Validating private 5G for remote and automated yard crane operations

Introducing the business case

Most of the Rubber-Tired Gantry (RTG) cranes in operation worldwide today were designed for an earlier era of yard operations, where cranes worked independently and connectivity was not a core requirement.

While terminal operators are increasingly adopting battery-operated and hybrid models, much of the installed RTG base remains diesel-powered. These cranes are self-contained by design, operating without a fixed power or data connection. This makes it challenging to achieve the continuous communication needed for remote or automated operation.

Crane connectivity for these older models must be addressed by providing a communication layer across the yard. In brownfield terminals, this has traditionally meant extending wired networks. But rolling out fiber infrastructure in an active yard is a major undertaking. It’s costly, time-consuming and often results in lost operational uptime.

In greenfield projects – or at terminals using cable reels or busbar systems – the challenge is different. While fixed connectivity may be in place from the outset, operators are increasingly looking for greater flexibility in how their cranes are connected. Key drivers include easier yard reconfiguration and the ability to remotely enable block changes without physical intervention.

Wireless connectivity provides a way to address both the brownfield and greenfield scenarios.

Until recently, however, the potential of wireless has been difficult to realize. Securely supporting remote operation and automation requires predictable latency, as well as sufficient uplink capacity for safety-critical control traffic and high-definition video streams. Delivering this level of performance in daily operating conditions has remained a significant challenge.

This paper examines private 5G as a potential solution. It sets out Konecranes’ operational requirements for wireless communication and describes the validation work carried out with private 5G. Findings from both controlled tests and a live terminal deployment are presented.

The aim is to define the conditions under which private 5G can function as a reliable foundation for remote operation and automation in real port environments.

Wireless requirements for Konecranes RTG operations

Konecranes’ automated and remotely operated RTG solutions are built around a common operating model that comprises the Konecranes Automated RTG (A-RTG) system and the Konecranes Remote Operation System (ROS).

This combined solution is deployed at terminals worldwide, supporting use cases ranging from assisted operation to full automation. Across all these deployments – regardless of terminal size or location – Konecranes aims to deliver the same operational capabilities, safety levels and operator experience.

Maintaining this level of consistency places clear demands on the communication layer. Latency, reliability and capacity must remain within defined limits to ensure stable crane control and safe operation under all operating conditions.

These requirements are rooted in Konecranes’ path to port automation – a structured operational strategy that moves terminals from manual crane operation towards higher levels of automation. What begins as basic data exchange becomes a safety-critical part of daily operations, carrying control signals and high-definition video streams in real time.

Against this background, the wireless requirements described in this paper are not theoretical targets. They are operational necessities derived directly from how Konecranes’ systems are designed to function in real environments.

Wireless use cases

Network demands vary depending on whether wireless connectivity is used for monitoring, as a fallback connection, or as the primary communication method for crane operation. The following use cases clarify why requirements for capacity, latency and reliability change as the level of automation increases.

Smart features

At the most basic level, wireless technology can support smart features like automated Terminal Operating System (TOS) interactions and remote crane monitoring. These applications are not time-critical and typically involve relatively small data payloads. While reliability is important, short interruptions or increased latency do not directly affect crane operation. This use case places the lowest demands on the network.

Backup solution

Wireless can also act as a backup communication path for remotely operated or automated cranes. In this role, the network must be capable of carrying the full Remotion Operation System (ROS) payload whenever needed. As normal operation runs over another primary connection, the backup network is typically used by only a small number of cranes at any given time. The key requirement in this scenario is not sustained throughput, but immediate availability. The network must be ready to take over instantly and deliver reliable performance whenever the primary connection is unavailable.

Levels of crane operation and automation

Crane operation in container yards can range from operator-assisted features to full automation. At one end of the spectrum, cranes may be controlled directly by a human operator, either locally or remotely. Remote control may be permanent (full remote operation) or temporary, such as when a crane is remotely driven only during a block change. 

At the other end of the spectrum, cranes operate fully autonomously without continuous human input. Each level places different demands on the wireless network, particularly in terms of bandwidth, latency and reliability. The following sections describe these operational modes and their respective connectivity requirements:

Continuous remote crane operation over wireless

When wireless technology is used as the primary communication method for remote operation, network demands increase significantly. The connection must continuously carry the full operational payload, including control traffic and multiple video streams. Utilization rates scale with fleet size and the operational model. In one-to-one operation – where a single remote operator controls a single crane – demands on uplink capacity and latency are highest. This is one of the most challenging cases for wireless connectivity in the yard.

Wireless remote block change 

Wireless can also be used to support remote block changes whereas normal communication within the block will continue to use fixed communication infrastructure. In this scenario, the wireless network again needs to carry the full ROS payload, but only for a limited period and for a small number of cranes at a time. While utilization is lower than in full remote operation, performance requirements remain the same during the block change itself. The wireless network must behave as if it were supporting continuous remote operation.

Fully automated crane operation

In fully automated operation, overall network utilization is typically lower than in remote operation. Automated cranes operate independently and the high-definition video streams required for human operators are not transmitted over the air. However, latency and reliability remain critical. Safety-related communication and control signals must be delivered consistently and within strict limits to ensure stable and safe automated operation.

Path to port automation

In practice, many ports operate hybrid models that combine human-controlled, remotely operated, and automated cranes. Wireless connectivity enables this flexibility, supporting everything from smart features and backup connectivity to remote and selective automation. Network requirements evolve based on the chosen operational model, rather than a single end-state.

Network performance and safety

Remote RTG operation places clear demands on the communication layer. For Konecranes’ solutions, these requirements are defined by our Remote Operation System (ROS). It connects the crane to the remote operator desk, enabling real-time control and situational awareness.

Remote operating stations depend on a continuous, predictable communication link between the crane and the control environment. Unlike typical enterprise or consumer applications, where traffic is predominantly downlink-oriented, ROS generates highly asymmetric, uplink-heavy data flows. Around 95% of the payload flows from the crane to the operator, with the remaining 5% flowing in the opposite direction. This payload comprises two distinct data streams: real-time video and control data.

Video traffic is provided by multiple high-definition camera feeds that give the operator full visibility of the crane and its surroundings. These streams are sensitive to latency and packet loss. For effective remote operation, glass-to-glass latency must remain within approximately 200 milliseconds – the industry standard for remote operation. Increased delay or missing packets can result in visual distortions or quick stops, directly affecting operator confidence and productivity.

Control traffic places even stricter demands on the network. ROS uses PROFINET real-time communication (Class B) to transmit control signals between the crane and the control system. This traffic is safety critical. Packet loss or excessive latency can compromise control and trigger Category 2 emergency stops, placing strain on the brakes and other key components.

Predictable latency and high reliability are therefore fundamental to both crane performance and safe operation.

This is particularly important for large gantry cranes operating at speeds of up to several meters per second. Any additional delay between operator input and crane response affects reaction time. An increase in latency of just 100 milliseconds immediately translates into a longer stopping distance.

To address these issues, Konecranes has carefully fine-tuned safety parameters for wireless operation. The objective is to maintain operational uptime without compromising the safety of people, equipment or cargo. Communication behavior is configured to preserve the same safety principles used in wired deployments.

Konecranes uses multiple watchdog mechanisms to monitor communication. If control traffic is interrupted or degraded beyond defined limits, the system responds automatically by slowing or stopping crane movement in a controlled manner. These safeguards ensure that loss of communication does not result in unsafe behavior, and that operations can resume safely once the connection is restored.

From operational requirements to a working solution

Konecranes has been addressing wireless communication challenges in port environments for more than two decades, with development and deployment work dating back to the 1990s. This extensive experience has shaped a pragmatic understanding of what works in real-world conditions and where the limits of different technologies lie.

Early approaches and lessons learned

Over the years, Konecranes has implemented a range of wireless approaches to support crane operation and automation. These include busbar waveguide solutions, Wi-Fi-based systems and smaller-scale open-air wireless deployments. In specific use cases and operating conditions, these technologies have delivered reliable results and enabled meaningful operational improvements.

At the same time, experience has shown that not all wireless solutions scale equally well or perform consistently across different terminals. As operational demands have increased – particularly with remote operation and higher levels of automation – earlier approaches have reached their practical limits. 

This history of both successes and constraints forms the backdrop to Konecranes’ current validation work. Rather than incrementally extending existing wireless solutions, the focus shifted to validating whether private 5G technology could meet the full requirements for remote and automated crane operations at scale.

Limits of traditional wireless technologies in port operations

As outlined earlier, port environments place unusually high demands on wireless networks. Supporting remote and automated crane operation requires a combination of predictable latency, sufficient capacity, seamless roaming, high uptime and scalability. Meeting all these needs simultaneously has proven challenging with many existing wireless technologies. 

Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) and other unlicensed spectrum technologies are widely available and suitable for many industrial applications, but they are vulnerable to interference and congestion. Maintaining stable performance often requires continuous monitoring, channel scanning and manual optimization – especially as operating conditions change. In practice, this makes it difficult to guarantee consistent latency and reliability.

Port environments further amplify these challenges. Radio conditions change constantly due to berthing vessels and moving stacks. Signals may be disrupted by trucks equipped with communication equipment, or by neighboring terminals operating their own wireless networks. This interference from external sources is largely outside the control of the terminal operator. 

These limitations have constrained how far unlicensed spectrum technologies could be used in critical crane operations. Many of these wireless solutions perform well in isolated tests yet struggle to deliver predictable behavior when scaled across a busy port. As automation requirements increase, this gap has become increasingly apparent.

The potential of private 5G

Public 5G is often evaluated by terminal operators, but it introduces inherent constraints for safety-critical and time-sensitive operations. Dependence on a public network places a core element of operational technology under third-party control, limiting guarantees around latency, bandwidth availability, and 24/7 industrial support. In addition, public networks are typically optimized for consumer traffic with downlink-heavy configurations, which conflicts with remote operation and automation use cases that rely on sustained, high-capacity uplink traffic. A further constraint is that the network core may be located geographically distant from the terminal, introducing additional latency into the control path.

As a result, public 5G may support non-critical connectivity, but it is generally not recommended as the primary network for remote crane operation or automated equipment control due to variability in latency, reliability, and quality of service.

Private 5G networks address many of the limitations that have constrained earlier wireless approaches in port environments. By operating in licensed spectrum, private 5G provides a controlled radio environment with predictable performance. This eliminates much of the interference and congestion associated with unlicensed technologies, enabling consistent latency, reliability and uplink capacity.

From a network design perspective, private 5G enables wide coverage through high-power radios and advanced antenna technologies with significantly lower site density than Wi-Fi access points. Seamless handovers between cells are built into the 5G standard, allowing cranes to move freely across the yard without session drops or performance degradation. This makes private 5G well suited to port environments, where equipment is constantly in motion.

Equally important, 5G now offers the industrial-grade features needed for operational use. Capabilities such as time-sensitive communication, quality-of-service control and secure integration allow private 5G networks to be engineered around specific operational requirements. Combined with the growing availability of private spectrum allocations in many regions, this maturity makes private 5G a realistic and scalable option for port operators looking to support remote operation and higher levels of automation.

Demonstrated stability and scalability

Konecranes has been working closely with Nokia since 2022 to test and integrate private 5G wireless in the context of real crane operations. Most of the early validation work was carried out at the Konecranes Test Yard in Hyvinkää, Finland, where a Konecranes Automated Rubber-Tired Gantry Crane (A-RTG) operates over a private 5G connection.

This work has allowed Konecranes to validate the basic integration, performance and stability of private 5G. Rather than moving quickly to market implementation, the focus has been on understanding how the solution behaves over time and what is required to support real operational use. The next step was to move beyond this controlled test environment. 

That step took place in Q3 2025, when a pilot deployment was carried out in a live port environment to test private 5G under real operating conditions. This phase provided the final confidence needed to consider private 5G as a viable communication option for A-RTGs.

The following sections describe the two test environments, the key results and the conclusions that can be drawn from this work.

Konecranes’ test yard

The first phase of validation was carried out between 2022 and 2024. The Konecranes test-yard environment was used to establish the initial integration between the A-RTG system and the private 5G network. The aim was to define baseline performance under controlled conditions.

The test setup consisted of a single A-RTG operating within a defined yard area, with a stack length of approximately 80 meters. Coverage was provided by three radio units at a maximum distance of 800 meters to the A-RTG. The wireless network operated in the N41 band using a 40 MHz channel with a 3/7 slot configuration. While limited in scale, this configuration was sufficient to support detailed testing of connectivity and payload handling, as well as system interaction between the crane, the network and the Remote Operation System.

From the outset, Konecranes treated this phase as a structured validation exercise rather than a demonstration. A defined plan was used to guide testing, with clear acceptance criteria aligned to operational requirements. The primary objective was to confirm that the full ROS payload – including video and control traffic – could be carried reliably over private 5G, and that the integration between the crane and the wireless network was stable and predictable.

At the same time, the limitations of the test environment were clearly understood. Operating with a single crane and a limited channel bandwidth does not replicate the full complexity of a live terminal. For this reason, the Hyvinkää test yard was used to validate fundamentals and integration behavior – not scalability. 

Proving performance under real operating conditions and higher loads required the next step: testing in a live port environment.

Proof of concept

Following the test-yard phase, Konecranes and Nokia evaluated private 5G in a live European terminal operated by an existing Konecranes customer with an established Konecranes Remote Operating Station (ROS).

The objective of the Proof of Concept (PoC) was to validate private 5G performance under real operating conditions, including active vessel operations, moving equipment and external sources of radio interference. To achieve this, testing was conducted in a demanding operational environment with continuous container handling by multiple types of cranes.

The PoC included one Konecranes Rail-Mounted Gantry (RMG) crane and five Konecranes RTGs operating across a significantly larger area than the test yard in Finland. Wireless coverage was provided by two radio units, with distances of up to 1.6 kilometers to the cranes. The RMG crane operated along a rail length of approximately two kilometers, while individual container stacks extended up to 200 meters. The network operated in the N77 band using a 100 MHz channel, evaluating both 3/7 and 4/6 TDD slot configurations.

Testing and monitoring were conducted over a period of approximately two months, observing system behavior during normal daily operations rather than only through staged test scenarios. Particular attention was paid to latency, roaming behavior, uplink capacity and stability. The PoC also assessed whether private 5G could reliably carry the full ROS payload as cranes moved across the yard and operating conditions changed. 

In addition to observing normal crane operations, scalability was explicitly evaluated by generating additional network load. Stress testing included increasing uplink traffic and simulating multiple simultaneous ROS payloads to assess behavior near capacity limits. Virtual RTG instances were used to emulate concurrent crane connections, allowing the network to be tested beyond the number of physically connected cranes.

The target end-to-end latency for remote operation was approximately 20 milliseconds. Measured average end-to-end latency during the deployment was approximately 24 milliseconds. While slightly above the nominal target, this level remained well within acceptable limits and did not affect crane control or safety.

Operator feedback formed an additional validation input alongside measured performance data. Remote operators reported stable and responsive crane behavior during normal operation. Minor video distortions were observed only during extreme load scenarios but did not impact safe or effective operation. These subjective observations were consistent with measured network metrics, reinforcing confidence that communication performance was sufficient for real operational use.

Results show that private 5G can support remotely operated and automated crane operations in a busy, multi-operator terminal environment. 

Validated private 5G network architecture

While the validation work was carried out using Nokia’s private 5G technology, other private 5G vendors are likely to be able to provide solutions with similar capabilities and fulfil the given operational requirements, although their implementation details may differ to what is presented here. 

The architecture supports redundancy at both the radio and central network levels. Redundant radios and core components can be deployed to increase availability and resilience, depending on customer requirements and infrastructure investment. This allows terminals to align network availability with operational needs and uptime targets.

Each crane is equipped with two dedicated routers: one handling control traffic and one handling video traffic. This separation reflects the very different characteristics and requirements of the two data flows. Control traffic is latency-sensitive and safety-critical, while video traffic is bandwidth-intensive and uplink-heavy. Treating them independently allows both to be optimized without compromise.

Layer-2 traffic from the cranes is terminated using an L2GRE gateway. This allows the wireless backbone to extend the required Layer-2 connectivity transparently, without exposing the crane control systems directly to the wireless network. Integration between the private 5G network and the Konecranes OT environment is handled at this boundary, with the Konecranes Remote Operation System and central PLCs clearly separated from the radio and transport layers.

This approach allows private 5G to be introduced as a communication layer without changing the fundamental design of the crane control systems. From the perspective of the ROS and the PLCs, the network behaves in a predictable and controlled manner.

Results and analysis

All the predefined test cases were completed successfully, and the agreed success criteria were met with acceptable results. This confirmed that private 5G – when deployed and configured according to the defined architecture – can support the required communication characteristics for A-RTG operation. 

Longer-term monitoring further demonstrated that the solution works in a real operational environment. Performance remained stable over time, indicating that the integration between the wireless backhaul and the Konecranes ROS can be maintained without continuous intervention or reconfiguration.

From a deployment perspective, the end-to-end integration of the wireless backhaul with Konecranes ROS proved straightforward. Setup and commissioning were completed efficiently, allowing testing and validation to begin quickly once the infrastructure was in place. Based on the pilot results, support for up to ten active ROS connections per radio cell can be considered a safe planning assumption for both operational use and radio dimensioning, when similar configuration and spectrum is available. 

Further optimization is possible, with actual capacity depending on factors such as operational model, traffic mix and site-specific conditions. Scalability beyond this level can be achieved by adding additional cells, within practical limits defined by terminal layout and operating patterns.

Physical obstructions such as steel containers are not a primary limiting factor for private 5G deployment in container yards for large gantry cranes. Radio units are typically installed above stack height, ensuring line-of-sight coverage across operating areas. In practice, the dominant technical constraint for remote operation is uplink capacity – not signal penetration through container stacks.

Table 5: Success criterion

	Category	Success criterion
	Network latency	Average end‑to‑end latency ≤ 20 ms (measured average ≈ 25 ms under test conditions)
	Network availability	≥ 99.9% network availability
	Crane operational uptime	High crane operational uptime based on network availability
	Payload capacity	All remotely operated cranes (real and virtual) able to carry the average payload required for remote control at all times
	System recovery	ROS system automatically recovers when network connectivity is lost and restored
	Handover performance	Seamless handovers with < 5 ms interruption and minimal packet loss
	Packet sequencing	No sequencing errors due to packet handling (under worst‑case conditions, with no impact on remote operation)
	Wireless coverage	100% wireless coverage of the test area (cranes operational throughout the yard)
	Safety (PN traffic)	No emergency stops due to loss of PROFINET traffic with the central controller (≤ 5 packets × 64 ms)
	ROS video performance	ROS operation not affected by lost video frames (up to 500 ms without new frames)
	Operator validation	Empirical study and operator feedback confirming acceptable “feel” of remote operation

Pass	Partially met system remains operational	Fail

From Konecranes’ perspective, remote operation over private 5G can be supported using the same system parameters as previous wired or busbar-based deployments. No changes to the core Konecranes system architecture are required. In this way, private 5G can function as a drop-in communication layer rather than a fundamental redesign of the crane control system.

Implications for terminal operators

Each wireless deployment must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. A range of technical and operational factors influence the feasibility and performance of a private 5G for remote operations and must be considered as part of network design and deployment planning.

Key considerations include:

1. Level of automation

Fully automated crane operation typically places lower bandwidth demands on the wireless network than continuous remote operation, making it less challenging from a connectivity perspective.

2. Fleet size

The number of cranes connected to the network directly impacts capacity requirements, scalability and radio dimensioning.

3. Operational area

Yard layout and physical size affect coverage planning, cell placement and handover performance.

4. ROS to crane ratio

The operating model influences peak network load. For example, a 1:3 ROS to crane ratio across a larger fleet is technically less demanding than a 1:1 ratio with fewer cranes.

5. Operational model

Crane movement patterns, including the degree of roaming between blocks, use of parking areas and behavior during shift changes, affect both coverage requirements and handover frequency.

6. Handover and roaming performance

Seamless and predictable handovers are essential for ROS. Traditional Wi Fi based solutions are generally unsuitable due to handover delays that can reach several hundred milliseconds.

7. Network availability and reliability

Packet loss or instability in the wireless network can trigger emergency stops and place additional mechanical stress on crane components, particularly braking systems.

8. Spectrum availability

Access to suitable licensed spectrum varies by region and regulatory environment and must be evaluated early as part of deployment planning.

Local regulations

The availability and use of radio spectrum vary by country and region. In some markets, suitable spectrum for private 5G wireless networks is readily available, while in others it may be limited, shared or not allocated for private industrial use cases at all. Cost is another factor. Licensing models and spectrum fees can vary significantly between regions, affecting the overall business case for private wireless deployment. Thus, spectrum availability and regulatory conditions must be assessed early as part of any deployment planning.

Operational model

Wireless requirements are strongly influenced by how the terminal operates. Whether cranes are remotely operated or fully automated has a direct impact on network load, latency sensitivity and uplink capacity. The size of the fleet, the chosen ROS ratio and overall equipment utilization further shape network demand.

Crane movement patterns also matter. Frequent roaming between blocks, the use of parking areas, or changes in operating zones all affect coverage and handover behavior. Terminals may also choose to run other applications on the same wireless network, increasing overall utilization. All these factors must be considered when defining network design and capacity.

Scalability

Private wireless networks can be scaled by increasing the number of cells and extending coverage. In practice, however, this scalability is not unlimited. Physical layout, interference management and operational complexity place practical bounds on how far a single network design can be expanded.

Konecranes’ validation work focused on single-technology private networks. Hybrid deployments combining different wireless technologies have not been part of the tested configurations, but such approaches may be considered in specific terminal environments where regulatory or operational constraints apply.

In typical container yard environments, deployments of up to approximately four radio cells are feasible with careful radio planning. Larger fleets and higher connection densities may require additional validation and site-specific design to ensure predictable performance.

Conclusion; Operational impact and value

Remote operation and automation offer clear operational benefits, including improved operator working conditions and increased consistency in crane performance. Automation can also support higher utilization and more predictable operations under varying conditions.

Wireless connectivity plays a key role in enabling these capabilities when fixed infrastructure is impractical or too restrictive. While deploying a private wireless network and automation systems requires upfront investment, the value comes from enabling new operating models that are difficult or impossible to achieve otherwise. In this context, wireless is not an add-on, but a foundational enabler for long-term operational development.

In many terminals, private 5G is expected to support multiple applications beyond crane operations, such as vehicle tracking, asset monitoring and terminal operating system communication. Existing wireless solutions can be operated in parallel during transition phases, allowing terminals to adopt private 5G incrementally without disrupting ongoing operations.