Multi-objective optimization of the integrated problem of location assignment and straddle carrier scheduling in maritime container terminal at import

Article

Abstract

Maritime terminals need more efficiency in their handling operations due to the phenomenal evolution of world container traffic, and to the increase of the container ship capacity. In this work, we propose a new integrated modeling considering the optimization of maritime container terminals using straddle carriers. The problem is considered at import. We study a combination between two known problems, the first is the storage location assignment problem, and the second is the straddle carrier scheduling problem. This approach, which combines between two chronologically successive problems, leads to the use of multi-objective optimization. In fact, we study the multi-objective integrated problem of location assignment and Straddle carrier Scheduling (IPLASS) in maritime container terminal at import. We prove that the problem is NP-Complete. The objective is to minimize the operating cost which we evaluate according to eight components: the date of last task called makespan, the total vehicle operating time, the total storage bay occupation time, the number of vehicles used, the number of storage bays used, the number of storage locations used, and two different costs of storage location assignment. The location assignment costs are evaluated in order to facilitate the containers transfer for deliveries. We assume that the operating cost is a function of these components and that the influence of each component is variable and dependent on different parameters. These parameters are essentially: the number of quays in the terminal, the straddle carrier traffic layout, the number of container ships to serve in the terminal, the influence of concurrent operations in the terminal, the storage space configuration, the number of free storage bays, the number of free straddle carriers, the number of free quay cranes, the mobility of quay cranes, etc. To solve IPLASS efficiently, we propose an adapted multi-objective Tabu Search algorithm. Lower-bound evaluations are introduced to perform approximation of Pareto Front. To explore efficiently the non-convex Pareto Front Region, we evaluate also a maximized distance adapted to the set of objectives. Indicators of efficiency are developed to propose distinguished solutions to operator. 2D-projections of approximated Pareto Frontier are given to more understand the efficiency of proposed solutions.

Keywords

maritime container terminal straddle carriers containers location assignment scheduling multi-objective optimization NP-complete problem meta-heuristic Tabu Search algorithm 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is co-financed by the European Union with the European Normandy Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and by the Normandy Regional Council.

Supplementary material

41274_2017_184_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 30 kb)
41274_2017_184_MOESM2_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 17 kb)
41274_2017_184_MOESM3_ESM.docx (150 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 149 kb)
41274_2017_184_MOESM4_ESM.docx (206 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 205 kb)

References

  1. Bish EK, Leong T, Li C, Ng JWC, Simchi-Levi D (2001). Analysis of a new vehicle scheduling and location problem. Naval Research Logistics 48(5):363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen L, Bostel N, Dejax P, Cai J, Xi L (2007). A tabu search algorithm for the integrated scheduling problem of container handling systems in a maritime terminal. European Journal of Operational Research 181(1):40–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dawson P, Jaeggy D, Parks G, Molina-Cristobal A, Clarkson PJ (2007). The development of Multi-thred Multi-objective Tabu Search Algorithm, Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4403:242–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002). A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions 6(2):182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gandibleux X, Feville A (2000). Tabu Search based procedure for solving the 0/1 multi-objective knapsack problem: the two objective case. Journal of Heuristics 6(3):361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giallombardo G, Moccia L, Salani M, Vacca I (2010).The tactical berth allocation problem with quay crane assignment and transshipment-related quadratic yard costs. In: Proceedings of the European Transport Conference (ETC), 1–27.Google Scholar
  7. Golias MN, Theofanis S, Boile M (2009). A bi-level formulation of the berth scheduling problem with variable vessel release dates to reduce port emissions. In: Proceeding of 2009 International Conference on Shipping, Ports, Logistics Management. Inha University, Korea, ISLC, Incheon.Google Scholar
  8. Hansen M (1997). Tabu Search for multi-objective optimization: MOTS. In: MCDM, Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
  9. Hansen MP (2000). Tabu Search for multi-objective combinatorial optimization: Tamoco. Control and Cybernetics 29(3):799–818.Google Scholar
  10. Jaeggi DM, Parks GT, Kipouros T, Clarkson PJ (2006). The development of multi-objective Tabu Search algorithm for continuous optimization problems. European Journal of Operational Research 185(3):1192–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaegyy D, Asselin-Miller C, Parks G, Kipouros T, Bell T, Clarkson J (2004). Multi-objective Parallel Tabu Search, Parallel Problem Solving From Nature. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3242:732–741.Google Scholar
  12. Kim KH (1997). Evaluation of the number of re-handles in container yards. Computers & Industrial Engineering 32(4):701–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim KH, Kim KY (1999). Routing straddle carriers for the loading operation of containers using a beam search algorithm. Computers & Industrial Engineering 36(1):109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim HK, Kim HB (1999). Segregating space allocation models for containers inventories in port container terminals. International Journal of Production Economics 59(1–3):415–423.Google Scholar
  15. Kim K, Park Y, Ryu K (2000). Driving decision rules to locate export containers in container yards. European Journal of Operational Research 124(1):89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loukil T, Teghem J, Tuyttens D (2005). Solving multi-objective production scheduling problems using meta-heuristics. European Journal of Operational Research 161(1):42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meersman, PJM, Wagelmans APM (2001). Dynamic Scheduling of Handling Equipment at Automated Container Terminals. Econometric Institute Report EI. Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  18. Nishimura E, Imai A, Papadimitriou S (2005). Yard trailer routing at a maritime container terminal. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 41(1):53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tuyttens D, Teghem J, Fortemps Ph, Van Nieuwenhuyze K (2000). Performance of the MOSA method for the bi-criteria assignment problem. Journal of Heuristics 6(3):295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ulungu EL, Teghem J, Fortemps PH (1999). MOSA method, a tool for solving multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 8(4):221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vis IFA (2000). Planning and Control Concepts for Material Handling Systems, Thesis, 53–66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Operational Research Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LMAH, FR CNRS 3335Normandie Université, ULHLe HavreFrance
  2. 2.Institut Supérieur d’Études Logistiques (ISEL)Normandie Université, ULHLe HavreFrance
  3. 3.International School of Business SfaxSfaxTunisia

Personalised recommendations