an organized marina. A largevariety of lifting arrangements could be usedas required. The commonest arrangements forvertical lifting in marinas are the travel lift, thefixed jib crane with horizontal boom, the spe-cial forklift, and the monorail. The travel lift(Figure 1.23) is equipped with a crane mech-anism mounted on a steel frame usually fittedwith rubber tires. It travels along and above thewater surface of a boat slip so that it can beplaced above the boat to be lifted. Travel-liftframes can be open at one end for servicing

sailboats. Lifting a vessel is done using appro-priate nylon slings.

A fixed jib crane (Figure 1.24) with a hori-zontal boom is placed in an appropriate loca-tion in a marina and at such a distance fromthe dock as to avoid damage from a potentialcollision with the dock wall of boats beinglifted. The transfer of significant point loadsfrom a crane on the quay wall should be takeninto consideration in the design of the latter.

A special forklift possesses a vertical stemthat enables the forks to reach below the bot-tom of the boat to be lifted. The forklift ap-proaches the dock, alongside which a suitableretaining bar has been fixed to avert accidents.A safety margin between the movable parts ofthe forklift and the vertical dock wall shouldalso be factored into the design. These forkliftsmay be used for boat storage during the winterlayup period. An example of multilayered win-ter storage of pleasure boats is depicted in Fig-ure 1.25.

Finally, monorails are easy-to-use installa-tions since the conveyor holding the vesselmoves by remote control. The conveyor is sus-pended over rails running centrally along thelength of the monorail. The monorail is placedtransversally to the dock and extends over thesea by means of a protruding beam to enablevertical lifting and relaunching of vessels. Fig-ure 1.26 indicates the approximate relation be-tween the length and weight of motor-drivencraft and sailboats, from which the requiredlifting capacity of the marina’s equipment canbe estimated.

The commonest method of launching rela-tively small boats, which normally constitutethe majority of vessels, is by use of launchingramps. These are slopes extending above andbelow sea level with nonskid surfaces formedby means of deep, gently sloped grooves ofsufficient width. The vehicles that are to pullout or launch boats approach these ramps lat-erally with special trailers and make use of thewire rope that holds the vessel. A submarine


Figure 1.23 Travel lift frame for launching and retrieving pleasure boats.

horizontal gravel mound is provided to stop avehicle from falling into the sea in the event ofan inability to brake. The ramp width is a min-imum of 5 m. A sufficient expanse for parkingvehicles pulling boat-bearing trailers should beprovided for in a suitable location close to theramp. Moreover, this area should also containa space for rinsing seawater off the vessel, thetrailer, and the boat. Runoffs should be col-lected for treatment because it usually containsoil, mud, and so on, that should not be allowedto flow back freely into the harbor basin. Em-barkation and disembarkation docks and berthsfor boats waiting their turn to be lifted shouldbe situated near the launching slip. In areaswith weak tides, small floating ramps may beused for relatively small vessels. Table 1.12

summarizes the basic characteristics of the pri-mary vessel lifting and launching systems.

Auxiliary Buildings and Installations. A well-organized marina should contain a number ofauxiliary buildings and networks that should bearranged and designed according to the needsthey are to serve. The following are the mostimportant such buildings and installations:

• Marina administration building. Thisstructure houses the administration, ac-counts, inquiries, telephone switchboard,and so on.

• Harbor master’s building. This structure isused to house the navigation and security

54 PORT PLANNING

Figure 1.24 Fixed jib crane.

services. It may be combined with the ad-ministration building.

• Boat repair shop. This building or areaconstitutes a point of attraction for manypleasure boats. It may be designated onlyfor small or for larger vessels, in whichcase the arrangement for vessel lifting andtransfer to the boat repair shop is designedaccordingly. A range of equipment fromsimple wheeled carriers to powerful liftsand rails are used for the transport of ves-sels to and from the repair shop.

• Repair and maintenance building. Thisstructure is used for land equipment andmachinery. Usually, this building is com-bined with the vessel repair shop if a shopis provided.

• Provisions kiosk. All types of consumablesand durable goods related to operation ofthe marina may be supplied through a shopin the marina, as part of the administrationbuilding or otherwise.

• Sanitation areas. Approximately one toiletfor each 15 mooring places should be pro-vided at intervals of less than 300 m.

• Road network, utilities networks, andlighting. These are designed as for urbanareas.

• Entrance gate and fencing. Security is al-ways a sensitive issue in marinas, and spe-cial care should be given to protectionfrom theft and vandalism. Fencing of themarina land area and safeguarding of itsperimeter contribute a great deal.


Figure 1.25 Winter storage for pleasure boats.

• Parking lots. Attention should be paid toensure adequate parking space for marinausers, with clear signposting and unob-structed traffic flow. A typical parkingplace with a trailer occupies an area of 3 mby 12 m.

Boat Dry Stacking. A good number of marinasprovide shore areas for laying-up vesselsashore. Dry stacking of boats is preferred bymany users because of the improved mainte-nance achieved (washing with sweet water,etc.), but it adds extra capacity to the marina.Under normal circumstances, dry storage isprovided for vessels smaller than 2 tons, but ifthe marina possesses the appropriate mechani-cal equipment, much larger vessels can be laid-

up ashore. Table 1.13 lists typical dimensionsand weights of pleasure boats for dry berthing.

The majority of small sailing boats, under4.5 m, are placed by hand, keel upward, onspecial shelves, after their mast has been re-moved. Motor vessels under 7 m are placed onshelves by forklift, keel downward (Figure1.25). The stacking areas may be open-air orsheltered. Larger vessels, both sailboats andmotor vessels, are usually placed on specialtrailers which are drawn by their owner’s ve-hicle from and to the storage area. When thestorage is done on scaffolding, marina person-nel undertake handling of the vessels. The lift-ing and launching equipment methods referredto previously are employed. Moreover, specialarrangements can be used that combine lifting

56 PORT PLANNING

Figure 1.26 Approximate relation between length andweight of pleasure boats. 1, Motorboats; 2, sailboats.Note: L in meters, t in tons. (Adapted from U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, 1974.)

Table 1.12 Principal vessel lifting and launching system characteristics

No. System

LiftingCapacity

(tons)

Numberof VesselsTransferred

Daily

TurnoverCyclea

(min)

Appropriatefor Large Tide

Fluctuation

1 Dry dock Adequate 1–2 20–60 Yes2 Slipway Adequate 1–6 20–60 Yes3 Lifting platform Adequate 1–10 20–50 Yes4 Ramp and tractor / trailer 5 100–250 3–8 No5 Crane and trailer 15 20–50 20–40 Yes6 Monorail 20 30–80 10–30 Yes7 Forklift 2 100–250 3–8 No (special

accessoryrequired)

8 Travel-lift with straps 250 �50 10–20 Yes

Source: Adapted from PIANC (1980).a Lifting, landing of vessel, and return of equipment to its original position.

and launching with transport and stowage at thedry berthing positions. Such an arrangementmay include a forklift suspended from a gantrycrane operating in a covered vessel slip. Thelayup slots are arranged appropriately on scaf-folds along the wet slip perimeter.

One of the advantages of laying-up ashoreis that a marina requires a far shorter quaylength than that of conventional mooring ar-rangements, amounting to approximately 15%of the latter. The total required marina area issmaller than the corresponding surface for wetberthing. For instance, a 200-vessel marina ofan average 6.5-m-long vessel with 22-m-widenavigation channels requires roughly the sur-faces denoted in Table 1.14 when it uses ex-clusively wet or dry berthing.

Marina Water Renewal. Marina basins fre-quently suffer from seawater pollution derivingfrom the marina area and also directly fromcraft using the marina. Pollution of the sur-rounding region may result from wastewater orstormwater effluents discharging in the marinabasin and from surface water that carries a sig-


Table 1.13 Typical dimensions of vessels for dry stacking

BoatClass Beam (m) Length (m) Height (m) Weight (tons)

I �2.40 �5.40 0.90–1.50 �1.25IIa 2.40� 4.80–6.30 1.20–1.80 0.75–1.75IIb 2.40� 5.40–7.20 1.50–2.10 1.75–2.75

IIIa �2.40 6.30–7.80 1.65–2.40 2.25–3.25IIIb �2.40 7.50–8.70 2.10–2.70 3.00–4.25

Source: Dry Stack Marinas, Florida.

Table 1.14 Typical space requirements in a smallmarina (thousands of square meters)

Marina Surfaces

Berthing

Dry Wet

Land 9.5 5.1Sea 2.5 13.2

Total 12.0 18.3

nificant polluting load. Boats may give rise topollution through effluents from washing, gar-bage, oils, and so on. In each case the possi-bility exists to avoid seawater pollution throughappropriate design of networks in the surround-ing region by not allowing discharges withinthe port and by providing for the collection ofgarbage and other refuse from the boats, asmentioned above. At the same time, pertinentregulations governing protection of the marineenvironment have to be enforced.

In any case, frequent renewal of marina wa-ter is desirable to avoid potential eutrophicationdue to the lingering pollution. For this reason,marinas with two sea entrances have an advan-tage as regards their ability to enhance somestreaming motion, which boosts the exchangeof marina waters with offshore seawater. Usu-ally, an effort is made to invigorate thesestreams by leaving openings at key locationsacross the protection structures. It is obviousthat the problem becomes even more acute in

regions with a weak tide, such as the Mediter-ranean. It has been estimated that the waterquality begins to be unacceptable when the pe-riod of water renewal exceeds roughly 10 days.In severe cases, when no other method of cop-ing with a problem is available, recourse canbe taken to mechanical mixers, which are po-sitioned in the marina basin to create artificialwater circulation, thus renewing the pollutedwater. For detailed information associated withsmall craft marina design, construction, andoperation, readers are referred to a work byTobiasson and Kolmeyer (1991).

1.4.5 Fishing Ports

1.4.5.1 Main Features. Annual world seafishing products amount to approximately100,000,000 tons, with China providing one-fifth of the catch. Of this quantity, 28% is con-verted into fishmeal, the balance beingconsumed by people (29% fresh fish, 12%canned, 8% cured, and 23% frozen). Fishingports serve professional fishing vessels anddemonstrate a series of particularities whichdifferentiate them from other commercial ports.These particular characteristics are summarizedbelow.

The services that a fishing port is requiredto provide to fishing vessels are not limited tosafe mooring to discharge the catch. The portshould also be able to provide a suitable num-

58 PORT PLANNING

ber of places for safe anchorage to fishing ves-sels during long periods of inactivity. Due tothe nature and duration of the stay of such fish-ing vessels at port, the mooring types and rulesof safe clearances determining the berthing po-sitions of vessels are less strict than those fora commercial port.

In addition to being a refuge, a fishing portshould possess small to medium-sized ship-building and repair facilities. This is because inaddition to conducting purely repair work, fish-ing vessels conduct their regular maintenancework while in port. Thus, fishing ports shouldprovide all the necessary means to ensure aminimum level of maintenance of the fleet theyserve. Similarly, there are significant differ-ences between the land zone of a fishing portand that of a conventional commercial port. Fora fishing port, there is the systematic conductof commercial activity regarding the catch,with the frequent presence of industrial unitsfor processing and packaging. Consequently,the nature of a fishing port expands and it nolonger acts as a hub in a combined transportsystem as is the case with conventional ports.Rather, it evidences the features of a commer-cial and industrial zone, and its land area is setout accordingly.

Moreover, it should be noted that in mostfishing ports no exporting sector exists, andconsequently, only unloading of vessels is car-ried out at the docks. In line with the specificrequirements and characteristics above, a fish-ing port may include, in addition to loadingwharves and mooring positions, the followingelements:

• Repair docks• Launching ramps• Repair workshops• Open-air spaces for drying nets and re-

pairing nets and vessels• Provisioning and equipment stores• Sheds for storage of ships’ gear

• A sheltered area for cleaning and sortingthe catch

• A sheltered area for exhibiting the catchand for conducting the relevant commer-cial transactions

• Offices and ancillary areas• Fish processing and packaging units• Refrigerators for maintenance of the catch• An ice-making unit• Fuel, power, fire safety, and water supply

networks• Open-air areas for fish drying

There are a large variety of fishing vessels,and therefore the periods when vessels areaway at sea for fishing vary accordingly. Ves-sels fall under the following categories:

I. Small vessels up to 30 gross registeredtons (GRT), capable of putting out tosea for 1 day. These vessels are usuallynot equipped with refrigerating equip-ment.

II. Medium-sized vessels between 30 and150 GRT, with a fishing autonomy ofabout 1 week. These vessels areequipped with a refrigerated hold.

III. Deep-sea vessels over 150 GRT,equipped with refrigeration and deep-freeze installations. Times out at sea forthis category usually extend to 1 month.Such vessels may reach the 2000-GRTsize.

IV. Large specialized industrial vessels.

Figure 1.27 shows the type of packing andrespective processing stages of the catch to-ward consumption corresponding to the cate-gories of fishing vessels above.

1.4.5.2 Design Criteria for Marina Instal-lations. In each case, the design vessel deter-mines the scale of a port and its constituent

59

Fig

ure

1.27

Pro

cess

ing

met

hod

sof

catc

han

dd

istr

ibut

ion

stag

es.

(Aft

erB

ruun

,19

81.)

60 PORT PLANNING

Table 1.16 Indicative duration of fishing cycle

VesselCategory

Daysat Sea

Unloading andProvisioning

(days)

Durationof Cycle

(days)

I 1 1 2II 6 4 10

III 35 5 40IV 45–100 �8 50–110

Table 1.15 Typical dimensions of fishing vessels

VesselCategory

Length(m)

Draft(m)

Beam(m)

Ia �7 �1.0 �3.5Ib 7–10 1.0–1.5 3.5–4.0

II 10–20 1.5–2.5 4.0–6.0IIIa 20–30 2.5–3.5 6.0–7.0IIIb 30–60 3.5–5.0 7–10IV 60–170 5.0–8.5 10–24

elements. Thus, depending on vessel size, theentrance width of a port usually ranges be-tween 20 and 120 m. Table 1.15 lists typicaldimensions of fishing vessels falling under thecategories listed in Section 1.4.5.1. Based onthe earlier discussion, an indicative fishing cy-cle for each vessel category is given in Table1.16. The total duration of the cycle consists ofdays at sea and days in port for unloading andprovisioning, from which an estimate of the re-quired moorings can be made.

Repetition of the fishing cycle within theyear depends on climatic conditions, the per-tinent regulations determining the fishingperiod, local conditions, and repair andmaintenance requirements. Category III or IVvessels usually need two months annually forsuch work, while smaller vessels take up a sig-nificant portion of their overall time for repairsand maintenance. These percentages may varyaccording to region; thus the allocation of over-

all time by vessel category listed in Table 1.17is purely indicative and should always beadapted to local conditions. In a fully devel-oped fishing port, the functions in the secondto fifth columns in Table 1.16 are conducted indifferent sections of the port. Of course, thereare situations where the functions, such as thesecond and third columns, may be combined inthe same location without the need to move thevessel around.

Fishing vessel arrivals at port adhere to amore-or-less given pattern with peaks at certainperiods of the year. Indicative occupancy fac-tors of the landing quays may be in the rangen � 0.4 to 0.7, depending on vessel size. Arough way of calculating the number of un-loading berths is to consider that about 15% ofthe number of vessels using the port should beable to find a free unloading berth at any time.The functions in the third to fifth columns inTable 1.17 require additional berthing facilitiessince such functions are normally conducted inlocations other than those housing the unload-ing operations. Consequently, to calculate thenumber of these positions, it is necessary todetermine occupancy factors n just as in theunloading sector. Table 1.18 lists several valuesof factor n for the various vessel categories andport functions. The factor n � 1.0 in the fourthcolumn reflects the fact that the said ‘‘func-tion’’ actually is the idle time of an obligatorystay in port.

Fishing vessels usually are secured along-side or in a tight arrangement stern to shorealong straight docks. There are ports with asawlike arrangement of unloading docks (e.g.,Esbjerg in Denmark), to increase the numberof vessels being served. In the case of a simplestraight dock, the requirements for the waterarea relevant to the mooring type shown in Fig-ure 1.28 can be accepted. Depending on thevessel category and its function, two (or more)rows of vessels moored side by side could beconsidered. For reasons of safety, this increase


Table 1.17 Allocation of fishing vessel time (days per year)

VesselCategory

Daysat

Sea

Unloading ofCatch andLoading ofProvisions

Bunkering/Provisioning

and AssociatedIdle Time

Idle Time andSmall-ScaleRepairs andMaintenance

Major Repairsand

Maintenance

Number ofFishing Cycles

per Year

I 140 70 75 75 5 140II 170 85 30 70 10 28

IIIa 250 20 15 65 15 7IIIb 250 20 15 60 20 7

Table 1.18 Indicative occupancy factors

VesselCategory

Unloading of Catchand Loadingof Provisions

Bunkering/Provisioningand Associated

Idle Time

Idle Time andSmall-Scale Repairs

and Maintenance

Major Repairsand

Maintenance

I 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.8II 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.7

IIIa 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.6IIIb 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.5IV 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.5

Figure 1.28 Mooring types of fishing vessels.

in number of vessel mooring places should notexceed a factor of about 50%. Table 1.19 givesindicative values of the hold capacity of fishingvessels.

Fishing vessel provisioning involves primar-

ily fuel, water, and ice. The quantities of fueland water required are estimated on the basisof the capacity of the respective tanks of thevessel. Some indicative values of the latter aregiven in Table 1.20.

62 PORT PLANNING

Table 1.19 Net capacity of fishing vessels

VesselCategory

Length(m)

HoldCapacity

(m3)Dead-Weight

Tonnage

Ia �7 1.5 0.8Ib 7–10 4.5 2.5

II 10–20 25 15IIIa 20–30 85 55IIIb 30–60 400 250IV 60–170 500–3500 300–2200

Table 1.20 Vessel tank capacities

VesselCategory

Length(m)

Fuel(tons)

Water(tons)

Ia �7 0.3 0.2Ib 7–10 0.8 0.5

II 10–20 10 5IIIa 20–30 50 12a

IIIb 30–60 300 20a

a Additional seawater supply.

Category III and IV vessels usually havetheir own refrigeration installations and do notrequire stocking of ice. Vessels of the other cat-egories need about 3 tons of ice on average perday during the fishing season. Unloading of thecatch is effected in a manner related to packingtype, hence by size of vessel. Usually, the ves-sel’s own lifting gear, 3- and 6-ton mobilecranes, and corresponding forklifts suffice forthe unloading and forwarding of catch to thecleaning sheds. Unloading by conveyor beltsapplies to catch packaged in boxes or crates.Given the tendency for improved packing ofthe merchandise during the voyage, particularlyin the larger fishing vessels, the use of con-veyor belts is becoming increasingly popular.

1.4.5.3 Land Installations. As stated inSection 1.1, the land installations of a fishingport are diverse and differ from those of portsfor other commercial purposes. When a fishing

port is fully developed, its land installations in-clude the auction shed, the central buildingwith cleaning and sorting areas, an exhibitionarea and auction room, a packing room withice, refrigerators for overnight or longer storageof the catch, deep-freeze stores, salted or driedfish stores, weighing rooms, packaging mate-rial stores, and auxiliary installations (officesfor administration, sellers, buyers, etc.). De-pending on the particular situation, the colddisplay for auctioning may be replaced by adisplay of the catch in ambient conditions(PIANC, 1998).

The dimensions of an auction shed dependmainly on whether the display of the fish relieson a sample or on the totality of the catch. Inthe latter case, the building is located adjacentto the unloading zone of the dock, whereas inthe former, it could be located farther inwardof the port, at the same time being smaller thanin the preceding case. Some basic criteria ofthe individual functions taking place under roofare listed below, to assist in the preliminary de-sign of a shed with full view of the catch:

• Washing and sorting 15–30 tons/m2

annually• Exhibit and sale 1–15 tons/m2

annually• Weighing and

arrangement7–15 tons/m2

annually• Storage in freezer Capacity for 2–3

days’ production• Packaging plant 6–12 tons/m2

annually• Access corridor 8–16 tons/m2

annually• Auxiliary

installationsMay be installed in a

mezzanine or onthe ground floor,requiring 15 to20% of the overallbuilding

The typical overall building width rangesfrom 40 to 80 m. Frequently, a separate shed

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING 63

is provided for cleaning and storage of con-tainers of the catch. The washing area for thecontainers requires about 1 m2/ton per year,while the storage area varies depending on thespecific packing type—a representative valuebeing 0.2 m2/ton of annual product handling.The wastewater from the washing of both thecatch and the packaging containers should beconducted through floor grilles to a suitabletreatment installation prior to final disposal.The floor should slope around 1:75 to facilitatesurface drainage.

Repair and maintenance work may be pro-vided by a series of installations, ranging fromthe simplest ramps to the most complex ship-lift or dry dock facilities. A lifting arrangementproviding ease of application on relativelysmall vessels is the Syncrolift, equipped with avertical lifting platform supported by four legsat both sides (Tsinker, 1995). Repair/mainte-nance installations may use the longitudinal ortransverse transport system for moving vesselsto/from their respective dry berth for repair ormaintenance.

REFERENCES ANDRECOMMENDED READING

Agerschow, H., H. Lundgren, T. Sorensen, T. Ernst,J. Korsgaard, L. R. Schmidt, and W. K. Chi,1983. Planning and Design of Ports and MarineTerminals, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

ASCE, 1969. Report on Small Craft Harbors, No.50, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,VA.

———, 1994. Planning and Design Guidelines forSmall Craft Harbors, American Society of CivilEngineers, Reston, VA.

———, 2001. ASCE Proc. Specialty ConferencePorts ’01, Norfolk, VA.

Bruun, P., 1981. Port Engineering, 3rd ed., GulfPublishing, Houston, TX.

Brunn, P. 1989–1990. Port Engineering, 4th ed.(Vols. 1&2), Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,TX.

Chapon, J., 1966. Travaux Maritimes, Eyrolles,Paris.

Dally, H. K. (ed.), 1983. Container Handling andTransport, CS Publications, Worchester Park,Surrey, U.K.

E.C. COST 330, 1998. Telinformatic Links betweenPorts and Partners, Final Report of the Actions,European Comission, Brussels, Belgium.

European Commission, DG Environment, 2001. As-sessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Af-fecting Natura 2000 Sites. MethodologicalGuidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) andArticle 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/66,Brussels.

European Sea Ports Organisation, 1995. Environ-mental Code of Practice, Brussels, Belgium.

Frankel, E. G., O. G. Houmb, and G. Moe, 1981.Port Engineering, Gulf Publishing Company,Houston, TX.

Herbich J. B. (ed.), 1992. Handbook of Coastal andOcean Engineering, Vol. 3, Gulf PublishingCompany, Houston, TX.

Hershman, W. (ed.), 1988. Urban Ports and HarborManagement: Responding to Change along U.S.Waterfronts, Taylor and Francis, New York.

IMO, 1991. Port Logistics, Compendium for ModelCourse 5.02, International Maritime Organiza-tion, London.

Knapton J., and A. Meletiou, 1996. The StructuralDesign of Heavy Duty Pavements for Ports andOther Industries, The British Precast ConcreteFederation, 3rd edtion, London.

Memos, C., 1999. Lecturers on Harbor Works,‘‘Symmetry’’ Publ., Athens, Greece.

PIANC, 1980. Dry Berthing of Pleasure Boats,Suppl. Bull. 37, Permanent International Associ-ation of Navigation Congresses, Brussels, Bel-gium.

———, 1997. Review of Selected Standards forFloating Dock Designs, Suppl. Bull. 93, Perma-nent International Association of NavigationCongresses, Brussels, Belgium.

———, 1998. Planning of Fishing Ports, Suppl.Bull. 97, proceedings of Specialized ASCE Con-ferences on Ports, PIANC Congresses, HarborCongresses, and the other specialized conven-tions. Permanent International Association ofNavigation Congresses, Brussels, Belgium.

64 PORT PLANNING

———, 1999. Environmental Management Frame-work for Ports and Related Industries, PECO,Brussels.

———, 2002. Mooring Systems for RecreationalCraft, Rep. WG10, Permanent International As-sociation of Navigation Congresses, Brussels,Belgium.

Takamatsu, T., M. Yosui, and H. Sanada, 2002. APort and Harbor Vision to Connect People’s Liveswith the Sea and World, PIANC Proceedings,30th Congress, Sydney, Australia.

Tobiasson, B. O., and R. C. Kolmeyer, 1991. Mari-nas and Small Craft Harbors, Van NostrandReinhold, New York.

Tsinker, G., 1995. Marine Structures Engineering:Specialized Applications, Chapman & Hall, NewYork.

———, 1997. Handbook of Port and Harbor Engi-neering: Geotechnical and Structural Aspects,Chapman & Hall, New York.

UNCTAD, 1984. Port Development: A Handbookfor Planners in Developing Countries, UnitedNations, Geneva.

UNCTAD, 1992. Developpment et amelioration desports, Les principes et l’organisation modernesdes ports (Development and Amelioration ofPorts, Principles of Modern Port Managementand Organization), UN-Unctad, Conseil du com-merce et du developpment, Commission destransport maritimes, groupe intergouvernementalspecial d’experts des ports, GE.92-50027/1038C,Geneva.

UNCTAD, 1996. Sustainable Development Strate-gies for Cities and Ports, UN-Unctad, IAPH &IACP, Geneva.

UNCTAD, 2001. Review of Maritime Transport,United Nations, Geneva.

United Nations, (Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion), 1970. Fishing Ports and Markets, FishingNews Books, Oxford.

———, 1978. Conference on Trade and Develop-ment, U.N., New York.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974. Small-CraftHarbors: Design, Construction, and Operation,SR 2, USACE, Washington, DC.

Port Planning

Documents

Transcript of Port Planning