STS crane fleet sizing is the single largest capex decision for a container terminal · 25 to 40 USD million per crane · and twin-lift vs single-lift policy compounds OPEX over decades. The model captures every spreader cycle, the twin-lift hit rate against vessel container mix, dual-hoist vs single-hoist gantry configuration, and operator productivity distributions. Output supports crane fleet right-sizing, twin-lift policy decisions, and gantry layout sign-off.
STS spreader cycle · twin-lift hit rate · dual-hoist vs single-hoist · gantry travel · operator distributions · maintenance windows.
Boxes per hour per crane · twin-lift % · crane utilisation · spreader cycle time · gang productivity.
Crane fleet right-sizing · twin-lift policy · dual-hoist investment · operator training need · maintenance schedule.
Yard layout decisions are 30-year decisions. Get the stacking strategy wrong and you bleed yard-tractor hours every operational day. Get RTG fleet sizing wrong and you bottleneck the vessel exchange the moment a tonnage surge arrives. The model captures yard block geometry, RTG/RMG movement, yard-tractor pool sizing, housekeeping moves, and dwell time distributions. Output supports stacking policy, RTG fleet sizing, and yard-tractor fleet right-sizing.
Yard block geometry · RTG / RMG movement · yard-tractor pool · housekeeping moves · stacking strategy · dwell time distribution.
Yard utilisation % · RTG moves per hour · yard-tractor fleet size · housekeeping % · stack height max · dwell time P95.
Stacking policy · RTG fleet sizing · yard-tractor right-sizing · block reconfiguration · automation business case.
Gate congestion is the most visible operational pain for a port · trucks queuing on access roads, neighbouring communities complaining, regulators threatening service-level penalties. The model captures truck arrival profile, OCR processing, empty vs laden split, and lane allocation. ISPS Code requirements are layered onto the security-affected scenarios. Output supports gate sizing, OCR investment business cases, and appointment system business cases.
Truck arrival profile · OCR processing · empty vs laden split · lane allocation · ISPS Code-affected screening.
Processing time per truck · queue length P95 · gate utilisation · OCR accuracy · truck turn-time · peak arrival rate.
Gate sizing · OCR investment · appointment system · empties policy · ISPS Code-compliant lane configuration.
Vessel turnaround is the metric that gets you the next shipping line contract or loses you the current one. Berth occupancy north of 80% means you're losing flexibility. Pre-berth delays compound up the supply chain to inland depots. The model captures vessel arrival pattern, berth allocation, cargo operations window, pre-berth and post-berth delays. Output supports berth capex business cases, schedule reliability evidence for shipping line contracts, and departure punctuality target validation.
Vessel arrival pattern · berth allocation policy · cargo operations window · pre-berth and post-berth delay distributions · weather-affected scenarios.
Average port stay · berth occupancy % · pre-berth delay · post-berth delay · departure punctuality · BMPH per gang.
Berth capex business case · shipping line schedule reliability evidence · departure punctuality target validation · pilotage service-level definition.
Stacking strategy is the lever that most directly translates into operational economics. Pooling vs dedicated rows. Reefer vs dry block separation. Hazmat handling rules. The model runs the strategies head-to-head against your fleet mix, your dwell time distribution, and your operational pattern. Output supports stacking policy sign-off, yard reconfiguration capex business cases, and operations training material.
Stacking strategy · pooling vs dedicated rows · reefer / dry / hazmat block separation · dwell time per category · re-stack triggers.
Re-stack moves per day · yard-tractor hours · RTG moves per hour · TEU per gang hour · operational cost per TEU.
Stacking policy sign-off · yard reconfiguration capex · operations training material · automation business case input.
Standard disruption scenarios are how an operations director defends the next quarter's KPIs and how a CFO defends the next year's budget against the board. The model runs every disruption against the steady-state baseline and computes the recovery time, the KPI shortfall, and the contingency cost. Output supports IROPS policy validation, business continuity plans, and shipping line indemnity discussions.
Crane fault · IT outage · gate closure · weather delay · labour disruption · vessel late arrival · cascading scenarios.
Recovery time P95 · KPI shortfall · contingency cost · downstream supply chain impact · ISPS Code-affected throughput.
IROPS policy · business continuity plan · shipping line indemnity discussions · regulator reporting · insurance premium reduction.
Every port simulation engagement conforms to eight layered standards covering platform, validation, terminal design, security, maritime, navigation, berthing, and live data exchange. The platform is the tool. The discipline is the model. The Chartered Engineer is the signature.
Hero discrete event simulation platform · the simulation model is the canonical deliverable
Validation, Verification and Accreditation framework · the discipline every model is built to
International navigation association guidelines for terminal design · the reference standard
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code · the security framework
International Maritime Organization rules for vessel arrivals and operations
International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation · for navigation aids
Berth + mooring loading guidelines per the relevant class society
Live data exchange standard · for TOS and ECS integration
The model is the proof. The report is the audit trail. The recommendations are the executable artifact. Outputs map to Wistwin digital twin layer for live-vs-design comparison once the terminal is operational.
Delivered to client as a FlexSim .fsm file · runs on client license · documented with parameter sheets and assumption log.
Build-spec verification · historical TOS data validation · sensitivity analysis on top 3 drivers · ASA VV+A framework.
BMPH per gang · vessel turnaround · berth occupancy · gate throughput · yard utilisation · target vs simulated.
Equipment fleet sizing · yard layout · operating policy interventions · order-of-magnitude costed.
Every run captured · scenario name · input set · output set · timestamp · audit-ready and reproducible.
Every section signed · audit-ready · regulator-ready · lender-ready · concessionaire-ready.
Client names withheld. Representative of multiple engagements in the port simulation category.
Twin-lift policy redesign + yard stacking strategy modelled head-to-head against the current operation. 14% TEU per gang hour uplift validated. Implementation in progress with board sign-off based on the simulation evidence.
Two-berth bulk terminal designed against 25 mtpa target. Capex optimised by 9% through fleet right-sizing. Lender approval secured on the strength of the simulation throughput validation.
Gate reconfiguration modelled to absorb a 28% truck volume increase whilst maintaining ISPS Code throughput discipline. Appointment system policy validated. Roll-out plan sequenced against operational risk.
Port discrete event simulation is a computer-based modeling technique that represents container terminal, bulk port, and RoRo operations as sequences of discrete events · vessel arrivals, STS crane cycles, yard moves, gate transactions, train loadout. You need it when a capex decision is too big to commit on spreadsheet evidence · STS crane fleet sizing, yard expansion business cases, gate redesign, vessel turnaround targets the operator has signed up to with a shipping line, greenfield terminal master planning.
The hero discrete event simulation platform for port work is FlexSim · current production release. AnyLogic and Simio are available where the client has standardised on those platforms. The platform is the tool · the model and the Chartered Engineer signature are the value.
Six to eight weeks for a single terminal · container, bulk, or RoRo. Twelve to sixteen weeks for a multi-terminal port. Twenty weeks for a pit-to-port logistics chain. Faster if TOS exports, AIS data, and historical operations data are clean and available on day one.
Yes. Greenfield port design is a frequent use case. The model runs against design-day throughput targets, vessel mix scenarios, equipment fleet alternatives, and yard layout options before capex commitment. Outputs inform terminal layout final-fix, fleet right-sizing, and pre-commissioning validation.
Yes for offline data integration · TOS exports (Navis N4, RBS, CATOS, OPUS, etc.) are standard inputs. Live TOS integration is possible but most engagements use historical exports for validation, then run against design scenarios.
Six artifacts · native simulation model (FlexSim .fsm file delivered to client), verification + validation report against ASA VV+A, KPI scorecard mapped to operator and lender targets, recommendation register with order-of-magnitude cost estimates, scenario log for audit, and CEng MIE FIE signature on every section.
Yes. Bank and lender financial models for port capex frequently require simulation-based throughput validation. Concession-holder reporting requires evidence of design-day performance under operator and regulator targets. Our deliverable package is structured for direct lender, concession-holder, and regulator submission.
Container terminals (TEU throughput, STS productivity, yard moves), bulk terminals (coal, iron ore, agri, grain), liquid bulk (LNG, crude, products), RoRo facilities, multi-purpose ports, and inland container depots. Each has the same simulation engine with cargo-specific resource libraries.
The model captures every STS cycle · spreader cycle time, twin-lift vs single-lift strategy, single-hoist vs dual-hoist crane configuration, gantry travel, and operator behaviour distributions. The output drives crane fleet sizing, single-vs-twin-lift policy decisions, and gantry layout decisions.
Yes. Standard disruption scenarios · crane breakdown, IT outage, gate closure, weather delay, vessel late arrival, labour disruption. Each runs against steady-state baseline to compute recovery time, vessel turnaround impact, and KPI shortfall.
Yes when the client has BIM in place. The simulation imports IFC geometry. Output KPIs publish to the digital twin layer (Wistwin or any equivalent platform) for live-vs-design comparison once the terminal is operational.
Port simulation references PIANC guidelines for terminal design, IMO regulations for vessel arrivals, ISPS Code requirements for security-affected scenarios, IALA recommendations for navigation aids, and class society guidelines for berth and mooring loading. Standards depth is the discipline behind the model.
Engagement scope is confirmed during a 30-minute consultation. Written estimate within five business days. We do not publish standard prices · every engagement is scoped against the operational decision, the data availability, and the validation depth required.
Tell us the port, the decision you need to defend, and the timeline. A practice lead responds within one business day with scoping questions. Written estimate within 5 business days · no published price · scope drives the proposal.
Scope your model