Constraint and Mathematical Programming Models for Integrated Port Container Terminal Operations

Abstract

This paper considers the integrated problem of quay crane assignment, quay crane scheduling, yard location assignment, and vehicle dispatching operations at a container terminal. The main objective is to minimize vessel turnover times and maximize the terminal throughput, which are key economic drivers in terminal operations. Due to their computational complexities, these problems are not optimized jointly in existing work. This paper revisits this limitation and proposes Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) and Constraint Programming (CP) models for the integrated problem, under some realistic assumptions. Experimental results show that the MIP formulation can only solve small instances, while the CP model finds optimal solutions in reasonable times for realistic instances derived from actual container terminal operations.

A new constraint programming model and solving for the cyclic hoist scheduling problem

“…The constraint (11) is an extension of constraint (3) in the CUC1H model. This is the model for A = 1, where all the hoists are on the same track.…”

“…3 (right) has the thick hoist 'below' the thin one on the track, but the thin hoist removes from tank 1 which is 'below' tanks 2 and 3. In this case the time needed for the dotted 'virtual' empty moves are enforced by (11) giving time for the thin hoist to get out of the way of the thick one.…”

Coordinated optimization of equipment operations in a container terminal

“…Modelling a container terminal as a variant HFS problem is a common approach. The literature studies either additional features added to the standard HFS (Xin 2015;Xin et al 2014Xin et al , 2015aHe et al 2015;Chen et al 2013), or the solution technique (Chen et al 2007(Chen et al , 2013Lau and Zhao 2008;Bish 2003; Lu and Le 2014; Kim and Bae 2004;He et al 2015;Kaveshgar and Huynh 2015;Cao et al 2010a, b;Kizilay et al 2018). To compare different HFS model variants, a classification scheme has been introduced (Vignier et al 1999;Ruiz and Vázquez-Rodríguez 2010;Ribas et al 2010).…”

“…Most recently, Kizilay et al (2018) consider an infinite number of HTVs. The container terminal these authors consider has its performance bottleneck is in the QCs and the YCs.…”

“…However this is not realistic for terminals in general. Another novelty of Kizilay et al (2018) is that bay scheduling is included, which again can be an extension of the model we propose.…”