Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 180, Issue 1, pp 63–103 | Cite as

Multi-objective and prioritized berth allocation in container ports

Article

Abstract

This paper considers a berth allocation problem (BAP) which requires the determination of exact berthing times and positions of incoming ships in a container port. The problem is solved by optimizing the berth schedule so as to minimize concurrently the three objectives of makespan, waiting time, and degree of deviation from a predetermined priority schedule. These objectives represent the interests of both port and ship operators. Unlike most existing approaches in the literature which are single-objective-based, a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) that incorporates the concept of Pareto optimality is proposed for solving the multi-objective BAP. The MOEA is equipped with three primary features which are specifically designed to target the optimization of the three objectives. The features include a local search heuristic, a hybrid solution decoding scheme, and an optimal berth insertion procedure. The effects that each of these features has on the quality of berth schedules are studied.

Keywords

Berth allocation problem Evolutionary algorithms Multi-objective optimization Combinatorial problems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bosman, P., & Thierens, D. (2003). The balance between proximity and diversity in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 7(2), 174–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, G. G., Lawphongpanich, S., & Thurman, K. P. (1994). Optimizing ship berthing. Naval Research Logistics, 41, 1–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, G. G., Cormican, K. J., Lawphongpanich, S., & Widddis, D. B. (1997). Optimizing submarine berthing with a persistence incentive. Navel Research Logistics, 44, 301–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheong, C. Y., Tan, K. C., & Veeravalli, B. (2007). Solving the exam timetabling problem via a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm—a more general approach. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Scheduling, CI-Sched 2007 (pp. 165–172), Honolulu, HI, USA, 2007. Google Scholar
  5. Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  6. Fonseca, C. M. (1995). Multiobjective genetic algorithms with application to control engineering problems. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. Google Scholar
  7. Foo, H. M. (2000). The application of genetic algorithms to the berth allocation problem. Master thesis, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore. Google Scholar
  8. Guan, Y., Xiao, W.-Q., Cheung, R. K., & Li, C.-L. (2002). A multiprocessor task scheduling model for berth allocation: heuristic and worst case analysis. Operations Research Letters, 30, 343–350. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Imai, A., Nagaiwa, K., & Chan, W. T. (1997). Efficient planning of berth allocation for container terminals in Asia. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 31, 75–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Imai, A., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2001). The dynamic berth allocation problem for a container port. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 35(4), 401–417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Imai, A., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2003). Berth allocation with service priority. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(5), 437–457. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Imai, A., Sun, X., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2005). Berth allocation in a container port: using a continuous location space approach. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 39(3), 199–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Imai, A., Nishimura, E., Hattori, M., & Papadimitriou, S. (2007). Berth allocation at indented berths for mega-containerships. European Journal of Operational Research, 179(2), 579–593. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, K. H., & Moon, K. C. (2003). Berth scheduling by simulated annealing. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(6), 541–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lai, K. K., & Shih, K. (1992). A study of container berth allocation. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 26, 45–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li, C.-L., Cai, X., & Lee, C.-Y. (1998). Scheduling with multiple-job-on-one-processor pattern. IIE Transactions, 30, 433–445. Google Scholar
  17. Lim, A. (1998). The berth planning problem. Operations Research Letters, 22(2–3), 105–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nishimura, E., Imai, A., & Papadimitriou, S. (2001). Berth allocation planning in the public berth system by genetic algorithms. European Journal of Operational Research, 131(2), 282–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Park, K. T., & Kim, K. H. (2002). Berth scheduling for container terminals by using a sub-gradient optimization technique. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53, 1054–1062. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Park, Y.-M., & Kim, K. H. (2003). A scheduling method for berth and quay cranes. OR Spectrum, 25, 1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ross, P., & Corne, D. (1994). Applications of genetic algorithms. AISB Quarterly, 89, 23–30. Google Scholar
  22. Tan, K. C., Cheong, C. Y., & Goh, C. K. (2007). Solving multi-objective vehicle routing problem with stochastic demand via evolutionary computation. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 813–839. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ying, Y. M. (1995). Berth allocation planning using genetic algorithms. Master thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore. Google Scholar
  24. Zitzler, E., & Thiele, L. (1999). Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 3(4), 257–271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zitzler, E., Deb, K., & Thiele, L. (2000). Comparison of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evolutionary Computation, 8(2), 173–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Fonseca, C. M., & Fonseca, V. G. (2003). Performance assessment of multi-objective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 7(2), 117–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Y. Cheong
    • 1
  • K. C. Tan
    • 1
  • D. K. Liu
    • 2
  • C. J. Lin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.ARC Centre of Excellence for Autonomous Systems (CAS), Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations