9th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management and

9th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management and

Control
9th
9th IFAC
IFAC Conference
Conference on
on Manufacturing
Manufacturing Modelling,
Modelling, Management
Management and
and
Control
Berlin,
Control
9th IFAC
Control Germany, August
Conference on 28-30, 2019 Available
Manufacturing
online
Modelling,
at www.sciencedirect.com
Management and
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
Berlin,
Berlin, Germany,
Control Germany, August
August 28-30,
28-30, 2019
2019
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 124–129
A
A reactive
reactive multi-agent approach for online
A reactive multi-agent
multi-agent approach
approach for for online
online
A (re)scheduling
reactive multi-agent
(re)scheduling of resources in
approachinfor
of resources port
online
port
(re)scheduling
container of resources in port
(re)scheduling
container
container of terminals
resources in port
terminals
terminals
Kaoutar Charguicontainer
Kaoutar
∗ terminals ∗ ∗
∗ Abdellah El fallahi ∗ Mohamed Reghioui ∗
Chargui ∗∗ Abdellah El fallahi Mohamed Reghioui
Kaoutar ∗∗ ∗ ∗
Kaoutar CharguiChargui ∗ Abdellah Tarik
Abdellah
Tarik
El
Zouadi
El
Zouadi
fallahi
fallahi∗∗ ∗ Mohamed
∗∗ ∗
Mohamed Reghioui Reghioui ∗∗
Kaoutar Chargui Abdellah Tarik
Tarik El Zouadi
Zouadi fallahi∗∗ Mohamed Reghioui
∗∗
∗
∗ MOSIL research team, Tarik Zouadi
National School of Applied Sciences of
∗ MOSIL research
∗ MOSILUniversity
research team,
team, National
National School
School of
of Applied
Applied Sciences
Sciences of
of
Tetouan,
MOSILUniversity
Tetouan, research team, of
of Abdelmalek Essaadi,
National Essaadi,
Abdelmalek Mhannech,
School ofMhannech,
Applied Sciences PB:
PB: 2222,
of
2222,
∗
Tetouan, University of Abdelmalek
Abdelmalek Essaadi, Mhannech, PB: 2222,
2222,
MOSILUniversity
Tetouan, research team, of NationalMorocco
Tetouan, School ofMhannech,
Essaadi, Applied Sciences PB: of
Tetouan,
Tetouan, Morocco
Morocco
Tetouan,
(e-mail: University of Abdelmalek Essaadi, Mhannech, PB: 2222,
{chargui.kaoutar,aelfallahi,m.reghioui}@gmail.com).
Tetouan, Morocco
∗∗ (e-mail:
(e-mail: {chargui.kaoutar,aelfallahi,m.reghioui}@gmail.com).
{chargui.kaoutar,aelfallahi,m.reghioui}@gmail.com).
∗∗ Rabat Business
(e-mail: School, Tetouan,
Bear Lab, Morocco
International
{chargui.kaoutar,aelfallahi,m.reghioui}@gmail.com). University of Rabat,
∗∗ Rabat
∗∗ Rabat
Business
Business School,
School, Bear
Bear Lab,
Lab, International
International University
University of
of Rabat,
Rabat,
(e-mail:
Rabat {chargui.kaoutar,aelfallahi,m.reghioui}@gmail.com).
Technopolis
Business Shore
School, Rocade
Bear 11100
Lab, Sala
International Al Jadida, Morocco
University of Rabat,
∗∗ Technopolis
Technopolis Shore
Shore Rocade
Rocade 11100
11100 Sala
Sala Al Al Jadida,
Jadida, Morocco
Morocco
Rabat Business School,
Technopolis (e-mail:
Shore Bear Lab, International
tarik.zouadi@uir.ac.ma)
Rocade 11100 Sala Al University
Jadida, Morocco of Rabat,
(e-mail: tarik.zouadi@uir.ac.ma)
Technopolis (e-mail:
Shore Rocade
(e-mail: tarik.zouadi@uir.ac.ma)
11100 Sala Al Jadida, Morocco
tarik.zouadi@uir.ac.ma)
(e-mail: tarik.zouadi@uir.ac.ma)
Abstract: The container transfer chain management should be carried out taking into
Abstract:
Abstract: The container transfer chain management should be carried out taking into
considerationThe
Abstract: Thethe container
maximum transfer
container possible chain
transfer chain management
of environment
management should
should be
interactions. Forcarried
beFor out
out taking
this reason,
carried into
integrated
taking into
consideration
consideration
Abstract: Thethe
the maximum
maximum
container possible
possible
transfer of
of
chainenvironment
environment
management interactions.
interactions.
should beFor this
this
carried reason,
reason,
out integrated
integrated
taking into
approaches
consideration
approaches have
have to be
thetomaximum
be investigated
possible
investigated for
for solving
of scheduling
environment
solving scheduling problems
interactions.
problems in port
Forport
in container
thiscontainer terminals.
reason, integrated
terminals.
approaches
consideration
In our work,
approaches have
havethe
wetotomaximum
be investigated
investigated
propose
be a possible
reactive forof
for solving scheduling
environment
multi-agent
solving schedulingsystem problems
interactions. in
for simultaneous
problems in port
Forport container
thiscontainer
reason,
(re)schedulingterminals.
integrated
terminals. of
In
In our
our work,
work, we
we topropose
propose a
a reactive
reactive for multi-agent
multi-agent system
system for
for simultaneous (re)scheduling of
approaches
vessel,
In our quay
work, have
crane,
we be investigated
operator
propose a and trucks.
reactive solving scheduling
The system
multi-agent problems
contains
system for asimultaneous
scheduling
simultaneous (re)scheduling
in port container
agent interminals.
(re)scheduling the form of
of
vessel,
vessel, quay
work,crane,
quay crane, operator
operator a and
and trucks.
trucks. The
The system containsfor aaasimultaneous
scheduling agent in the form
In
of aour
vessel,
of a
heuristic
quay
heuristic
we
crane, propose
whose
whose
performance
operator reactive
and
performance trucks.
is The system
multi-agent
is validated
validated
by system
system
by
contains
comparing
contains
comparing
itsscheduling
results with
scheduling
its results
agent
agent
with
anin
(re)scheduling
an
the
the form
associated
inassociated
form of
of a
vessel, heuristic
constraint
of quay
a heuristic whose
crane,
programming performance
operator and
model.
whose performance The is
trucks.validated
The
multi-agent
is multi-agent by
system
validated bysystem comparing
contains
system
comparing a
dedicated its results
scheduling
for
its results with
agent
embedded an in
with an systems associated
the
systems form
associated is
constraint
constraint programming
programming model. The
model. The multi-agent system dedicated
dedicated for embedded
for embedded systems is
is
of a heuristic
tested
constraint whose performance
withprogramming
a reactive approach
model. when
The is multi-agent
validated bysystem
the heuristic comparing
is ablededicated its results
to reschedule for with
on
embeddedrealantime associated
once is
systems a
tested
tested with
with a
a reactive
reactive approach
approach when
when the
the heuristic
heuristic is
is able
able to
to reschedule on real time once isaaa
constraint
perturbation
tested with programming
a occurs.
reactive The model. solution
robust
approach The multi-agent
when obtained
the heuristic system
could
is able be reschedule
dedicated
also to used as
reschedule on
fora embedded
starting
on real
real time
plan
time once
systems
followed
once
perturbation
perturbationwith aoccurs.
occurs. The
The robust
robust solution
solution obtained
obtained could also be used as a starting realplan timefollowed
tested
by rescheduling
perturbation reactive approach
procedure
occurs. The when the
for unexpected
robust solution events could
heuristic
obtained could also
inisa able be
to
proactive
also used
be reschedule
used as
as aa starting
approach. on Simulation
starting plan
plan followed
once
study
followed a
by
by rescheduling
rescheduling
perturbation procedure
procedure
occurs. The for
for
robust unexpected
unexpected
solution events
events
obtained in
in
could a
a proactive
proactive
also be used approach.
approach.
as a Simulation
Simulation
starting plan study
study
followed
shows
by
shows that
reschedulingthe
that the reactive
procedure
the reactive
reactive approach
approach provides
for unexpected
provides lessless deviation
events
less deviation between
in a proactive
between plannedplanned
approach.
planned and actual
andSimulation schedules
actual schedules study
schedules
shows
by
which
shows that
rescheduling
guarantees
that procedure
the work
the reactive approach
smoothness
approach provides
for unexpected
provides andless deviation
events
avoids
deviationflow between
in a instability.
proactive
between approach.
Copyright
planned and
and  actual
Simulation
cactual
2019 IFAC. study
schedules
which
which guarantees
guarantees the
the work smoothness and avoids flow instability. Copyright andc 2019
ccactual IFAC.
shows
which that guarantees the work
the reactive work smoothness
approach
smoothness provides and avoids
andless deviation
avoids flow
flow instability.
between planned
instability. Copyright
Copyright  2019
2019 IFAC.
schedules
IFAC.
© 2019,guarantees
which IFAC (International
the work Federation
smoothness of Automatic
and Control)
avoids Hosting by Elsevier
flow instability. Copyright Ltd. cAll2019
rightsIFAC.
reserved.
Keywords:
Keywords: multi-agent
multi-agent systems,
systems, reactive
reactive (re)scheduling,
(re)scheduling, truck
truck deployment,
deployment, worker
worker assignment,
assignment,
Keywords:
quay
Keywords: multi-agent
crane multi-agent systems,
scheduling, systems, reactive
real time reactive (re)scheduling,
perturbations, constraint
(re)scheduling, truck deployment,heuristics.
programming,
truck deployment, worker assignment,
worker assignment,
quay
quay crane
Keywords: scheduling,
crane multi-agent real
real time
scheduling, systems, perturbations,
time reactive
perturbations, constraint
constraint
(re)scheduling, programming,
deployment,heuristics.
programming,
truck heuristics.
worker assignment,
quay crane scheduling, real time perturbations, constraint programming, heuristics.
quay crane1. scheduling, real time perturbations, constraint
INTRODUCTION aa simultaneousprogramming,integration heuristics.
of Berth Allocation Problem
1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION simultaneous integration of BerthBerth Allocation
Allocation Problem Problem
1. aaBAP,simultaneous
BAP, QCAP and
simultaneous
QCAP and
integration
QCSP with
integration
QCSP
of
of
with
aBerth
a
post Allocation
post
processing strategy.
processing Problem
strategy.
1. INTRODUCTION BAP,
aBAP,
Meier QCAP
simultaneous and
and Schumann
QCAP and QCSP
integration
QCSP with
(2007) aaBerth
post Allocation
ofperformed
with post processing
a simulation
processing strategy.
Problem
and
strategy.
Complexity of operations in port container terminals in- BAP, Meier
Meier and
and
QCAP Schumann
Schumann
and QCSP (2007)
(2007)
with performed
performed
a post aa simulation
simulation
processing and
and
strategy.
Complexity of operations in port container terminals in- analysis
Meier andof the
Schumann dependencies
(2007) between
performed planning
a simulation systems
and
Complexity
volved manyof
Complexity ofcommonly
operationsdiscussed
operations in port
in port container
container
decision makingterminals
terminals in- Meier
prob-
in- analysis
analysis andof the
of Schumann
the dependencies
dependencies
(2007) between
between
performed planning
planning
a simulation systems
systems
and
volved many commonly discussed decision making prob- in
in container
analysis of
container terminals
the dependencies
terminals and
and Liu
Liu et
between
et al.
al. (2006)
planning
(2006) presented
systems
presented
volved
lems.
volved many
Complexity
The ofcommonly
quay,
manyquay, operations
commonlytransport,discussed
in port
and
discussed decision
container
yard areas
decision making
terminals
are
making prob-
among in-
prob- in in container
analysis
methods of
to the terminals
adjust dependencies and Liu
a tentative Liu et al.
between
berth al. (2006)
planning
plan presented
systems
after presented
assigning
lems.
lems. The
The quay, transport,
transport, and
and yard
yard areas
areas are
are among
among container
methods to terminals
adjust and
a tentative et
berth plan(2006)
after assigning
volved
the most
lems. many
The commonly
widely
quay, transport,discussed
investigated. Thus,
and decision
yard extensive
areas making
are prob- in
literature
among methods to adjust
the
the most
most widely
widely investigated.
investigated. Thus,
Thus, extensive
extensive literature
literature cranes
container
cranes
methods to to
to
terminals
vessels.
adjust
vessels. aa tentative
They
They
tentative
and
proposed
proposed
berth
Liuberthet
a
plan
al.
a Mixed
plan
Mixed
after
(2006)Integer
after
Integer
assigning
presented
Linear
assigning
Linear
lems.
studied
the The
most them quay,
widely transport,
separately and yard
and sequentially.
investigated. Thus, areas are among
This literature
extensive approach methods cranes
Program to vessels.
to
MILP adjust andThey
a proposed
tentative
heuristic a
berth Mixed
decompositionplan Integer
after to Linear
assigning
minimize
studied
studied them
them separately
separately and sequentially.
and sequentially.
sequentially. This approach
Thisintegrated
approach cranes cranes
Program to vessels.
MILP andThey proposed
heuristic a Mixed
decomposition Integer
to Linear
minimize
the most
is not
studied well widely
suited
them investigated.
to real world
separately and Thus, extensive
conditions, when
This literature
approach Program
the maximum MILP
to MILP
vessels. andThey
relative heuristic
proposed
tardiness decomposition
ofavessel
Mixeddepartures. to minimize
Integer minimize
Linear
is
is not
not well
well suited
suited to
to real
real world
world conditions,
conditions, when
when integrated
integrated Program
the maximum and
relative heuristic
tardiness decomposition
of vessel to
departures.
studied
methods
is them
are
not wellare
suitedseparately
neededto realto and
plan
world sequentially.
activities This
realized
conditions,realized approach
by
when integrated every the maximum
Program maximum relative
MILPrelative tardiness
and heuristic of vessel
vessel departures.
decomposition departures.
to minimize
methods
methods are needed
needed to plan
to world activities
plan activities
activities realized by every
by every
every the the
Crane productivity tardiness
rates of
were highlighted in the paper
is not well
active
methods agentsuited
are inneededto real
terminals.to plan conditions,realized
when integrated
by Crane maximum
productivityrelative tardiness
rates were of vessel departures.
highlighted in the paper
active
active
methods agent
agent
are in
in terminals.
terminals.
needed to plan activities realized by every Crane
of Meisel productivity
(2009) whereratesthe were
author highlighted
replaced in the the paper
handling
active agent each
in terminals. Crane
of Meisel productivity
(2009) whereratesthe were
author highlighted
replaced in the the paper
handling
Addressing
active agent each link
in terminals. of the critical chain in container of
Crane
timeMeisel (2009)
productivity
data by thewherewhererates
crane the author
were
productivity replaced
highlighted
rates and in thethehandling
paper
proposed
Addressing
Addressing link
each necessary
link of of the
of the
the critical chain
criticala global in container
chain near-optimal
in container
container of of
time Meisel
data (2009)
by the crane the author
productivity replaced
rates and the handling
proposed
terminals doesn’t
Addressing each link guaranty
critical chain in time data
Meisel
a three by the
(2009)
phase the crane the
where
integration productivity
authorIntegrated
model. rates and
replaced and the proposed
handling
schedules of
terminals
terminals doesn’t
doesn’t necessary
necessary guaranty
guaranty a
a global
global near-optimal
near-optimal time
a threedataphaseby crane
integration productivity
model. rates
Integrated proposed
schedules of
Addressing
performance.
terminals each link
For necessary
doesn’t of the
instance, guaranty critical chain
the bertha global
allocation in container
problem time
near-optimal a three
quay dataphase
cranes by integration
the
under crane
cost model.
productivity
constraints Integrated
rates
were and schedules
investigated proposed of
in
performance.
performance. For
For instance,
instance, the berth
thebyberth
berth allocation
allocation problem
problem aquaythree phase
cranes integration
under cost model.
constraints Integrated
were schedules
investigated of
in
terminals
is affected
performance.doesn’t
by necessary
solutions givenguaranty a global
solving the near-optimal
quay crane
is affected
is affected byby For instance,
solutions
solutions given
given
the by solving
by
allocation
solving the quay
the quay problem
crane aquay
crane
quay
thethree
the
cranes
paperphase
cranes
paper of
under cost constraints
integration
of under cost constraints
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam
model. Integrated were
were
et
investigated
al.
schedules
et al.investigated
(2009),
(2009),
in
of
they
in
they
performance.
allocation
is affected by For
problem instance,
and the
solutions theby
quay
given berth
crane allocation
scheduling
solving the quay problem
problem.
crane the
quay paper
proposed cranes ofMixed
aof Tavakkoli-Moghaddam
under cost constraints
Integer Programwere etMIPal.investigated
(2009), they
and genetic in
allocation problem and the quay crane scheduling problem. the
proposedpaper Tavakkoli-Moghaddam et al. (2009), they
allocation
is
The
The
affected
allocation problem
by solutions
productivity
problem
productivity of
and
ofand
quay
quay
the
the quayby
given
cranes
quay
cranes
crane
crane scheduling
solving
decreases the
if the
scheduling
decreases if the
quayproblem.
crane the
efficiency
problem.
efficiency proposedpaper aaato
algorithm
proposed
Mixed
Mixed
ofMixed
minimize
Integer
Integer
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam
the total
Integer
Program
Program
Program cost, et
MIP
MIP
the
MIPal.revenueand genetic
and genetic
(2009),
and genetic
ofthey
the
The
The productivity
allocation
of trucks problem
and
productivityyard of
of quay
and
cranes
quaythe cranes
isquay
low:
cranes decreases
crane
The quay
decreases if
scheduling the
crane
if the efficiency
problem.
and yard
efficiency algorithm
algorithm
proposed to
to
a minimize
minimize
Mixed the
the
Integer total
total
Program cost,
cost, the
the
MIP revenue
revenue
and of
of the
the
genetic
of trucks and yard cranes is low: The quay crane and yard earliness,
algorithm the
to cost
minimizeof tardiness
the total and fixed
cost, and
the variable
revenue ofcosts
the
of
Thetrucks
crane
of and
productivity
wait
trucks andif yard
the ofcranes islate
quayis cranes
truck low:and
The quay
decreases
the crane
if
truck the
waitsandifyard
yard
efficiency
the earliness, the cost of tardiness and fixed and variable costs
crane
crane wait
wait if yard
if the truck
the
cranes
truck is islate
is
low:
late The
and
and
quay
the
the truck
truck
cranewaits
waits
and if the
if
earliness,
the algorithm
of quay cranes
earliness,
of quay
the
the
cranes
cost
to cost
minimizeof tardiness
(QCs).
of
(QCs).
tardiness
the total andcost,
and fixedthe
fixed andrevenue
and variableofcosts
variable costs
the
of trucks
quay
crane and
crane
wait and
if yard
the yard cranes
truckcraneis islate
low:and
are Thethe
late. quaytruckcranewaitsandif yard
the of quay
quay cranes
earliness, cranes
the cost (QCs).
of tardiness and fixed and variable costs
quay crane
quay crane
crane and
and yard
yard crane
crane are late.
are and
late. the truck waits if the of ofIn the literature, (QCs).
there are few examples of integrating
crane
quay wait ifandtheyardtruckcraneis late
are late. In quay cranes (QCs).
the literature,
literature, there are are fewfew examples
examples of of integrating
integrating
This
quay
This interdependency
crane and yard crane
interdependency between
between decision
are late.
decision problems
problems in
in the
the In
yard the truck schedulingthere with quayexamples
area problems. From
This interdependency between decision
decision problems in the
the In In
yard the literature,
truck schedulingthere are
with few
quay area of
problems. integrating
From
quay, interdependency
This yard, and the transportation
between areas has received
problems in yard
these truck
theattempts, scheduling
literature, Bishthere with
(2003) quayexamples
areproposed
few area problems.
a heuristicof integratingFrom
algorithm
quay,
quay, yard,
yard, andand
andinthe the
the transportation
transportation areas
areas has
has received
received yard
these truck
attempts, scheduling
Bish with
(2003) quay
proposed area problems.
a heuristic From
algorithm
This
much interdependency
quay, attention
yard, between
last years.decision
the transportation There problems
is
areas a has in the yard
considerable
received these attempts, Bishmodel
(2003) proposed
much
much attention
attention in
in the
the last
last years.
years. There
There is
is a
a considerable
considerable these
and
truck scheduling
and transshipment
attempts,
transshipment Bish model
withto
(2003) to
quay
minimize
proposed
minimize aa heuristic
area heuristic
problems.
the
the
time
time
algorithm
From
needed
algorithm
needed
quay,
amount
much yard,
of
attentionand
literature
in the
the transportation
on
last QCAP
years. (Quay
There areas
crane
is a has received
allocation
considerable and
these
to transshipment
attempts,
serve all Bish
vessels. model
(2003)
The to minimize
proposed
output a the
heuristic
consisted time
on needed
algorithm
assigning
amount
amount of literature
ofand
literature on
on QCAP
QCAP (Quay
(Quay crane
crane allocation
allocation and transshipment
to serve
serve vessels.model
all vessels. to minimize
The output
output consisted the on timeassigning
needed
much
problem)
amount attention
of in the on
QCSP
literature lastQCAP
(Quay years.
craneThere iscrane
scheduling
(Quay a considerable
problem)
allocation to
and
eachserve all
transshipment
container to a modelThe
storage toplace,
minimizeconsisted the on
scheduling on
time assigning
needed
vehicles to
problem)
problem) and
and QCSP
QCSP (Quay
(Quay crane
crane scheduling
scheduling problem)
problem) to to
each all
container vessels.
to a The
storage output
place, consisted
scheduling assigning
vehicles to
amount ofand
integration.
problem) literature
ForQCSPinstance,on
(Quay QCAP
Ak and (Quay
craneErera crane allocation
(2006)
scheduling presented
problem) eachservecontainer to aa storage
all vessels. storage
The output place,consisted
schedulingonvehicles vehicles
assigningto
integration.
integration. For
ForQCSPinstance,
instance, Ak
Ak andand
and Erera
Erera (2006) presented
(2006) presented
presented each container to place, scheduling to
problem)
integration. andFor instance,(Quay Ak craneErera
scheduling
(2006) problem) each container to a storage place, scheduling vehicles to
integration.
Copyright For
© 2019
2405-8963 © instance,
2019, IFAC Ak and Erera (2006) presented
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) 126 Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright
Peer review© 2019 IFAC 126 Control.
Copyright
Copyright © under
© 2019
responsibility of International Federation of Automatic
2019 IFAC
IFAC 126
126
10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.163
Copyright © 2019 IFAC 126
2019 IFAC MIM

Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Kaoutar Chargui et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 124–129 125

handle containers and scheduling operations on the cranes. For instance, Henesey et al. (2006) developed an agent
Simulation approaches were also presented in the paper based simulator to evaluate operational policies in trans-
of Vis et al. (2005) where an Integer linear programming shipments containers. A simulation platform to evaluate
model and a Simulation model are suggested to minimize the efficiency of different port designs with agent based
the size of the vehicle fleet under the constraints of time models is introduced in the paper of Sun et al. (2012). Feng
windows and limited capacity. et al. (2015) presented an integrated multi agent planning
in hinterland transport with a design, implementation and
Stochastic models were carried out as well in the work
evaluation.
of Vidovic and Kim (2006) who proposed a continuous
Markov chain model and Mathematical models based on We opted for this particular approach on the basis of its
probability theory to estimate the productivity and cycle ability to deal with stochastic perturbations that occur
time of material handling equipment. An increase in re- during the execution of deterministic schedules already
search work about scheduling quay cranes and yard trucks prepared. Then, we propose a multi agent system (MAS)
is noted recently. As examples: Lee et al. (2008) presented to maximize the productivity of the terminal, while assign-
a MIP and genetic algorithm to minimize the makespan ing simultaneously vessels, cranes, trucks and workers. To
of cranes operations while scheduling quay cranes and evaluate the quality of the solutions given by MAS, we
yard trucks in an integrated way. A similar problem was proposed a constraint programming model.
treated in the paper of Cao et al. (2010) where the author
presented an integrated model for the yard truck and yard 2.1 Problem data
crane scheduling to minimize the makespan of operations.
Yuan et al. (2011) presented a job grouping strategy To generate the integrated plan, the following data must
for the integration of quay crane QC and yard truck be available. We denote:
YT operations with straddle carrier path planning and
task allocation in the yard to minimize the makespan C Number of quay cranes.
of yard jobs and straddle carrier waiting time. Chen P Number of bays along the quay.
et al. (2013) presented a constraint programming model T Number of time periods in the scheduling horizon.
for the simultaneous scheduling of QCs, YTs, and YCs V Number of vessels to serve during the scheduling
to minimize the makespan to serve vessels. Integrated horizon.
scheduling of quay cranes, automated guided vehicles and M Sufficiently large positive number.
handling platforms were also reported in the work of O Number of quay crane operators.
Homayouni et al. (2014). G Maximum number of yard trucks assigned to each
quay crane.
As far as we know, worker scheduling was not integrated Kv Total moves on vessel v.
with the problems stated above and the productivity of nv Priority of vessel v.
quay cranes is considered fix which is not always the case. Dvp Number of containers to be moved in bay p of vessel
In our paper, we consider the productivity rate of quay v.
cranes a variable depending on the performance of the Jv Expected arrival time of vessel v.
operator allocated to the quay crane, the number of yard Ev Right berth position of vessel v.
trucks deployed to serve that quay crane. According to the Fv Left berth position of vessel v.
theory of constraints, the performance of a chain is the one eot 1: if operator o is available at time period t. 0:
of its weakest link. Then, the productivity of quay cranes otherwise.
will be the smallest value between the two parameters βo Productivity rate of operator o.
mentioned above. fct 1: if crane c is available at time period t. 0: otherwise.
gt Number of available trucks at time period t.
That issue imposes an integration of the yard truck de-
α Productivity rate of yard trucks.
ployment problem with the worker scheduling problem
ic Failure rate of quay crane c.
as well as the well-known QCAP and QCSP. Real time
jo Failure rate of operator o.
stochastic perturbations are also carried out in our work
ku Failure rate of truck u.
with a reactive approach proposed to online scheduling and
ac Time from last repair of quay crane c.
rescheduling vessel, quay crane, operator and truck simul-
bo Time from last recovery of operator o.
taneously in container terminals. The method is based on
cu Time from last repair of truck u.
multi agent systems known for their reactivity.
Decision variables are:
2. MULTI AGENT BASED APPROACH Qvtpc 1: if quay crane c is assigned to bay p to serve the
vessel v at time period t. 0: otherwise.
An agent is a physical or a software entity able to par- Utp Number of trucks assigned to the quay crane in bay
ticipate in an organized activity by interacting with its p at time period t.
environments and other agents. A multi agent system is mtp Productivity rate in bay p at time period t.
a set of agents interacting with each other in a common Sitc 1: if operator i is assigned to crane c at time period
environment on real time. In port container terminals, t. 0: otherwise.
multi agents systems are highly solicited and showed great yv Start time of vessel v.
outcomes. Many studies were conducted in order to build Hvtp Number of containers remained to move from vessel
multi agents architecture to be implemented in ports. Sim- v in the bay p at the beginning of time period t.
ulation studies are the most carried out in the literature. Iv Number of time periods spent to serve the vessel v.

127
2019 IFAC MIM
126 Germany, August 28-30, 2019
Berlin, Kaoutar Chargui et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 124–129

svt 1: if vessel v is being served at time period t. 0: beginning of the scheduling horizon. An updated schedule
otherwise is a new schedule built after a real time perturbation has
Xvtp The amount of workload handled on vessel v at bay occurred starting from the perturbation instant freezing
p at time period t-1. the past. Algorithm 1 describes the heuristic steps.
Zvtp The amount of workload remained on vessel v at bay
p from time period t-1. Algorithm 1 general structure of the heuristic
Deterministic stage: Schedule generated before the beginning of
2.2 Multi agent architecture scheduling horizon.

1: Set : t = 0; Initialize time period.

The detailed architecture of the MAS model is illustrated 2: do
in Fig. 1. The proposed system consists of vessel agents, 3: for each bay, p along the quay do
quay crane operator agents, quay cranes agents and trucks 4: if workload on bay, p is not null then
agents along with the synchronizer agent and the scheduler 5: Add p to vector ”Loaded”
agent. Messages are exchanged between different agents 6: Sort arrived vessels by Priority
during the scheduling horizon according to a given pro- 7: for each vessel from the previous sorted list do
8: Assign the needed number of quay cranes to vessel bays
tocol. The communication behavior between agents of 9: Sort available operators at, t by workload
the proposed MAS model is illustrated in the sequence 10: Sort available operators at, t by productivity rate from
diagram of Fig. 2. the previous sorted list
11: Assign the best performing operators to high loaded bays
12: Assign the number of trucks verifying the condition that
resulted productivity is the nearest to operator
productivity assigned to the same crane
13: if size of vector ”Loaded” ≥ C (If the number of needed
cranes is less than available ones) then
14: Break if all quay cranes were assigned
15: t ← t+1
16: while t < T

Dynamic stage: Rescheduling is done once a perturbation has

occurred.

17: Current time period = t (The perturbation instant)

18: for each quay crane, c do
19: Set fct = 0 with a probability of 1 − e−ic ac (Considering the
exponential distribution of reliability)
20: Set ac = 0
21: Set ac = ac + 1 otherwise
22: for each quay crane operator, o do
23: Set eot = 0 with a probability of 1 − e−jo bo
24: Set bo = 0
25: Set bo = bo + 1 otherwise
26: for each truck, u do
27: Set gt = gt − 1 with a probability of 1 − e−ku cu
28: Set cu = 0
29: Set cu = cu + 1 otherwise
30: Reschedule from the current time period, t, by freezing the
schedule of previous time periods and repeat the procedure
described on the deterministic stage from the current period,
but with new matrices of resources availability.

Fig. 1. The multi agent system architecture

The synchronizer agent represented by the terminal plan-
ners receives information from vessels about their arriving
time and the number of containers to be handled in each
bay. From the anticipated berth plan, berthing positions
of vessels are already known. The synchronizer receives
also from human resources coordinators information about
quay cranes operators’ availability during the planning
horizon including working and rest hours. Truck agents are
represented by trucks dispatchers who send details about
the number of available trucks. Quay cranes dispatchers
provide current positions of cranes, their availability and
expected stops for preventive maintenance. The scheduler
agent is represented by the heuristic we proposed to build
operations schedule. It’s a constructive algorithm with
two general stages: An initial schedule is built before the
3. CONSTRAINT PROGRAMMING MODEL
For performance evaluation aims, results of the heuristic
integrated in the MAS model should be compared with an
exact method. Thus, we propose a constraint programming
model.
3.1 Objective function
The main key performance indicator used to evaluate the
productivity of port container terminals is the PMPH
standing for Port Moves per Hour. It’s calculated by
dividing the number of moves on a vessel by its port stay.
Customers of port container terminals require a target to
be respected on their vessels. The terminal should not
realize a PMPH less than the target predefined. To make

128
2019 IFAC MIM

Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Kaoutar Chargui et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 124–129 127

Fig. 2. The sequence diagram of the MAS model

the objective function linear, we considered the inverse of Hvtp = 0 (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 1...T : t < Jv ) (10)
the PMPH. Each term is assigned a weight depending on Hvtp ≤ Dvp (t == yv ) + Zvtp − Xvtp
the priority of the vessel. (11)
(∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 1...T : t ≥ Jv )
M inimize :
V T
Iv
nv K (1) t=1
Xvtp ≥ Dvp (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P ) (12)
v=1 v
C
Xvtp ≤ M (( c=1
Qv(t−1)pc = 1)&(t ≥ yv + 1))
3.2 Constraints (13)
(∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 2...T : t ≥ Jv)
Xvtp ≤ m(t−1)p (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 2...T : t ≥ Jv ) (14)
O P V
i=1
Sitc = p=1 v=1
Qvtpc (∀c = 1...C, ∀t = 1...T ) (2) C
Xvtp ≥ m(t−1)p − M (1 − ( Qv(t−1)pc = 1)&(t ≥ yv + 1))
C c=1
c=1
Sitc ≤ eit M (∀i = 1...O, ∀t = 1...T ) (3) (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 2...T : t ≥ Jv )
 P V (15)
p=1 v=1
Qvtpc ≤ fct (∀c = 1...C, ∀t = 1...T ) (4)
C V Zvtp ≤ M (t ≥ (yv + 1))
c=1
Q
v=1 vtpc
≤1 (∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 1...T ) (5) (16)
  (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 2...T : t ≥ Jv )
C V
mtp ≤ M c=1 v=1
Qvtpc (∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 1...T ) (6)
Zvtp ≤ Hv(t−1)p (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 2...T : t ≥ Jv ) (17)
C O V
mtp ≤ min( (βi ((Sitc = 1)& Qvtpc = 1)), Utp α) Zvtp ≥ Hv(t−1)p − M (1 − (t ≥ (yv + 1))
c=1 i=1 v=1 (18)
(∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 1...T ) (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 2...T : t ≥ Jv )
(7)
C P
Qvtp1c1 ≤ M (1 − Qvtpc )
C V c1=1,c1<c p1=1,p1<p (19)
Utp ≤ G c=1
Q
v=1 vtpc
(∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 1...T ) (8) (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 1...T, ∀c = 1...C)
C
c=1
Qvtpc ≤ Hvtp M (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P, ∀t = 1...T ) (9) Iv ≥ maxT
t=1 (t(svt == 1)) − Jv + 1 (∀v = 1...V ) (20)

129
2019 IFAC MIM
128 Germany, August 28-30, 2019
Berlin, Kaoutar Chargui et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 124–129

P
Hvtp ≤ M svt (∀v = 1...V, ∀t = 1...T ) (21) 4. COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS
p=1

P
svt ≤ p=1
Hvtp (∀v = 1...V, ∀t = 1...T ) (22) For performance validation purposes, the heuristic pre-
sented in this paper is developed with Java. The multi
sv1t ≤ M (1 − (Jv1 ≥ Jv2 )&(sv2t == 1)& agent system approach is implemented in Java Agent De-
((Ev1 ≥ Ev2 &Ev1 ≤ Fv2 )|(Fv1 ≥ Ev2 &Fv1 ≤ Fv2 ))) (23) velopment Framework (JADE) and executed on a com-
(∀v1 = 1...V, ∀v2 = 1...V : v1 = v2, ∀t = 1...T : t ≥ Jv1 ) puter with an Intel core i3, 1.7 GHZ, and 4-GB RAM.
P First, we generated 5 small instances (A1..A5) to compare
Utp ≤ gt (∀t = 1...T ) (24)
p=1 the result given by the heuristic to the one obtained
Zv1p = 0 (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P ) (25)
by CP optimizer CPLEX solver dedicated to constraint
programming models. For each small instance, we have
Xv1p = 0 (∀v = 1...V, ∀p = 1...P ) (26) 4 cranes and 8 time periods. Table 1 proves that the
heuristic provides the optimal solution for small instances.
Sitc ∈ {0, 1} (∀i = 1...O, ∀t = 1...t, ∀c = 1...C) (27) ’Obj’ for heuristic is the average found after 10 executions
with ’Sdv’ the standard deviation. For real based instances
Hvtp , Xvtp , Zvtp ≥ 0 (∀v = 1...V, ∀t = 1...T, ∀p = 1...P ) (28)
(B1..B5) having larger size, the solver runs out of memory
Constraint (2) ensures that a quay crane, c, is assigned (*). For each large instance, we have 10 cranes and 24 time
to only one operator, i. The quay crane, c, is assigned periods.
to an operator only when it is needed at time period, t.
Constraint (3) guarantees that a quay crane is assigned Table 1. Comparison of the heuristic to
to an operator only when he is available. Constraint (4) CPLEX
ensures that a quay crane is allocated to a maximum of Heuristic Cplex
one bay and one vessel at a time period if it’s available. Instance Obj Sdv Time(s) Obj Time(s)
Constraint (5) ensures that a bay is assigned to a max- A1 0.06 0 1.8 0.06 7
imum of one quay crane. Constraint(6) sets the value of A2 0.053 0 1.6 0.053 28
the productivity on a bay p to zero if it’s not assigned A3 0.054 0 3 0.054 29
to any quay crane. Constraint (7) fixes the value of the A4 0.065 0 2.1 0.065 14
productivity rate of the quay crane assigned to bay, p. This A5 0.083 0 1.9 0.083 26
B1 0.031 0.004 1.1 * *
rate is the smallest value between the performance of the B2 0.037 0.005 2.6 * *
operator allocated to that quay crane and the productivity B3 0.047 0.002 1.2 * *
that can be achieved by assigning a number Utp of trucks B4 0.034 0.002 1.4 * *
to the quay crane. Constraint (8) ensures that the number B5 0.051 0.004 2.8 * *
of trucks deployed to serve the quay crane assigned to a
specific bay, should not exceed the target G. Constraint (9) Next, we compare two solutions. Planners prepare a sched-
and (10) ensure that if a vessel has not arrived yet to the ule using the solution given by heuristic ”Planned solu-
terminal, the remaining workload on bays is null, and no tion”, then, rescheduling is done after perturbations occur-
crane will be assigned to it. Constraint (11) ensures that rence, resulting in ”Actual solution” at the end. Planners
the remaining workload for a vessel, v, on bay, p, at time could also use the robust schedule provided after simu-
period t is equal to the its initial load minus the amount of lating the previous approach. Then, beginning with this
containers handled during the current period if this period solution, rescheduling is done as well resulting at the end
is the starting period, otherwise, the remaining amount is in ”Actual solution” as described in Fig. 3.
equal to remaining workload of the previous period minus
the number of containers handled during that period. Con-
straint (12) ensures that the number of containers moved
on bay p of vessel v should not be less that the load on
that bay. Constraints (13), (14) and (15) ensure that the
variable X is equal to the number of containers handled
during the period t, that period should be bigger that the
starting time to serve the vessel. Constraint (16), (17) and
(18) ensure that the variable Z is the remaining workload
from the previous time period. Constraint (19) is added to
avoid interference between quay cranes. Constraint (20) is
used to calculate the port stay of a vessel. Constraint (21)
and (22) ensure that remaining load on a vessel is null if
it not yet served. Constraint (23) avoids physical contact Fig. 3. Reactive and proactive approaches
between vessels. If two vessels are physically overlapped,
the recently arrived one should wait. Constraint (24) en- To measure the ability of the multi agent system to react
sures that the number of deployed trucks doesn’t exceed against real time events, we evaluate the gap between the
the total number of available trucks. Constraints (25) and ”Planned solution” and ”Actual solution” for the reactive
(26) ensure that the amount of workload remained are approach. We investigate how much the actual solution
null at the first time period. Constraints (27) ensures that differs from the first planned one for the reactive approach.
S is binary. Constraint (28) ensures the non-negativity of Table 2 reports the results of simulations. Each instance
variables. is evaluated for 100 replications. ”Reactive Gap (Re)” is

130
2019 IFAC MIM
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019 Kaoutar Chargui et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 124–129 129
the average of gaps found during the simulation. The gap
is calculated as in (Eq. 29)
P lannedObjective−ActualObjective
(29)
ActualObjective
Table 2. Simulation results
Instances Reactive Gap(Re)
B1 2.64%
B2 3.54%
B3 -0.43%
B4 -0.58%
B5 -1.79%
Simulation results prove that reactive approach is the
suitable for planning stability with small gaps, and it can
react to real time perturbations without deviating too
much from the initial schedule.
5. CONCLUSION
Integrated scheduling is a vital issue encountered by the
majority of port container terminals in the world. Re-
sources utilization should be managed effectively to in-
teract with different agents in the entire system. In our
research, we proposed a scheduling method for vessel,
quay crane, worker and trucks deployment. The heuristic
is integrated into a multi agent system as a scheduling
agent and validated by a constraint programming model.
The MAS is able to react to real time perturbations. This
reactive approach reveals good results when comparing
planned and actual solutions. The architecture described
in this paper is for implementation in embedded systems to
establish a concrete interaction between different agents.
Further studies on this topic are therefore recommended in
order to guarantee a near global optimization of the entire
process.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge our colleagues at APM Termi-
nals Tangier, Tangier Med Port, Morocco, for their ongoing
collaboration with our research team. We also thank them
for their recommendations to accomplish this work.
REFERENCES
Ak, A. and Erera, A. (2006). Simultaneous berth and quay
crane scheduling for container ports. Atlanta: Working
paper, H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Sys-
tems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Bish, E.K. (2003). A multiple-crane-constrained schedul-
ing problem in a container terminal. European Journal
of Operational Research, 144(1), 83–107.
Cao, J.X., Lee, D.H., Chen, J.H., and Shi, Q. (2010).
The integrated yard truck and yard crane scheduling
problem: Benders decomposition-based methods. Trans-
portation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, 46(3), 344–353.
Chen, L., Langevin, A., and Lu, Z. (2013). Integrated
scheduling of crane handling and truck transportation
in a maritime container terminal. European Journal of
Operational Research, 225(1), 142–152.
Feng, F., Pang, Y., and Lodewijks, G. (2015). Integrate
multi-agent planning in hinterland transport: design,
implementation and evaluation. Advanced Engineering
Informatics, 29(4), 1055–1071.
131
Henesey, L., Davidsson, P., and Persson, J.A. (2006).
Agent based simulation architecture for evaluating oper-
ational policies in transshipping containers. In German
Conference on Multiagent System Technologies, 73–85.
Springer.
Homayouni, S.M., Tang, S.H., and Motlagh, O. (2014). A
genetic algorithm for optimization of integrated schedul-
ing of cranes, vehicles, and storage platforms at auto-
mated container terminals. Journal of Computational
and Applied Mathematics, 270, 545–556.
Lee, D.H., Cao, J.X., and Shi, Q.X. (2008). Integrated
quay crane and yard truck schedule for inbound contain-
ers. In Industrial Engineering and Engineering Man-
agement, 2008. IEEM 2008. IEEE International Con-
ference on, 1219–1223. IEEE.
Liu, J., Wan, Y.w., and Wang, L. (2006). Quay crane
scheduling at container terminals to minimize the max-
imum relative tardiness of vessel departures. Naval
Research Logistics (NRL), 53(1), 60–74.
Meier, L. and Schumann, R. (2007). Coordination of
interdependent planning systems, a case study. In GI
Jahrestagung (1), 389–396.
Meisel, F. (2009). Seaside operations planning in container
terminals. Springer.
Sun, Z., Lee, L.H., Chew, E.P., and Tan, K.C. (2012).
Microport: A general simulation platform for seaport
container terminals. Advanced Engineering Informatics,
26(1), 80–89.
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Makui, A., Salahi, S., Bazzazi,
M., and Taheri, F. (2009). An efficient algorithm for
solving a new mathematical model for a quay crane
scheduling problem in container ports. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 56(1), 241–248.
Vidovic, M. and Kim, K.H. (2006). Estimating the cycle
time of three-stage material handling systems. Annals
of operations research, 144(1), 181–200.
Vis, I.F., de Koster, R.M.B., and Savelsbergh, M.W.
(2005). Minimum vehicle fleet size under time-window
constraints at a container terminal. Transportation
science, 39(2), 249–260.
Yuan, S., Skinner, B.T., Huang, S., Liu, D., Dissanayake,
G., Lau, H., and Pagac, D. (2011). A job grouping
approach for planning container transfers at automated
seaport container terminals. Advanced Engineering
Informatics, 25(3), 413–426.