DEVELOPMENT OF A CARGO SCREENING PROCESS SIMULATOR: A FIRST
APPROACH
Peer-Olaf Siebers (a), Galina Sherman (b), Uwe Aickelin (c)
(a)

Computer Science, Nottingham University, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK
CASS Business School, City University London, London, EC1Y 8TZ, UK
(c)
Computer Science, Nottingham University, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK

(b)

(a)

pos@cs.nott.ac.uk, (b)galina.sherman.1@cass.city.ac.uk, (c)uxa@cs.nott.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
The efficiency of current cargo screening processes at
sea and air ports is largely unknown as few benchmarks
exists against which they could be measured. Some
manufacturers provide benchmarks for individual
sensors but we found no benchmarks that take a holistic
view of the overall screening procedures and no
benchmarks that take operator variability into account.
Just adding up resources and manpower used is not an
effective way for assessing systems where human
decision-making and operator compliance to rules play
a vital role. Our aim is to develop a decision support
tool (cargo-screening system simulator) that will map
the right technology and manpower to the right
commodity-threat combination in order to maximise
detection rates. In this paper we present our ideas for
developing such a system and highlight the research
challenges we have identified. Then we introduce our
first case study and report on the progress we have
made so far.
Keywords: port security, cargo screening, modelling
and simulation, decision support, detection rate matrix
1. INTRODUCTION
The primary goal of cargo screening at sea ports and air
ports is to detect human stowaways, conventional,
nuclear, chemical and radiological weapons and other
potential threats. This is an extremely difficult task due
to the sheer volume of cargo being moved through ports
between countries. For example in sea freight, 200
million containers are moved through 220 ports around
the globe every year; this is 90% of all non bulk sea
cargo (Dorndorf, Herbers, Panascia, and Zimmermann
2007).
Little is known about the efficiency of current
cargo screening processes as few benchmarks exist
against which they could be measured (e.g. %detected
vs. %missed). Some manufacturer benchmarks are
available for individual sensors, but these have been
measured under laboratory conditions. It is rare to find
unbiased benchmarks that come from independent field
tests under real world conditions. Furthermore, we have
not found any benchmarks that take a holistic view of

the entire screening process assessing a combination of
sensors and also taking operator skills, judgment and
variability into account.
In our research we attempt to identify and test
innovative methods in order to advance the use of
simulation for supporting decision making at the
strategic and the operational level of the cargo screening
process. Wilson (2005) confirms the usefulness of
simulation for the analysis and prediction of operational
effectiveness, efficiency, and detection rates of existing
or proposed security systems.
Our research aim is to develop a methodology for
building such Decision Support Systems (DSS) that will
map the right technology and manpower to the right
commodity-threat combination in order to maximise
detection rates. The concept for such a DSS (a cargo
screening process simulator) is shown in Figure 1. For
developing the methodology we are using a case study
approach. In our work we focus solely on DSSs
development; we do not work on new sensor
development. However, with our DSSs we might be
able to give some recommendations of what
characteristics new to be developed sensors might
require to reach certain system performances.
The core of the proposed cargo screening process
simulator will consist of three elements: a Detection
Rate Matrix (DRM), a simulation model and a resource
optimiser. The DRM will provide sensor detection rates
as an input for the sensors represented in the simulation
model, based on sensor types, commodities, threats, and
other indicators. The simulation model will allow
carrying out what-if analyses for the system under
examination. The results of the simulation will be fed
into the resource optimiser to create a new set of input
parameter values for the simulation. The previous two
steps are repeated until an acceptable solution has been
found. The output of the simulator will consist of
required technology and manpower and an estimation of
the system detection rate that can be achieved by
implementing the proposed system set-up. A sensor
data database will provide some information for the
core elements (in particular for the DRM). The content
of the database will be a mixture of data provided by
vendors but will also consider operators experience with

Sensor data
(theoretical)

Sensor type

Commodity

Threat

DB with sensor data

Detection rate matrix

Simulation for what-if analysis

Resource optimiser

Annual job list (expected cargo +
% split of commodities)

Guidelines +
observations

Anecdotal evidence
about detection rates

Required technology

Detection rate

Required personnel

Existing sensors and
staff

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Our Cargo Screening Process Simulator
the equipment. Other input data required for the cargo
screening process simulator include an annual job list,
guideline on how to carry out jobs, and observations if
jobs are carried out in accordance with these guidelines,
and a list of existing sensors and staff.
Section 2 contains a brief review of existing work
in the field. In Section 3 we discuss the development of
a DRM. In Section 4 we state our research questions
regarding model design and matrix development.
Section 5 introduces our case study, the ferry port in
Calais. We present a description of the real system and
its operations, a conceptual model of it, an
implementation of the conceptual model in form of a
discrete event simulation model, and finally we show
the results of an initial test run with our simulation
model. Section 6 concludes the paper by discussing the
results of our current efforts and proposes further work.
2. BACKGROUND
Simulation modelling is commonly used to support
design and analysis of complex systems. With regards
to modelling ports Tahar and Hussain (2000) confirm
that simulation modelling is a tool widely used for the
management, planning and optimisation of port
systems. According to Turner and Williams (2005) the
same is true for the management, planning and
optimisation of complex supply chain systems.
In the context of the cargo screening process, some
examples (e.g. Leone and Liu 2005, Wilson 2005) have
been found that use simulation modelling to evaluate
key design parameters for checked baggage security
screening systems in airports, in order to balance
equipment cost, passenger and baggage demand,
screening capacity, and security effectiveness in an
attempt to meet the requirements imposed by the
checked baggage screening explosive detection deadline
established by the US Aviation and Transportation
Security Act.
Another related subject is the enhancement of the
security throughout the supply chain, i.e. achieving
supply chain integrity (Closs and McGarrell 2004).
Here, simulation modelling is often used to analyse the
system. For example, Sekine, Campos-Náñnez, Harrald,
and Abeledo (2006) use simulation and the response

surface method for a trade-off analysis of port security
in order to construct a set of Pareto optimal solutions.
The development of a dynamic security airport
simulation is described by Weiss (2008). In contrast to
the other papers mentioned so far, this simulation
focuses on the human aspects in the system and
employs the agent paradigm to represent the behaviour
of attackers and defenders. Both, attacker and defender
agents are equipped with the capability to make their
individual decisions after assessing the current situation
and to adapt their general behaviour through learning
from previous experiences. This allows accounting for
rapid security adaptation to shifting threads, as they
might be experienced in the real world.
3.

CONCEPTS OF THE DETECTION RATE
MATRIX
The mapping process (right technology and manpower
to the right commodity-threat combination) will be
implemented using a multi-dimensional DRM. The
DRM contains the information required to estimate the
type and amount of sensors and manpower we need in
order to maximise our detection rate if we have an
estimate of the number and type of cargo containers we
want to screen and what they will contain. The values to
fill the DRM can either come from vendors, the
literature, from trials, or anecdotal evidence of the
border agency staff. From all the information received
we have to create a single value that represents the
detection rate for a certain commodity-threat
combination.
An example for a partially filled DRM derived
from laboratory experiments can be found in Klock
(2005). Klock states that developing a DRM from real
world data would be desirable but poses a big challenge
as for various reasons it is a problem to collect all
relevant data for the all commodity-threat combinations
in the real system. In our case the problems are as
follows. In most cases the security screening procedures
cannot be compromised for research purposes, i.e. there
are legal boundaries regarding the sampling frame.
Furthermore, it would be difficult to capture the
variability of operational procedures that exist in the
real system. However, as much as the technology itself,

the way in which the technology is used contributes to
the success rate of detecting threats. Our current plan is
to fill some of the gaps in our DRM by simulating
specific scenarios, rather than trying to collect all data
from the real system.
We will start the development of our DRM by
creating a two dimensional matrix and then gradually
increase its complexity (i.e. the number of dimensions).
The values for our first DRM will be derived by
collecting anecdotal evidence from system insiders and
where anecdotal evidence is not available by simulating
specific scenarios of interest (1). The next step will be
to generalise the initial DRM and to consider that the
applicability and performance of sensors is related to
the commodity screened and the category of threats
investigated (2). For example, if one wants to detect
stowaways in a lorry using CO2 probes which measure
the level of carbon dioxide and the load consist of wood
or wooden furniture which naturally exhumes carbon
dioxide then the detector readings will be wrong. For
this commodity the sensor is not useful and would
produce many false positives (type 1 error), which
means that in return many false negatives (type 2 error)
will stay undetected as time is wasted with manually
inspecting the wrong lorries. The next dimension we
will add is a definition of the cargo containment which
consists of a description of the type of containment, its
wall thickness and its wall density (3). The containment
type is important as some of the sensors might need to
have access to the interior of the containment while
others might be applicable to be used from the outside.
Wall thickness and density are important as many
sensors have limitations regarding the penetration of the
containments, depending on the containment properties.
rate of detection = f (commodity & thread
combination, specific scenario)

(1)

rate of detection = f (commodity, threat, sensor)

(2)

rate of detection = f (cargo containment,
commodity, threat, sensor)

(3)

There are many more dimensions one could add
(e.g. cargo origin, cargo destination, shipping company,
or environmental conditions of test facility location) and
part of the research will have to deal with the question
of which are the most relevant indicators of sensor
efficiency?
4. RESEARCH QUESTION
One of the key questions we are keen on answering
during our research is how and where it makes sense to
use simulation in a project like ours. Besides the
standard application areas for simulation modelling in
operations research (e.g. system analysis, optimisation,
as a communication tool) we want to find and test some
new application areas (e.g. validating the DRM parts
where we have data and helping to estimate the values
where we have gaps in our DRM). Furthermore, we will

examine if our simulation models can be used to
support the decision making process in other fields, e.g.
supply chain management or risk analysis.
Before we can build our cargo screening process
simulator we will have to investigate several questions
which can be broadly grouped in two categories, related
to model design or matrix development. Research
questions regarding model design: [a] How much detail
do we have to model to get some meaningful output?
[b] How should we model people in our system (e.g.
officers or stowaways) - as simple resources or as
autonomous entities? [c] How can we get a good
estimate on how many stowaways, weapons or drugs
are passing the borders? [d] What effect does the fact
that we are dealing with rare events have on input
sampling and output analysis? Research questions
regarding matrix development: [e] Which are the most
relevant indicators of sensor efficiency? [f] What is the
best way to develop and validate a detection rate matrix
in absence of real data or when real data is incomplete,
i.e. missing data for certain technology / commodity /
threat combinations? [g] Can we develop a framework
to support the development of a DRM for different
environments and for different threats?
5. CASE STUDY: CALAIS FERRY PORT
In order to achieve our research aim of developing a
methodology for building cargo screening process
simulator we have chosen to use a case study approach.
This allows us to gain the knowledge, insight, and
experience we need for developing our methodology.
For each case study we will first develop simulation
models that allow us to analyse the system under study
and then create a DRM for this system.
For our first case study we have selected the ferry
port in Calais (France) that links Calais with Dover
(UK). This site is ideal for beginning as the security
measures in place focus on detecting only one threat,
illegal immigrants, or clandestines, as they are called by
the UK Border Force. Clandestines are people found on
a lorry with the aim to get into Britain without a
passport or any other papers (Sky1 2009). These can be
individuals or groups. Clandestines come in hope of a
better future in Britain, drawn by the English language,
the lack of national identity cards and the possibility of
illegal work. When clandestines do not succeed little or
no publicity is generated, thereby perpetuating the false
idea that clandestines are always successful. On the
other hand, for every successful clandestine arriving in
Britain the word goes out that the process is successful,
which generates even more attempts of illegal
immigration (Brown 1995).
5.1. The Real System
Between April 2007 and April 2008 more than 900,000
lorries passed the check points in Calais. Of these,
approx. 0.3% contained additional human freight (UK
Border Agency 2009). How many clandestines were
missed during these checks is unknown. Although
companies supplying the sensor technology promise a

detection rate close to 100%, independent test have
shown that this is not the case when using the
equipment in real world scenarios (Klock 2005). In
addition, in the real system the detection rates also
depend on factors like the time of day (at busy times the
operators have less time to apply the sensors and wait
for the readings and therefore readings are more likely
to produce more type I and type II errors), operators’
skills (of interpreting the outputs from the sensors), and
operators’ fatigue.
In Calais the cargo screening process is separated
into two major zones, the first under the control of the
Calais Chamber of Commerce (CCI), the second under
the control of the UK Border Agency (see Figure 2).
Different types of sensors are used at the various
screening facilities and some of them are also in use as
mobile devices. The technology / operations used for
screening includes Passive MilliMetre Wave scanners
(PMMW), Heart Beat Detectors (HBD), CO2
measurement probes (CO2), canine sniffers and visual
inspection. The process on the French site starts with a
passport check by the French authorities. Then all
lorries are screened for clandestines and suspicious
lorries are routed to deep search facilities where they
are further inspected by using an alternative method and
if suspicion is substantiated then lorries are opened for
visual inspection. In some cases (e.g. if it does not
interrupt the process flow much, e.g. at non-busy times)
lorries are opened directly for a quick visual check after
or instead of being screened. If clandestines are found
on board a lorry they are removed by the French police,
registered, and released into freedom. The process on
the UK site is very similar; the major difference is that
lorries are searched rather then screened and that only a
fraction of the lorries going through the system is
actually searched (at average 33%). The number of
vehicles searched is on the basis of profiling and
intelligence. Once the lorries have passed all check
points they park at the Berth where mobile squads are
operating to check the lorries a last time before they get
on their way to Dover.
5.2. Modelling the Real System: A First Approach
This initial modelling exercise acts as a data
requirement analysis for our case study. It will help us
to make informed decisions about the information and
data we need to collect during our main data collection
French Border Control Offices and Detention Facilities

French
Passport Check

French
Screening
Facilities

Tickets

French
Deep Search
Facilities

Controlled by
Calais Chamber of Commerce (CCI)

for this case study. Furthermore, it will help us to
uncover areas where we might encounter problems
during our main modelling and implementation process
at an early stage, so that we can respond to it in
sufficient time. Finally, we want to use our initial
models to communicate theories, ideas, potential
investigation techniques, outputs and solutions to stake
holders and other interested parties.
Before we started our modelling exercise we
visited the case study site to observe the operations, for
discussions with stake holders, and for collecting
system performance data. From the information
gathered we developed a conceptual model that reflects
the current operations of the cargo screening process at
the ferry port in Calais.
5.2.1. Modelling Challenges
The case study system presents several modelling
challenges, some of which have already been mentioned
in Section 4. Below is a list of the modelling challenges
we are currently facing. The first challenge is related to
the fact that we are dealing here with a complex system
where factors that are difficult to quantify are assumed
to have a big impact on system behaviour and
ultimately system performance. An example for such a
factor is the human decision making process. Therefore,
the application of abstraction and simplification for the
purpose of model design is a very delicate issue.
The second challenge is related to the lack of input
data. On the one hand we are dealing with rare events
(e.g. detecting a clandestine) which impacts on the way
we have to do our input sampling and output analysis
(Heidelberger 1995) and some data cannot be obtained
from the real system (e.g. number of clandestines that
manage to cross the borders) so we have to make a lot
of guesses. Some mathematical models exist for
estimate such values as for example success rates for
clandestine border crossing (Wein, Liu, and Motskin
2009; Epenshade 1995); their usefulness however is
debatable as still many assumptions have to be made to
derive these estimates. Even if we had the resources to
collect the data there are some legal issues regarding the
sampling frame which prohibits us to collect some of
the required data as we are not allowed to sample an
entire population.
The third challenge relates to the objects we have
to model, some of which are fixed and some of which
UK Border Control Offices and Detention Facilities

UK
Passport Check

UK
Screening
Facilities

Berth Parking
Space

UK
Deep Search
Facilities

Controlled by
UK Border Agency

Figure 2: The cargo screening process at Calais

can be moving around freely. Three different situations
can be identified: [1] Sensors are fixed and targets
(lorries and clandestines) are fixed, for example in a
screening shed lorries are parking while sensors are
applied. [2] Sensors are moving and targets
(clandestines) are moving, for example in the allocation
lanes officers are patrolling and clandestines are
running around in order to get into the lorries. [3]
Sensors are moving and targets (lorries and
clandestines) are fixed, for example in the Berth squads
are checking the parking lorries either with mobile
sensors or by opening suspicious lorries directly. While
the first situation is relatively easy to model using
traditional Discrete Event Modelling (DEM) the latter
two require some further reflection before they can be
modelled successfully. In those cases sensors and/or
targets need to possess some form of autonomy and
probably proactiveness which are concepts not directly
supported by traditional DEM. Agent-Based Modelling
(ABM) presents an alternative modelling paradigm that
supports the consideration of autonomy and
proactiveness of entities.
The fourth challenge relates to the injection of
clandestines into the model. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that clandestines enter the system at numerous
places. Clandestines either get into the lorries before
these enter the compound or they climb over the fences
that surround the compound and get into the lorries
while they pass through the compound or wait for the
ferry. While the first is easy to model the latter causes
some problems as no data is available exactly where
and when the clandestines enter the compound.
Finally, the fifth challenge relates to the human
decision making. The operation of this system is human
centric and relies very much on the experience of the
officers and the compliance to rules. Human decision
making involves the routing (i.e. choosing the lorries to
be screened), choosing the sensor to be used,
interpreting the sensor outputs (i.e. choosing the lorries
to be opened), and compliance to rules (sticking to
recommended sensor application periods). All these
points depend very much on the state of the system. At
peak times decisions will be different compared to quiet
times, e.g. sensor application periods will be shorter to
avoid congestion in front of the service sheds and
therefore the number of true and false negatives will be
much higher and therefore the detection rates vary
throughout the day.
In the end the big question is if modelling all these
details is really necessary for getting useful results. In
order to answer this question we will have to implement
them at least partially and conduct a sensitivity analysis.
For this purpose we will build some smaller simulation
models that only represent a small section of the overall
real system. Once we have the results we can give some
recommendations regarding the level of detail that is
required for getting a useful representation of the real
system.

5.2.2. The Conceptual Model
In order to capture the cargo screening process taking
place at the Calais ferry port we have developed a
process centric conceptual model (Figure 3). It reflects
the process flow as it appears in the real system. Dark
blue fields represent system entry and exit points.
Brown fields represent jump starting points (where the
text is followed by @) and targets (where the text is
lead by @). These jumps do not consume any time.
Light blue fields represent the locations where time is
consumed. The %s represent flow probabilities while
the numbers below the light blue fields represent
detection rates. For confidentiality reasons the true
values have been replaced by place holders. The splits
in the model have been defined in a somewhat arbitrary
way but often a single row represents all activities that
happen at one specific location.
5.3. Implementation
Based on our conceptual model presented in Section
5.2.2 we have developed a first version of a Discrete
Event Simulation (DES) model which is implemented
in AnyLogic Version 6.4, a java-based multi-paradigm
simulation software. The purpose of this exercise is to
identify where we have gaps in knowledge about the
system and to identify missing data that could be
obtained during our main data collection.
5.3.1. Simulation Software
The object-oriented model design paradigm supported
by AnyLogic provides for modular, hierarchical, and
incremental construction of large models (XJ
Technologies 2009). Each model contains a set of active
objects which often represent objects found in the real
world. At the lowest level these active objects can
contain parameters, variables, functions, events, state
charts and other active objects. For DES modelling
there is also a library containing higher-level objects
that support the creation of discrete event patterns
frequently used in process-centric modelling (e.g. entity
generation, buffering, resource usage, entity routing,
entity destruction).
One of the benefits of AnyLogic is that you can
build mixed models, i.e. you can mix process-centric
DEM and individual based ABM in one hybrid
simulation model. Technically the main difference is
that an agent compared to an active object has some
additional features with respect to dynamic creation and
destruction, synchronisation, space-, mobility-, and
spatial animation, agent connections and agent
communication. We will use these features when we
model for example sensor and target movement in the
allocation lanes.
For our current simulation model we use the
elements from the library but we have also developed
our own element in form of embedded active objects
that contain a collection of parameters, variables and
library elements. These are reusable components that
can currently represent any of the service sheds as well
as passport and ticket booth on the Calais compound.

Arrive at Calais

100%

x.x%

0.x

S 100%

Screening_F@

x.x%

PassportCheck_F

BorderAgency_F

DeepSearch_F@

x.x%

PMMWCheck_F

x.x%

0.x

Tickets@

@Screening_F

H 100%

x.x%

HBCheck_F

x.x%

x.x%

0.x

100%

@Ticket

100%

TicketFerry

100%

RemovePeople_S

100%

BorderAgency_F

Tickets@

Tickets@

Routing@

x.x%

PassportCheck_UK

x.x%

0.x

@Routing

Tickets@

BorderAgency_F

x.x%

0.x

x.x%

0.x

x.x%

OpenCheck_S

x.x%

CO2Check_F

BorderAgency_F

Tickets@

@DeepSearch_F
x.x%

100%

Tickets@

RemovePeople_S

x.x%

OpenCheck_S

RemovePeople_H

x.x%

0.x

x.x%

0.x

x.x%

OpenCheck_H

BorderAgency_UK

Berth@

x.x%
x.x%

Screening_UK@

x.x%

CO2Check_UK
100%

DeepSearch_UK@

x.x%

0.x

Berth@

S

x.x%

@Screening_UK

x.x%

HBCheck_UK
x.x%

OpenCheck_H
0.x

x.x%

0.x

RemovePeople_H

100%

BorderAgency_UK

x.x%
Berth@

Berth@

H
x.x%

x.x%
OpenCheck_H

RemovePeople_H

Berth@

x.x%
100%

OpenCheck_S

RemovePeople_S

random
checks

100%

CO2Check_F

WaitFerryArrival

H

random
checks

BorderAgency_UK

Berth@

0.x

@Berth

100%

x.x%

0.x

S

BorderAgency_UK

x.x%

0.x

@DeepSearch_UK

100%

x.x%
x.x%

OpenCheck_S
0.x

x.x%
x.x%

RemovePeople_S

x.x%
0.x

BorderAgency_UK

@Berth

@Berth

a maximum of 175 lorries can leave Calais once per hour

OpenCheck_H

100%

RemovePeople_H

100%

Leave to Dover

BorderAgency_UK

x.x%
@Berth

Figure 3: Conceptual model of the cargo screening process at Calais (S=soft sided, H=hard sided, F=French site;
UK=UK site; x=replacement for real value)

We tried to make them as generic as possible so that we
can also use them for modelling other locations or types
of systems. A screenshot of the elements of such an
embedded active object is presented in Figure 4. It
shows a service station with a linked resource pool
(symbolised by the clock and the linked box) an
entrance buffer and two single space exit buffers. The
hold element between entrance queue and service
station is released to let one entity pass at a time as soon
as the previously serviced entity has left the exit buffer,
which only happens if there is some space available in
one of the upstream queues. The variables on the left
are used for data collection while the parameters on the
right allow each instance of this active object class to be
defined by an individual set of parameters.

Figure 4: Embedded active object serviceShed

5.3.2. Simulation Model
Entities of type Lorry (soft and hard sided) are injected
into the simulation at a certain rate by the source
element (arrival). Some lorries will arrive with an
additional load (clandestines) on board. Clandestines
are currently modelled as resources (a boolean variable
defines if there are clandestines on board a lorry or not).
The main elements in the simulation model are the
serviceShed elements which have been described in
Section 5.3.1. These are used for modelling the
situations when we have fixed sensors and fixed targets.
The serviceShed elements are linked via some routing
elements. The routing elements use a custom-made
function which routes the entity to the next level
upstream element with the shortest queue. This
represents the routing activities normally conducted by
an officer.
Figure 5 displays a section of the simulation model
within the AnyLogic IDE. The project view window on
the left shows the project tree of the current project. The
graphical editor in the middle shows the content of the
Main object. The pallet window on the right displays
the different pallets available in AnyLogic, amongst
them the Enterprise Library pallet. The properties
window at the bottom is used to define the properties of
the element, which can contain Java commands and
method calls.

Figure 5: A section of the simulation model within the AnyLogic IDE

For modelling the Berth activities we could not use
our serviceShed elements as we have a situation with
moving sensors and fixed targets. Instead we developed
the solution presented in Figure 6. The moving squads
are modelled by events that pick one lorry at random
(mobile CO2 checks will be conducted on soft sided
lorries while hard sided lorries will be opened) and
check it. The time it takes to check a lorry is represented
by the inter arrival time between two events. This
means that the squads are currently modelled as being
100% utilised as long as there are lorries to check.
There are two modus operandi, either lorries can be
checked only ones (lorries that have been checked
already are registered on an ignore list) or lorries can be
checked multiple times (which represents the situation
where clandestines enter the lorries while these are
parking at the Berth and therefore the squad would
check suspicious lorries again).

Figure 6: Modelling the Berth activities
To set up the model parameters we had to use some
best guesses and common sense. However, as we have
some average input and output data we have tried to use
settings for the unknown parameters to match the output
data of the real system when using the input data of the
real system. A problem is that the available data are
average data for multiple stations or monthly averages.
Where ever possible we have used multiple data sources
for estimating values for the data required (e.g. for
calculating process flow probabilities).
5.3.3. Current Omissions
This simulation model presented here represents the
first draft of our aspired DES model. The main
simplifications and abstractions in the current model are
listed below:
•

•

Queues: We use large queue capacities in front
of the service stations; therefore congestion
does not occur. However, it is an important
phenomenon that occurs in the real system and
influences service times and therefore
indirectly the detection rates.
Average values: We use the same average
entity arrival rates for the entire simulation
runtime but the collected data indicates a
significant difference in arrival rates as well as
inspection and detection rates depending on
time of the day and day of the week (the higher
the arrival rates the lower detection rates, as
officers have less time for conducting an
individual screening). However, first we need

•

to sort out the congestion problem mentioned
above; otherwise the impact of high arrival
rates is not adequately considered in the
results.
Currently we don’t model multiple clandestine
entry points, canine sniffers nor the search for
clandestines in the allocation lanes.

5.4. Testing the Simulation Model
So far we have only conducted some very basic
preliminary tests with our simulation model. A
verification and validation exercise is still to be carried
out. However, here we briefly report on one of the tests
we have conducted. We have set up the simulation
model using our standard set of parameter values,
except for the sensor detection rates, which we have set
to the same value for all sensors. During the experiment
we have systematically changed this collective value,
starting from 0% to 100% in steps of 10%. Our
simulated runtime was equivalent to a one year period
and we conducted 20 replications for each set of values.
As for the results we expect to see a non-linear
relationship between sensor detection rates and the
average proportions of clandestines detected. This is
due to the fact that many lorries will go through several
screening procedures and therefore combinatorial
effects appears for this relationship, where higher
individual sensor detection rates will have a
proportionally lower benefit regarding the system
detection rate. Figure 7 confirms our expectation.
This first test has already shown the impact of
modelling rare events. We observed that the clandestine
detection rates vary significantly throughout most of the
simulation runtime and seems only to stabilise towards
the end. Furthermore, we noticed some significant
differences between runs. Therefore, in future we have
to assess very carefully the required warm-up period,
run length and number of replications.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have presented our first steps towards
the development of a cargo-screening process simulator
and we have introduced a case study that we want to use
for gaining some experience with developing such a
simulator. Our current task is to conduct a data
requirement analysis. For this we have created a first
draft of our aspired DES model to be used for the cargoscreening process simulator. This modelling exercise
has allowed us to make a well informed decision about
which kind of information and data we require for
representing the real system to allow some useful
systems analysis.
We found that a big challenge when modelling the
case study system is to capture the variability inherent
in the system. By omitting details like differences in
arrival rates throughout the day and week, congestion in
front of service sheds and associated with this service
time variation and detection rate variations we do not
get a good representation of the real system, in
particular when we are not only interested in the

average proportion of clandestines detected

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

sensor detection rate

Figure 7: Results from the experiment: sensor detection rates vs. proportion of clandestines detected
average system performance but also want to gain an
insight into its operations. We are currently working on
the mechanisms to implement varying arrival rate and
the consequences of these, i.e. congestion and varying
service times. Once we have conducted our main data
collection we will add some real data to it. Once this is
done we will work on verification and validation of the
simulation model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project is supported by the EPSRC, grant number
EP/G004234/1 and the UK Border Agency.
REFERENCES
Brown, D.A., 1995. Human occupancy detection.
Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers 29th Annual 1995
International Carnahan Conference on Security
Technology,
166-174.
October
18-20,
Sanderstead, Surrey, England.
Closs, D.J., McGarrell, E.F., 2004. Enhancing security
throughout the supply chain. Special Report to the
IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Dorndorf, U., Herbers, J., Panascia, E., Zimmermann,
H.J., 2007. Ports o’ call for O.R. problems.
OR/MS
Today.
Available
from
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary
_0286-30867578_ITM [accessed 01 April 2009].
Epenshade, T.J., 1995. Using INS border apprehension
data to measure the flow of undocumented
migrants crossing the US-Mexico frontier.
International Migration Review 29:545-565.
Heidelberger, P., 1995. Fast simulation of rare events in
queuing and reliability models. ACM Transactions
on Modeling and Computer Simulation 5(1):4385.

Klock, B.A., 2005. Examination of possible
technologies for the detection of human
stowaways in air cargo containers. Final Report
produced
for
Transportation
Security
Administration. Atlantic City: New Jersey, USA.
Leone, K., Liu, R., 2005. The key design parameters of
checked baggage screening systems in airports.
Journal of Air Transport Management 11:69-78.
Sekine, J., Campos-Náñnez, E., Harrald, J.R., Abeledo,
H., 2006. A simulation-based approach to trade-off
analysis of port security. Proceedings of the 38th
Winter
Simulation
Conference,
521-528.
December 03-06, Monterey, Califoernia, USA.
Sky1, 2009. UK Border Force: Jargon Buster Part I.
Available from: http://sky1.sky.com/uk-borderforce-jargon-buster-part-i [accessed 01 April
2009].
Tahar, R.M., Hussain, K., 2000. Simulation and
analysis for the Kelang container terminal
operations. Logistics Information Management
13(1):14-20.
Turner, K., Williams, G., 2005. Modelling complexity
in the automotive industry supply chain. Journal of
Manufacturing
Technology
Management
16(4):447-458.
UK Border Agency, 2009. Freight search figures for
2007/2008. Provided by the UK Border Agency.
Wein, L.M., Liu, Y., Motskin, A., 2009. Analyzing the
homeland security of the U.S.-Mexico Border.
Risk Analysis 29(5):699-713.
Weiss, W.E., 2008. Dynamic security: An agent-based
model for airport defense. Proceedings of the 40th
Winter Simulation Conference, 1320-1325.
December 07-10, Miami, Florida, USA.
Wilson, D.L., 2005. Use of modeling and simulation to
support airport security. IEEE Aerospace and
Electronic Systems Magazine 208:3-8.

XJ Technologies, 2009. XJ Technologies - Simulation
Software and Services. Available from:
http://www.xjtek.com [accessed 01 April 2009].
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY
PEER-OLAF SIEBERS is a Research Fellow at The
University of Nottingham, School of Computer Science.
His main research interest is the application of computer
simulation to study human-centric complex adaptive
systems. This is a highly interdisciplinary research field,
involving disciplines like social science, psychology,
management science, operations research, economics
and engineering. Furthermore, he is interested in nature
inspired computing and agent-based robotics. For more
information see http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~pos/
GALINA SHERMAN is a PhD student at City
University, Cass Business School. Her current research
is related to supply chain management, risk analysis and
rare event modelling.
UWE AICKELIN is a Professor of Computer Science
and an Advanced EPSRC Research Fellow at The
University of Nottingham, School of Computer Science.
His main research interests are mathematical modelling,
agent-based simulation, heuristic optimisation and
artificial immune systems. For more information see
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~uxa/

