Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 561–584 | Cite as

A quay crane system that self-recovers from random shocks

  • Yun Fong Lim
  • Yan Zhang
  • Chen Wang


The main challenge for a container terminal is to maximize its throughput using limited resources subject to various operational constraints under uncertainty. Traditional methods try to achieve this through an optimized plan by solving a quay crane scheduling problem; but the plan may become obsolete or infeasible after shocks (changes in the system due to uncertainty). To respond to shocks these methods require frequent re-planning, which increases the operations cost. We propose a new method to counter this. Instead of creating plans, we develop an operating protocol to respond to shocks without re-planning. Under this protocol, each quay crane along a berth follows simple rules to serve vessels that arrive continuously in time. If the system is configured properly, it always spontaneously recovers to its efficient form after a random shock. The average throughput of the system operating on its efficient form is very near its full capacity if the crane travel time per bay is relatively short. This self-recovery is robust even under a sequence of shocks as the system persistently restores its throughput after each shock. Most importantly, this is accomplished without complex computation.


Quay cranes Container terminals Shocks Self-organizing systems 


  1. Adida E, Perakis G (2006) A robust optimization approach to dynamic pricing and inventory control with no backorders. Math Prog 107(1–2):97–129MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartholdi JJ III, Eisenstein DD (1996) A production line that balances itself. Oper Res 44(1):21–34CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartholdi JJ III, Eisenstein DD (2005) Using bucket brigades to migrate from craft manufacturing to assembly lines. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 7(2):121–129Google Scholar
  4. Bartholdi JJ III, Eisenstein DD (2012) A self-coordinating bus route to resist bus bunching. Transp Res 46B:481–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartholdi JJ III, Eisenstein DD, Foley RD (2001) Performance of bucket brigades when work is stochastic. Oper Res 49(5):710–719CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartholdi JJ III, Eisenstein DD, Lim YF (2006) Bucket brigades on in-tree assembly networks. Eur J Oper Res 168(3):870–879MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartholdi JJ III, Eisenstein DD, Lim YF (2009) Deterministic chaos in a model of discrete manufacturing. Naval Res Logist 56(4):293–299MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartholdi JJ III, Eisenstein DD, Lim YF (2010) Self-organizing logistics systems. Annu Rev Control 34(1):111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A (1999) Robust solutions to uncertain programs. Oper Res Lett 25:1–13MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A (2000) Robust solutions of linear programming problems contaminated with uncertain data. Math Prog 88:411–424MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Ben-Tal A, Goryashko A, Guslitzer E, Nemirovski A (2004) Adjustable robust solutions of uncertain linear programs. Math Prog 99:351–376MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Ben-Tal A, Golany B, Nemirovski A, Vial J (2005) Supplier-retailer flexible commitments contracts: a robust optimization approach. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 7(3):248–273Google Scholar
  13. Bertsimas D, Sim M (2003) Robust discrete optimization and network flows. Math Prog 98:49–71MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Bertsimas D, Sim M (2004) The price of robustness. Oper Res 52(1):35–53MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Bertsimas D, Thiele A (2006) A robust optimization approach to inventory theory. Oper Res 54(1):150–168MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Bertsimas D, Iancu DA, Parrilo PA (2010) Optimality of affine policies in multistage robust optimization. Math Oper Res 35(2):363–394MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Bierwirth C, Meisel F (2010) A survey of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling problems in container terminals. Eur J Oper Res 202(3):615–627MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Blażewicz J, Cheng TCE, Machowiak M, Oğuz C (2011) Berth and quay crane allocation: a moldable task scheduling model. J Oper Res Soc 62(7):1189–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daganzo CF (1989) The crane scheduling problem. Transp Res 23B(3):159–176MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenstein DD (2005) Recovering cyclic schedules using dynamic produce-up-to policies. Oper Res 53(4):675–688MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Giallombardo G, Moccia L, Salani M, Vacca I (2008) The tactical berth allocation problem with quay crane assignment and transshipment-related quadratic yard costs. In: Proceedings of the European Transport Conference (ETC), pp 1–27Google Scholar
  22. Golias MM (2011) A bi-objective berth allocation formulation to account for vessel handling time uncertainty. Marit Econ Logist 13(4):419–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guan Y, Yang K-H (2010) Analysis of berth allocation and inspection operations in a container terminal. Marit Econ Logist 12(4):347–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guan Y, Yang K-H, Zhou Z (2010) The crane scheduling problem: models and solution approaches. Ann Oper Res. doi: 10.1007/s10479-010-0765-3
  25. Han X, Lu Z, Xi L (2010) A proactive approach for simultaneous berth and quay crane scheduling problem with stochastic arrival and handling time. Eur J Oper Res 207:1327–1340CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Hendriks M, Laumanns M, Lefeber E, Udding JT (2010) Robust cyclic berth planning of container vessels. OR Spectr 32:501–517CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Imai A, Chen HC, Nishimura E, Papadimitriou S (2008) The simultaneous berth and quay crane allocation problem. Transp Res 44E(5):900–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim KH, Park YM (2004) A crane scheduling method for port container terminals. Eur J Oper Res 156:752–768CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee D-H, Song L, Wang H (2006) Bilevel programming model and solutions of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling. In: Proceedings of 85th annual meeting of transportation research board (CD-ROM). Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee D-H, Wang HQ, Miao L (2008) Quay crane scheduling with non-interference constraints in port container terminals. Transp Res 44E:124–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Legato P, Mazza RM, Trunfio R (2010) Simulation-based optimization for discharge/loading operations at a maritime container terminal. OR Spectr 32:543–567CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Legato P, Trunfio R, Meisel F (2012) Modeling and solving rich quay crane scheduling problems. Comput Oper Res 39:2063–2078MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Li W, Wu Y, Petering MEH, Goh M, de Souza R (2009) Discrete time model and algorithms for container yard crane scheduling. Eur J Oper Res 198:165–172CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Lim YF (2011) Cellular bucket brigades. Oper Res 59(6):1539–1545MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Lim YF (2012) Order-picking by cellular bucket brigades: a case study. In: Manzini R (ed) Warehousing in the global supply chain. Springer, London, pp 71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lim YF, Yang KK (2009) Maximizing throughput of bucket brigades on discrete work stations. Prod Oper Manag 18(1):48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lim YF, Wu Y (2014) Cellular bucket brigades on U-lines with discrete work stations. Prod Oper Manag 23(7):1113–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lim A, Rodrigues B, Xiao F, Zhu Y (2004) Crane scheduling with spatial constraints. Naval Res Logist 51(3):386–406MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Lim A, Rodrigues B, Xu Z (2007) A m-parallel crane scheduling problem with a non-crossing constraint. Naval Res Logist 54:115–127MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu J, Wan Y, Wang L (2006) Quay crane scheduling at container terminals to minimize the maximum relative tardiness of vessel departures. Naval Res Logist 53:60–74MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Meier L, Schumann R (2007) Coordination of interdependent planning systems: a case study. In: Koschke R, Otthein H, Rödiger K-H, Ronthaler M (eds) Lecture notes in informatics (LNI) P-109. Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH, Bonn, pp 389–396Google Scholar
  42. Meisel F (2009) Seaside operations planning in container terminals. Physica-Verlag, Berlin, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meisel F (2011) The quay crane scheduling problem with time windows. Naval Res Logist 58:619–636MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Meisel F, Bierwirth C (2006) Integration of berth allocation and crane assignment to improve the resource utilization at a seaport container terminal. In: Haasis H-D, Kopfer H, Schönberger J (eds) Operations research proceedings 2005. Springer, Berlin, pp 105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meisel F, Bierwirth C (2009) Heuristics for the integration of crane productivity in the berth allocation problem. Transp Res 45E(1):196–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meisel F, Bierwirth C (2011) A unified approach for the evaluation of quay crane scheduling models and algorithms. Comput Oper Res 38:683–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meisel F, Bierwirth C (2013) A framework for integrated berth allocation and crane operations planning in seaport container terminals. Transp Sci 47(2):131–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oğuz C, Blażewicz J, Cheng TCE, Machowiak M (2004) Berth allocation as a moldable task scheduling problem. In: Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on project management and scheduling (PMS 2004), Nancy, pp 201–205Google Scholar
  49. Park YM, Kim KH (2003) A scheduling method for berth and quay cranes. OR Spectr 25(1):1–23CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Peterkofsky RI, Daganzo CF (1990) A branch and bound solution method for the crane scheduling problem. Transp Res 24B(3):139–172Google Scholar
  51. See C, Sim M (2010) Robust approximation to multi-period inventory management. Oper Res 58(3):583–594MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Theofanis S, Golias M, Boile M (2007) Berth and quay crane scheduling: a formulation reflecting service deadlines and productivity agreements. In: Proceedings of the international conference on transport science and technology (TRANSTEC 2007), Prague, pp 124–140Google Scholar
  53. UNCTAD (2009) Review of maritime transport. United Nations conference on trade and developmentGoogle Scholar
  54. Xu Y, Chen Q, Quan X (2012) Robust berth scheduling with uncertain vessel delay and handling time. Ann Oper Res 192:123–140MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Zeng Q, Yang Z, Hu X (2011) Disruption recovery model for berth and quay crane scheduling in container terminals. Eng Optim 43(9):967–983MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhen L, Lee LH, Chew EP (2011) A decision model for berth allocation under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 212:54–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhu Y, Lim A (2006) Crane scheduling with non-crossing constraint. J Oper Res Soc 57(12):1464–1471CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lee Kong Chian School of BusinessSingapore Management UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations