Abstract
This paper studies an integrated optimization problem on quay crane and yard truck scheduling in container terminals. A mixed-integer programming model is formulated. For the model, we show the integrated scheduling problem is strongly NP-hard and investigate some properties that can considerably reduce the computational complexity. For solving the proposed model within a reasonable time, a particle swarm optimization based solution method is developed. Numerical experiments are conducted to compare the proposed method with the CPLEX solver and the genetic algorithm. The results validate the effectiveness of the proposed model and the efficiency of the proposed solution method.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alp, O., Erkut, E., & Drezner, Z. (2003). An efficient genetic algorithm for the p-median problem. Annals of Operations research, 122(1–4), 21–42.
Bierwirth, C., & Meisel, F. (2009). A fast heuristic for quay crane scheduling with interference constraints. Journal of Scheduling, 12, 345–360.
Bish, E. K. (2003). A multiple-crane-constrained scheduling problem in a container terminal. European Journal of Operational Research, 144, 83–107.
Bish, E. K., Chen, F. Y., Leong, Y. T., Nelson, B. L., Ng, J. W. C., & Simchi-Levi, D. (2005). Dispatching vehicles in a mega container terminal. OR Spectrum, 27, 491–506.
Bruzzone, A., & Signorile, R. (1998). Simulation and genetic algorithms for ship planning and shipyard layout. Simulation, 71, 74–83.
Cao, J. X., Lee, D. H., Chen, J. H., & Shi, Q. (2010). The integrated yard truck and yard crane scheduling problem: Benders’ decomposition-based methods. Transportation Research Part E, 46, 344–353.
Chen, L., Langevin, A., & Lu, Z. (2013). Integrated scheduling of crane handling and truck transportation in a maritime container terminal. European Journal of Operational Research, 225, 142–152.
Daganzo, C. F. (1989). The crane scheduling problem. Transportation Research Part B, 23, 159–175.
Du, Y., Chen, Q., Quan, X., Long, L., & Fung, R. Y. (2011). Berth allocation considering fuel consumption and vessel emissions. Transportation Research Part E, 47, 1021–1037.
Eberhart, R. C., & Kennedy, J. (1995). A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science (Vol. 1, pp. 39–43).
Fu, Y. M., Diabat, A., & Tsai, I. T. (2014). A multi-vessel quay crane assignment and scheduling problem: Formulation and heuristic solution approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 6959–6965.
Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning (Vol. 102). Reading, MA: Addion-Wesley.
Guan, Y., Yang, K. H., & Zhou, Z. (2013). The crane scheduling problem: Models and solution approaches. Annals of Operations Research, 203, 119–139.
Guo, P., Cheng, W., & Wang, Y. (2014). A modified generalized extremal optimization algorithm for the quay crane scheduling problem with interference constraints. Engineering Optimization, 46, 1411–1429.
Han, X., Gong, X., & Jo, J. (2015). A new continuous berth allocation and quay crane assignment model in container terminal. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 89, 15–22.
Hartmann, S. (2001). Project scheduling with multiple modes: A genetic algorithm. Annals of Operations Research, 102(1–4), 111–135.
He, J., Huang, Y., Yan, W., & Wang, S. (2015). Integrated internal truck, yard crane and quay crane scheduling in a container terminal considering energy consumption. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 2464–2487.
Hu, H., Lee, B. K., Huang, Y., Lee, L. H., & Chew, E. P. (2013). Performance analysis on transfer platforms in frame bridge based automated container terminals. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2013, 831–842.
Jiang, X., Lee, L. H., Chew, E. P., Han, Y., & Tan, K. C. (2012). A container yard storage strategy for improving land utilization and operation efficiency in a transshipment hub port. European Journal of Operational Research, 221, 64–73.
Jin, J. G., Lee, D. H., & Hu, H. (2015). Tactical berth and yard template design at container transshipment terminals: A column generation based approach. Transportation Research Part E, 73, 168–184.
Junior, H. V., & Lins, M. P. E. (2005). An improved initial basis for the simplex algorithm. Computers & Operations Research, 32, 1983–1993.
Kaveshgar, N., & Huynh, N. (2015). Integrated quay crane and yard truck scheduling for unloading inbound containers. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 168–177.
Kim, K. H., & Park, Y. M. (2004). A crane scheduling method for port container terminals. European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 752–768.
Kim, K. Y., & Kim, K. H. (1999). A routing algorithm for a single straddle carrier to load export containers onto a containership. International Journal of Production Economics, 59, 425–433.
Lee, D. H., Wang, H. Q., & Miao, L. (2008). Quay crane scheduling with non-interference constraints in port container terminals. Transportation Research Part E, 44, 124–135.
Legato, P., Trunfio, R., & Meisel, F. (2012). Modeling and solving rich quay crane scheduling problems. Computers & Operations Research, 39, 2063–2078.
Li, H. L. (1996). An efficient method for solving linear goal programming problems. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 90, 465–469.
Lim, A., Rodrigues, B., Xiao, F., & Zhu, Y. (2004). Crane scheduling with spatial constraints. Naval Research Logistics, 51, 386–406.
Li, F., Gao, Z., Li, K., & Wang, D. Z. (2012). Train routing model and algorithm combined with train scheduling. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 139(1), 81–91.
Liu, J., Wan, Y. W., & Wang, L. (2006). Quay crane scheduling at container terminals to minimize the maximum relative tardiness of vessel departures. Naval Research Logistics, 53, 60–74.
Liu, P., & Tang, L. (2008). The refining scheduling problem with crane non-collision constraint in steelmaking process. In IEEE international conference on automation and logistics (pp. 536–541).
Liu, Z., Wang, S., Chen, W., & Zheng, Y. (2016). Willingness to board: A novel concept for modeling queuing up passengers. Transportation Research Part B, 90, 70–82.
Nguyen, V. D., & Kim, K. H. (2009). A dispatching method for automated lifting vehicles in automated port container terminals. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56, 1002–1020.
Nguyen, S., Zhang, M., Johnston, M., & Tan, K. C. (2013). Hybrid evolutionary computation methods for quay crane scheduling problems. Computers & Operations Research, 40, 2083–2093.
Nielsen, I. E., Do, N. A. D., Nguyen, V. D., Nielsen, P., & Michna, Z. (2015). Reducing truck emissions in import operations at container terminal—A case study in a Singaporean port. In P. Golińska & A. Kawa (Eds.), Technology management for sustainable production and logistics (pp. 133–151). Berlin: Springer.
Pang, K.-W., Xu, Z., & Li, C.-L. (2011). Ship routing problem with berthing time clash avoidance constraints. International Journal of Production Economics, 131, 752–762.
Peterkofsky, R. I., & Daganzo, C. F. (1990). A branch and bound solution method for the crane scheduling problem. Transportation Research Part B, 24, 159–172.
Shi, Y., & Eberhart, R. (1998). A modified particle swarm optimizer. In IEEE world congress on computational intelligence (pp. 69–73).
Talley, W. K., & Ng, M. W. (2013). Maritime transport chain choice by carriers, ports and shippers. International Journal of Production Economics, 142, 311–316.
Tang, L., Zhao, J., & Liu, J. (2014). Modeling and solution of the joint quay crane and truck scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 236, 978–990.
Tran, N. K., & Haasis, H.-D. (2015). An empirical study of fleet expansion and growth of ship size in container liner shipping. International Journal Production Economics, 159, 241–253.
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Makui, A., Salahi, S., Bazzazi, M., & Taheri, F. (2009). An efficient algorithm for solving a new mathematical model for a quay crane scheduling problem in container ports. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56, 241–248.
Ting, C. J., Wu, K. C., & Chou, H. (2014). Particle swarm optimization algorithm for the berth allocation problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 1543–1550.
Wang, S., Zheng, J., Zheng, K., Guo, J., & Liu, X. (2012). Multi resource scheduling problem based on an improved discrete particle swarm optimization. Physics Procedia, 25, 576–582.
Wang, S., Meng, Q., & Liu, Z. (2013). Containership scheduling with transit-time-sensitive container shipment demand. Transportation Research Part B, 54, 68–83.
Yao, B., Yu, B., Hu, P., Gao, J., & Zhang, M. (2016). An improved particle swarm optimization for carton heterogeneous vehicle routing problem with a collection depot. Annals of Operations Research, 242, 303–320.
Yu, B., Yang, Z., & Cheng, C. (2007). Optimizing the distribution of shopping centers with parallel genetic algorithm. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 20, 215–223.
Yu, B., & Yang, Z. (2011). An ant colony optimization model: The period vehicle routing problem with time windows. Transportation Research Part E, 47, 166–181.
Yu, B., Yang, Z., & Yao, B. (2009). An improved ant colony optimization for vehicle routing problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 196, 171–176.
Yu, B., Yang, Z., Sun, X., Yao, B., Zeng, Q., & Jeppesen, E. (2011). Parallel genetic algorithm in bus route headway optimization. Applied Soft Computing, 11, 5081–5091.
Zhen, L. (2015). Tactical berth allocation under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 247, 928–944.
Zhen, L. (2016). Modeling of yard congestion and optimization of yard template in container ports. Transportation Research Part B, 90, 83–104.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which have greatly improved the quality of this paper. This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71422007; 71671107), Shanghai Social Science Research Program (2014BGL006).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Proof of Proposition 1
Proposition 1
Finding an optimal solution for the model is strongly NP-hard.
Proof
We can prove the proposition by reducing the problem in polynomial time to the three-partition problem (Garey and Johnson 1979; Liu and Tang 2008), which is well-known to be strongly NP-hard. Given 3h items, \(H=\{ {1,2,\ldots ,3h} \}\), each item \(j\in H\) has a positive integer size \(a_j \) satisfying \(a/4<a_j <a/2\), and \(\mathop \sum \nolimits _{j=1}^{3h} a_j =ha\), for some integer a. The three-partition problem asks whether there are h disjoint subsets \(H_1 \), \(H_{2,} \ldots ,H_h \) of H such that \(|H_i |=3\) and \(\mathop \sum \nolimits _{j\in H_i } a_j =a\), \(i=1,2,\ldots ,h.\)
Given any instance of a three-partition problem, consider the following instance that we construct for our problem: number of tasks: \(N=3h\), number of QCs: \(K=h\), processing time: \(t_j =P_{j1} +P_{j2} =a_j \), \(j=1,2,\ldots 3h\). We will show that there exists a solution to the three-partition problem if and only if there is a feasible solution to our integrated QC and YT scheduling problem. (i) The “only-if” direction: given a solution to the three-partition problem, \(H_1 \), \(H_{2,} \ldots ,H_h \), we can simply let tasks in set \(S_j \) correspond to the elements of \(H_j , 1<j<h\), and construct a schedule to our integrated QC and YT scheduling problem. (ii) The “if” direction: suppose there exists a schedule for the constructed instance of our integrated QC and YT scheduling problem. Since the total processing time of all tasks is \(\mathop \sum \nolimits _{j=1}^{3h} a_j =ha\), a total of h QCs are fully utilized and the completion time of each QC is a. So we know the schedule contains exactly h sets, the total processing time of tasks in each set \(S_j \) is a. A partition for the set H is obtained by mapping the elements corresponding to the tasks in set \(S_j \) to the elements in the sub-set \(H_j \), \(1<j<h\). Then \(\mathop \sum \nolimits _{j\in H_i } a_j =a\), and \(|H_i |=3\) because \(a/4<a_j <a/2\).
It can be thus seen that our integrated QC and YT scheduling problem has a feasible solution if and only if there exists a solution to the three-partition problem. The reduction of the integrated QC and YT scheduling problem to the three-partition problem can be done in polynomial time. Therefore, finding an optimal solution for the model is strongly NP-hard. \(\square \)
Appendix 2: Proof of Proposition 2
Proposition 2
A formula used to calculate a proper value of M about the integrated QC and YT scheduling problem is as follows:
Proof
Suppose that (\(\hbox {I}\)) there is only one QC (the first QC in the set Q) and one YT; (\(\hbox {II}\)) the QC moves from one side to the next; (\(\hbox {III}\)) the containers are labeled such that container 1 can be unloaded first, container 2 can be unloaded second, etc. Then we can calculate the time required to complete all of the tasks, i.e., \(max_{i\in \varOmega } C_{i2} \) as the formula (29).
In formula (29), \(q=1\). The first term is the ready time of the QC. The second term is the moving time of the QC from the initial position to the first task. The third term is the QC time for the first task. In the fourth term, the YT can receive task i from the QC if (I) the YT has completed task \(i-1\) (the component \(P_{i-1,2}\)), and (II) the QC has moved to the bay where task i is located and has unloaded task i (the component \(g\times | {L_i -L_{i-1} } |+P_{i1}\)). The fifth term is the transportation time of the last task. Through this formula a valid value for M can be equal to the above time. We can see that for different-scale problems the corresponding data M is not the same. When the problem size is increasing, the value of M is increasing. Compared with the traditional data M that usually is a single and sufficiently large value, the value of M that we calculated by the proposed formula is more reasonable. In our model there are seven constraints that use the value of M, including Constraints (9), (10), (12)–(15), (22). A proper value of M can improve the computational efficiency. Through the computational experiments we can also confirmed the validity of the proposed proposition. \(\square \)
Appendix 3: Proof of Proposition 3
Proposition 3
To reduce the influence of symmetry, we propose the following method as follows: \(\mathop \sum \nolimits _{j\in \varOmega ^{F}} j \cdot Y_{0j}^k \le \mathop \sum \nolimits _{j\in \varOmega ^{F}} j \cdot Y_{0j}^{k+1} \), \(k\in T/\{ {| T |} \}\).
Proof
We prove in the following that the above constraint removes some feasible solutions and optimal solutions, but at least one optimal solution is not removed. We prove it in two steps.
(i) Evidently, the problem has optimal solutions. We let \(\{ {Y_{ij}^{k^{*}} } \},({i,j\in \varOmega ^{F},k\in T} )\) be an optimal solution that does not satisfy Constraint (30).
Then at least \(\exists \bar{K} \in T\), such that \(\mathop \sum \nolimits _{j\in \varOmega ^{F}} j \cdot Y_{0j}^{\bar{k} } \ne 0\). Through the solution \(\{ {Y_{ij}^{k^{*}} } \}\), \(( {i,j\in \varOmega ^{F},k\in T} )\), we will construct a new optimal solution satisfying Constraint (30) below.
Firstly we define a parameter \(\pi _k =\mathop \sum \nolimits _{j\in \varOmega ^{F}} j\in Y_{0j}^{k^{*}} \), \(k\in T \cdot \pi _{k} \) denotes the ID of the first task that YT k transports. Note that if YT k is not used, then \(\pi _k =0\). And then define a function \(\{ {\theta ( i )} \}\):
That is, we sort the first task’s ID in ascending order and \(\theta (i)\) denotes the ID of the YT whose first task is the ith smallest.
Let us give an example to illustrate. If YT 1 transports tasks 3, 5, and 9, YT 2 transports task 8, and YT 3 transports tasks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7, then \(\pi _1 =3,\pi _2 =8,\pi _3 =1\) and \(\theta ( 1 )=3,\theta (2)=1,\theta ( 3)=2.\) Thus, we have \(\pi _{\theta ( 1)} =1\le \pi _{\theta ( 2 )} =3\le \pi _{\theta ( 3 )} =8\). Now a new solution
is defined. We can observe the new solution \(\{ {\bar{Y} _{ij}^k } \}\) is also a feasible solution with the same objective function value as \(\{ {Y_{ij}^{\theta ( k )^{*}} } \}\), and satisfy Constraint (30). Therefore, there exists at least one optimal solution that satisfies Constraint (30).
(ii) Now we would prove Proposition 3 could remove a part of the optimal solutions. Suppose \(\{ {\bar{Y} _{ij}^k } \}\) is an optimal solution and satisfies Constraint (30). Define \(\bar{k}\):
If \(\bar{k}<|T|\), we exchange \(\bar{k}\) and \(\bar{k}+1\), and then a new optimal solution to the original model that does not satisfy Constraint (30) is generated. If \(\bar{k}=|T|\), we exchange \(\bar{k}\) and \(\bar{k}-1\), then a new optimal solution that does not satisfy Constraint (30) is generated. In sum, Proposition 3 removes some optimal solutions to the original model.
Proposition 3 can remove some feasible solutions and a part of optimal solutions but do not remove all the optimal solutions. In this way we can reduce the influence of symmetry. \(\square \)
Appendix 4: The sub-procedure Adjust(m)in in the PSO based method
Appendix 5: The pseudo code of PSO algorithm
Appendix 6: The pseudo code of GA algorithm
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhen, L., Yu, S., Wang, S. et al. Scheduling quay cranes and yard trucks for unloading operations in container ports. Ann Oper Res 273, 455–478 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2335-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2335-9