Optimization of Container Handling Systems in Automated Maritime Terminal

  • Hamdi DkhilEmail author
  • Adnan Yassine
  • Habib Chabchoub
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 457)


Container terminals play a crucial role in global logistic networks. Because of the ever-increasing quantity of cargo, terminal operators need solutions for different decisional problems. In the maritime terminal, at boat arrival or departure, we observe five main problems: the allocation of berths, the allocation of query cranes, the allocation of storage space, the optimization of stacking cranes work load and the scheduling and routing of vehicles. A good cooperation between the different installations in the terminal is important in order to minimize container handling time. In an automated container terminal using Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) Query Cranes (QCs) and Automated Stacking Cranes (ASCs) numerical solutions have become essential to optimize operators’ decisions. Many recent researches have discussed the optimization of ACT equipment scheduling using different approaches. In this paper we propose three mathematical models and an exact resolution of QC-AGV-ASC planning, the problem of tasks in an automated container terminal. Our first objective is to minimize the makespan (the time when the last task is achieved). The second objective is to minimize the number of required vehicles.


Schedule Problem Container Terminal Automate Guide Vehicle Fleet Size Minimum Cost Flow 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Meersmans, P.J.M.: Optimization of container handling systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Tinbergen Instutue 271 Erasmus University, Rotterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muler, T.: Automated Guided Vehicles. IFS (Publications) Ltd., Springer, UK, Berlin (1983)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maxwell, W.L., Muckstadt, J.A.: Design of automatic guided vehicle systems. IIE Transactions 14(2), 114–124 (1982)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rajotia, S., Shanker, K., Batra, J.L.: Determination of optimal AGV fleet size for an FMS. International Journal of Production Research 36(5), 1177–1198 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sinriech, D., Tanchoco, J.M.A.: An economic model determining AGV fleet size. International Journal of Production Research 30(6), 1255–1268 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vis, I.F.A., de Koster, R., Roodbergen, K.J., Peeters, L.W.P.: Determination of the number of automated guided vehicles required at a semi-automated container terminal 52, 409-417 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phillips, D.T., Garsia-Diaz, A.: Fundamentals of network Analysis. Prentice Hall, Inc., Engle-wood Cliffs (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ford, L.R., Fulkerson, D.R.: Flows in Networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1962)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dantizing, G.B., Fulkerson, D.R.: Minimizing time number of tankers to meet a fixed schedule. Naval Research Logistics Quaterly 1, 217–222 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ahuja, R.K., Magnati, T.L., Orlin, J.B.: Network Flows, Theory, Algorithms, and Appliquations. Prentice Hall, New Jersy (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Egbelu, P.J., Tanchoco, J.M.A.: Characterization of automated guided vehicle dispatching rules. International Journal of Production Research 22, 359–374 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bilge, U., Tanchoco, J.M.A.: AGV Systems with Multi-Load Carriers: Basic Issues and Potential Benefits. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 16 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, Y., Leong, T.-Y., Ng, J.W.C., Demir, E.K., Nelson, B.L., Simchi-Levi, D.: Dispatching automated guided vehicles in a mega container terminal. The National University of Singapore/Dept. of IE & MS, Northwestern University (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, K.H., Bae, J.: A dispatching method for automated guided vehicles to minimize delays of containership operations. International Journal of Management Science 5, 1–25 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bae, M.-K., Park, Y.-M., Kim, K.H.: A dynamic berth scheduling method. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Intelligent Manufacturing and Logistics Systems (IML 2007), Kitakyushu, Japan, February 26–28 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dahlstrom, K.J., Maskin, T.: Where to use AGV systems, manual fork lifts, traditional fixed roller conveyor systems respectively. In: Proceedings of the 1st International AGV Conference, 173–182 (1981)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muller, T.: Comparaison of operating costs between different transportation systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st International AGV Conference, pp. 145–155Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sinirech, D., Tanchoco, J.M.A.: AN economic model for determining AGV fleet size. International Journal of Production Research 29(9), 1725–1268 (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ngyuyen, V.D., Kim, K.H.: A dispatching method for automated lifting vehicles in automated port container terminals. Computers and industrial engineering 56, 1002–1020 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LMAH - Laboratory of Applied MathematicsUniversity of Le HavreLe HavreFrance
  2. 2.MODEOR - University of SfaxSfaxTunisia
  3. 3.Superior Institute of the Logistic Studies (ISEL)University of Le HavreLe HavreFrance

Personalised recommendations