Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 192, Issue 1, pp 123–140 | Cite as

Robust berth scheduling with uncertain vessel delay and handling time

Article

Abstract

In container terminals, the actual arrival time and handling time of a vessel often deviate from the scheduled ones. Being the input to yard space allocation and crane planning, berth allocation is one of the most important activities in container terminals. Any change of berth plan may lead to significant changes of other operations, deteriorating the reliability and efficiency of terminal operations. In this paper, we study a robust berth allocation problem (RBAP) which explicitly considers the uncertainty of vessel arrival delay and handling time. Time buffers are inserted between the vessels occupying the same berthing location to give room for uncertain delays. Using total departure delay of vessels as the service measure and the length of buffer time as the robustness measure, we formulate RBAP to balance the service level and plan robustness. Based on the properties of the optimal solution, we develop a robust berth scheduling algorithm (RBSA) that integrates simulated annealing and branch-and-bound algorithm. To evaluate our model and algorithm design, we conduct computational study to show the effectiveness of the proposed RBSA algorithm, and use simulation to validate the robustness and service level of the RBAP formulation.

Keywords

Container terminal Berth allocation problem Simulated annealing algorithm Robustness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, G. G., Lawphongpanich, S., & Thurman, K. P. (1994). Optimizing ship berthing. Naval Research Logistics, 41(1), 1–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheong, C. Y., Tan, K. C., Liu, D. K., & Lin, C. J. (2008). Multi-objective and prioritized berth allocation in container ports. Annals of Operations Research, 180(1), 63–103. doi:10.1007/s10479-008-0493-0. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Imai, A., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2003). Berth allocation problem with service priority. Transportation Research. Part B: Methodological, 37(5), 437–457. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Kim, K. H., & Moon, K. C. (2003). Berth scheduling by simulated annealing. Transportation Research. Part B: Methodological, 37(6), 541–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lambrechts, O., Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2008). Proactive and reactive strategies for resource- constrained project scheduling with uncertain resource availabilities. Journal of Scheduling, 11(2), 121–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Leus, R., & Herroelen, W. (2007). Scheduling for stability in single-machine production systems. Journal of Scheduling, 10(3), 223–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Li, C. L., Cai, X., & Lee, C. Y. (1998). Scheduling with multiple-job-on-one-processor pattern. IIE Transactions on Scheduling and Logistics, 30(5), 433–445. Google Scholar
  10. Lim, A. (1998). The berth planning problem. Operations Research Letters, 22(2–3), 105–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moorthy, R., & Teo, C. P. (2006). Berth management in container terminal: the template design problem. OR-Spektrum, 28(4), 495–518. Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Park, Y. M., & Kim, K. H. (2003). A scheduling method for berth and quay cranes. OR-Spektrum, 25(1), 1–23. Google Scholar
  14. Van de Vonder, S., Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2008). Proactive heuristic procedures for robust project scheduling: an experimental analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3), 723–733. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang, F., & Lim, A. (2007). A stochastic beam search for the berth allocation problem. Decision Support Systems, 42(4), 2186–2196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yan, S., & Chang, C. (1998). A network model for gate assignment. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 32(2), 176–189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yan, S., & Huo, C. (2001). Optimization of multiple objective gate assignments. Transportation Research. Part A, Policy and Practice, 35(5), 413–432. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yan, S., Shieh, C., & Chen, M. (2002). A simulation framework for evaluating airport gate assignments. Transportation Research. Part A, Policy and Practice, 36(10), 885–898. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yu, G., & Qi, X. T. (2004). Disruption management: framework, models and applications. Singapore: World Scientific. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhang, C., Liu, J., Wan, Y., Murty, K. G., & Linn, R. J. (2003). Storage space allocation in container terminals. Transportation Research. Part B: Methodological, 37(10), 883–903. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logistics Management, TEDA CollegeNankai UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.Center for Logistics TechnologyNankai UniversityTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations