Scheduling and Routing Algorithms

for AGVs: a Survey

QIU Ling HSU Wen-Jing

Email: {P146077466, Hsu}@ntu.edu.sg

Technical Report: CAIS-TR-99-26

12 October 1999

Centre for Advanced Information Systems

School of Applied Science

Nanyang Technological University

 Scheduling and Routing Algorithms for AGVs: a Survey

QIU Ling HSU Wen Jing

Abstract: Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) are now becoming popular in

automated materials handling systems, flexible manufacturing systems and even
containers handling applications at seaports. In the past two decades, much research
and many papers have been devoted to various aspects of the AGV technology and
rapid progress has been witnessed. As one of the enabling technologies, scheduling
and routing of AGVs have attracted considerable attention; many algorithms about
scheduling and routing of AGVs have been proposed. However, most of the existing
results are applicable to systems with small number of AGVs, offering low degree of
concurrency. With drastically increased number of AGVs in recent applications (e.g.
in the order of a hundred in a container terminal), efficient scheduling and routing
algorithms are needed to resolve the increased contention of resources (e.g. path,
loading and unloading buffers) among AGVs. Because they often employ regular
route topologies, the new applications also demand innovative strategies to increase
system performance. This survey paper first gives an account of the emergence of the
problems of AGV scheduling and routing. It then differentiates them from several
related problems, and surveys and classifies major existing algorithms for the
problems. Noting the similarities with known problems in parallel and distributed
systems, it suggests to apply analogous ideas in routing and scheduling AGVs. It
concludes by pointing out fertile areas for future study.

1. Introduction

Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) are now becoming popular in automated materials
handling systems, flexible manufacturing systems and even containers handling
applications [see, e.g. Broadbent et al. 1985, Daniels 1988, Kim & Tanchoco 1991,
1993, Akturk & Yilmaz 1996, Yu & Huang 1997]. Figure 1 shows some commercial
AGV products and their applications in different contexts.
In the past decades, much research and many papers have been devoted to the
technology of AGV systems, and rapid progress has been witnessed. As one of the
enabling technologies, scheduling and routing of Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs)
have attracted considerable attention in the past decade [Daniels 1988, Kim & Tanchoco

–1–
1991, 1993, Hsu & Huang 1994, Akturk & Yilmaz 1996, Soh et al. 1996, Yu & Huang
1997]. Many algorithms about scheduling and routing of AGVs have been proposed.
However, most of the existing results are applicable to systems with small number of
AGVs, offering low degree of concurrency. With drastically increased number of AGVs
in recent applications (e.g. in the order of one hundred in a container terminal), efficient
scheduling and routing algorithms are needed to resolve the increased contention of
resources (e.g. path, loading and unloading buffers) among AGVs. Because they often
employ regular route topologies, the new applications also demand innovative strategies

(a) bi-directional AGV carrying a container (b) an AGV moving a roll of paper
(courtesy: Mentor) (courtesy: Mentor)

(c) Left: an AGV; Right: an AGV loading/unloading an automated cart (courtesy:

TransLogic)
Figure 1. Examples of AGVs

to increase system performance. In this paper, we first present descriptions of

scheduling and routing of AGVs, argue that they are actually two different problems,
i.e. AGV scheduling and AGV routing, although they are usually tightly associated with
each other. Next, we discuss some commonly encountered phenomena when scheduling
and routing AGVs. Several related problems are also compared with the problems, and
therefore tailored approaches are needed to treat scheduling and routing of AGVs. We
then survey the existing major works on AGV scheduling and routing and give clear

–2–
classifications. Finally, we suggest that ideas of parallel processing could be adapted to
schedule and route AGVs concurrently, and point out fertile areas for future study.

1.1 AGVs & AGV Systems

Various papers have given different definitions for AGVs from different points of view.
In brief words, an AGV is a computer-controlled, unmanned vehicle that can transport
materials from point to point in a manufacturing setting [Lin 1986, Hollier 1987,
Daniels 1988, Lim 1988, Goetsch 1990]. Here we adhere to the classical definition of
AGVs by [MHI, 1983] as follows, which captures the key features of AGVs:
An Automated Guided Vehicle (AGV) is a vehicle equipped with automatic guidance
equipment, either electromagnetic or optical. Such a vehicle is capable of following
prescribed guide paths and may be equipped for vehicle programming and stop
selection, blocking, and any other special functions required by the system.

Figure 2. An example of an AGV system: AGVs interacting with elevators for the
delivery of items throughout a building

However, only when AGVs are integrated into a material handling system, referred
to as the Automated Guided Vehicle System (AGVS) (Figure 2 shows an example), can

–3–
their full potentials be exploited. There also exist several alternative definitions for
AGV systems. Generally, an AGV system is regarded as a material handling system in
which AGVs play an important role as the main automated transportation tools [Storm
1985, Lin 1986, Hollier 1987, Daniels 1988, Lim 1988]. The following is a typical
definition which captures the key elements of an AGV system [Koff 1986]:
An Automated Guided Vehicle System is an automated material handling system
which is controlled by a computer system and contains independently addressable
driverless vehicles, i.e. the AGVs, on a predefined transportation path network.

1.2 Arising of the Problems

Like a computer system, an AGV system is generally composed of two main

interacting sub-systems – hardware and software. The hardware consists of the physical
components, such as vehicles, path, sensors and guidance devices, controllers, etc. The
software embodies approaches or algorithms for systematically managing the hardware
resource of the whole AGVS so that it can work harmoniously in the highest efficiency.
However, as witnessed, in the past four decades, the progress of hardware of an
AGV system has been much more rapid than that of software. The lag of (controlling)
software becomes an acute problem only in recent years when certain time-critical
applications, e.g. container handling in seaports, involve a relatively large fleet (e.g. in
the order of tens or more) of AGVs, and require a great number of tasks to be completed
in real time [Soh et al. 1996, Yu & Huang 1997]. Many problems such as congestion or
deadlocks in AGV operations resulting from the mismatch of software of AGV systems
arise. Lying at the center of efficiency-related problems are the Scheduling and Routing
of AGVs, which seemed trivial in the earlier days when the number of vehicles in an
AGV system was small; they now become important and nontrivial.
It was said that one of the largest port operators at Singapore has postponed its plan
to deploy AGV systems in its new container port, because no satisfactory solutions to
the problems of scheduling and routing of AGVs have been found so far. Therefore,
there are urgent requirements both in theory and in realistic applications to discover
solutions to the problems.

1.3 Organization of the Paper

–4–
The remaining sections are arranged as follows. Formal descriptions of scheduling and
routing of AGVs are given in Section 2. In Section 3, we describe commonly
encountered phenomena arising in scheduling and routing of AGVs. We then
differentiate the problems of AGV scheduling and routing from the conventional
vehicle routing problems, conventional path problems in graph theory and data routing,
and argue why specialized approaches are needed for our problems. In Section 4, the
existing routing algorithms are surveyed and classified. Section 5 surveys the existing
scheduling algorithms. Finally, in Section 6, we give the concluding remarks and point
out the directions for the future study of AGV scheduling and routing.

2. Descriptions of Issues

Prior to classifying the algorithms about scheduling and routing of AGVs, it is

necessary to give clear descriptions of the problems.
Because of their different goals, scheduling and routing of AGVs are intrinsically
two different problems, although usually they are tightly interconnected with each other.
Many researchers treated them as one problem in the early years when AGV systems
were relatively small in scale, because at that time they seemed trivial to some extent.
However, with the increasing scale of the applications of AGV systems, the differences
of these two problems become quite evident; the two problems also become nontrivial
and need to be differentiated. In the following, we give verbal descriptions, as well as
formulations, of the two problems.

2.1 Scheduling

Briefly, the scheduling of AGVs is to dispatch a set of AGVs to complete a batch of

pickup/drop-off jobs to achieve certain goals (e.g. shortest completion time, minimum
AGV idle time, etc.) under given constraints.
For instance, one typical scenario is to successfully achieve all the pickup/drop-off
jobs under the constraints of priority or deadline. Another typical scenario is to optimize
the scheduling so that the total travel time of all vehicles is minimized [Akturk &
Yilmaz 1996], or the number of AGVs involved is minimized while the system
throughput is as high as possible. Actually, the decision of scheduling might involve
selecting a vehicle among several idling vehicles, or selecting one load among all loads

–5–
to be transported. The problem of selecting a vehicle from a pool of available vehicles is
referred to as the vehicle selection or, vehicle dispatching problem. The corresponding
problem of selecting a unit load among those requiring transportation is referred to as
the task selection problem [Egbelu & Tanchoco 1984, Taghaboni & Tanchoco 1995].

2.2 Routing

The aim of routing AGVs is to find an optimal (e.g. shortest possible time path) and
feasible route for every single AGV.
The routing decision includes three aspects. Firstly, it should detect whether there
exists a route which could lead the vehicle from its origin to the destination. Secondly,
the route selected for an AGV must be feasible, i.e. the route must be congestion-,
conflict- and deadlock-free [Taghaboni & Tanchoco 1995], etc. Thirdly, the route must
be optimal or at least partially optimal, e.g. minimize idling runs of vehicles.

2.3 Formulations

Here we give formal descriptions of scheduling and routing of AGVs. However, the
descriptions are not unique, because different applications may emphasize different
measurements or assessing criteria of an AGV system. The following are examples of
problem formulations in which we emphasize the system throughput when scheduling
AGVs and the total distance traveled by all AGVs when routing them. It should be easy
to get similar formulations for other measurements or assessing criteria required for
realistic applications of AGV systems.
First, we introduce the following notations and symbols.
Denote a job by an ordered pair ( ai , d i ) where ai denotes the arrival time and di

the due time of the job respectively. Denote ci the completion time when job ( ai , d i ) is

completed, ri the response time when the system begins to process job ( ai ,d i ) .

Now given a set of jobs M = { ( ai , d i ) | i = 1, 2, …, k} and n available AGVs. Our

aim is to schedule the system, i.e. to assign the jobs or dispatch the vehicles, so that the
system achieves the highest efficiency in term of system throughput. Assume that m is
the number of AGVs scheduled to carry out all of the jobs. The problem of scheduling
is hence given as follows:

–6–
 Max( ci ) − Min( ai )
minimize z = 1≤ i ≤ k 1≤ i ≤ k
k
subject to
m≤n
ci ≤ di , for all i = 1, 2, …, k

After the scheduling plan is decided, the next step is to route AGVs so that they can
get to their destinations and/or go on to carry out the other jobs. Denote si as the

distance traveled by the ith AGV scheduled, the routing problem is formulated as:
m
minimize z = Σ si
i =1

subject to
ci ≤ di , for all i = 1, 2, …, k

3. Why AGV Scheduling & Routing Require Tailored Approaches

3.1 Undesirable Circumstances in Scheduling & Routing of AGVs

Although much research has been done on the problems of AGVs scheduling and
routing during the past decades, there still lacks good general solutions due to the
variety of applications [see, e.g. Daniels 1988, Kim & Tanchoco 1991, Soh et al. 1996,
Yu & Huang 1997]. The approaches or algorithms proposed are usually only feasible
for specific environments or are dealing with issues arising in particular applications.
However, issues in scheduling and routing are interconnected with each other in many
ways. The following listed are the commonly encountered phenomena when scheduling
and routing AGVs:
• Collisions: When more than one AGV attempt to occupy the same segment of
the path at the same time, clearly there will be a collision. Figure 3(a) shows two
such scenarios.
• Congestion: Congestion arises at a location where there is insufficient resource
such that for a period of time the number of arrivals is greater than that of
serviced requests. Figure 3(b) depicts such a case. Congestion must be reduced
or eliminated because it will lower the throughput of the system or even lead to
deadlocks.

–7–
 • Livelocks: As shown in Figure 3(c), a livelock may arise at the junction where
the horizontal stream of traffic is given higher priority to obtain the right-of-way
such that the vertical one may keep waiting indefinitely.
• Deadlocks: A deadlock will arise when multiple AGVs mutually wait for the
release (which will never occur) of the resource held by the others. Figure 3(d)
shows two cases: local deadlock and non-local deadlock.
Because of their disastrous damages or negative consequences caused, all these
phenomena are under the basic considerations and must be eliminated during the
operations of an AGV system.

There will
be queues
Head-to-head Head-to-tail here
collision collision

(a) Collisions (b) Congestion

This queue
will never
move.

a non-local deadlock a local deadlock

(c) Livelock (d) Deadlocks

Figure 3. Phenomena Arising in Scheduling and Rouging of AGVs

3.2 Tailored Approaches Needed

Intuitively, scheduling and routing of AGVs can be considered as one variation of the
Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP) which has been approached typically by using
techniques such as linear programming in operations research [Dantzig 1963, Taha
1995]. However, there are significant distinctions between them, which allow us to treat
scheduling and routing of AGVs separately:
• The scale of the path networks considered in VRPs is usually metropolitan. Within a
city or among cities, a vehicle can be considered as a moving point when compared
with the length of the vehicle itself and the distance it travels. Whereas in an AGV

–8–
 system, the distance between two depots is usually relatively short, in the order of
tens of an AGV length, it is inappropriate to consider an AGV as a single point.
• With a VRP, the load capacity of a path is a consideration, collisions among
vehicles are normally assumed to never occur. With an AGV system, limited by the
path space, AGVs may congest or even collide with each other if the system is not
well scheduled and routed.
• With a VRP, the shortest path normally coincides with the shortest-time path (but
may not be the least-cost path). With an AGV system, due to the contention of the
path, it is quite common that the shortest-time path need not be the shortest path.
• With a VRP, the path network is predefined and unchangeable. With an AGV
system, sometimes the existing path layout can (or has to) be revised to yield a
better scheduling or routing algorithm.
It should also be pointed out that even with many advanced technological features,
the latest model of AGVs is still grossly inferior to human drivers in terms of sensory
and decision-making capabilities. For example, a human driver can foresee the general
“trend” of other moving vehicles and avoid congestion, either by driving around an
obstacle or by taking an alternative route. In contrast, what a typical AGV possesses is
only rudimentary motion primitives and collision-prevention mechanisms. As a result,
much of the responsibility which previously lies on the human drivers to ensure
congestion-free routing now totally lies with the software for AGV scheduling and
routing. For this reason, our problems are quite different from the conventional VRPs.
Therefore, appropriate and effective algorithms are always needed for an AGV system
to schedule and route AGVs.
The problems of scheduling and routing of AGVs are also different from the
conventional path problems in graph theory, e.g. the Shortest Path Problem,
Hamiltonian-Type Problem or Scheduling Problems, some of which have been proven
to be NP-hard [Swamy & Thulasiraman 1981, Gondran & Minoux 1984, Wilson &
Watkins 1990]. For example, a graph-theoretic problem usually cares about whether
there exists an optimal path leading to a given destination node, while in an AGV
system, when and how an AGV gets to its destination is also emphasized. In other
words, scheduling and routing of AGVs are time-critical, while a graph-theoretic

–9–
problem usually not. This motivates us to develop tailored approaches for the
scheduling and routing of AGVs.
It is quite natural to also notice the similarities between the scheduling and routing
of AGVs and routing data in a network. A possible analogy here is: AGVs are
analogous to data packets, the paths (or tracks) to the data links, and the switching
devices to the routers. However, there exist fundamental distinctions such that one
scheme in a system may not be applicable directly to the other [Hsu & Huang 1994].
For example, the time for transferring electronic data packets is generally not taken as a
function of physical distance between senders and receivers. While in an AGV system,
the time for transporting loads is usually a function of distance between origins and
destinations. Another fundamental difference is, with data routing the sender could
discard and then re-send a frame of electronic data when it fails due to the congestion in
the data links. In contrast, loads carried by AGVs neither have backup copies nor can be
discarded. This is yet another reason for us to treat the AGV scheduling and routing as
distinct problems from data routing.

4. Routing Algorithms

According to the characteristics of AGV routing algorithms, the existing works could be
classified into three general categories, namely, routing algorithms for general path
topology, path optimization and routing algorithms for specific path topologies.
Works in the first category usually treat routing problem as a graph-theoretic
problem, and uses approaches such as Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm to find optimal
routes. These algorithms are usually very expensive computationally when routing more
than one vehicle.
By using tailored optimization techniques such as integer programming, works in
the second category focus on path network optimization, in which routing control could
be very simple. However, because of the heavy computation, the size of the path
network to be optimized is usually small and hence only allows a small number of
vehicles (at most twenty) to run on it.
As for works in the third category, path networks are restricted to specific topologies
such as multi-loops, and AGVs are routed and controlled by specialized algorithms.

– 10 –
4.1 Routing Algorithms for General Path Topology

Algorithms in this category focus mainly on finding the feasible routes for AGVs
without considering the topology characteristics of path networks. In other words, these
algorithms attempt to give universal routing solutions (e.g. conflict-free shortest-time
path) for general path topologies.
The AGV routing problem is different from the Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP)
which has been approached typically by using techniques such as linear programming or
operations research [Dantzig 1963, Taha 1995]. In VRPs, vehicles will not run into
collision because they are regarded as moving points when they run on the path
network. However, the path for AGVs usually has limited width which may only allow
no more than one AGV to run in parallel at a time. Thus, a basic consideration is to give
conflict-free and shortest-time routing solutions for AGVs. The papers surveyed in the
following are representative works about this issue.

4.1.1 Static routing Algorithms

The concept of conflict-free shortest time AGV routing was first presented by
Broadbent et al. in 1985 [Broadbent et al. 1985]. The routing procedure described in
[Broadbent et al. 1985] employs Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm to generate a matrix
which describes the path occupation time of vehicles. Potential conflicts among
vehicles, namely head-to-head, head-to-tail collisions and collisions at a path junction,
are detected by comparing path occupation time. Then they are avoided in advance as
follows: head-to-head conflicts are resolved by finding another shortest path excluding
the congested segment; junction and head-to-tail conflicts are resolved by slowing the
new vehicle down to let the previously scheduled vehicles proceed first. The time
complexity of finding a path for a vehicle is O( N 2 ) , where N is the number of nodes
(station or junction of paths) of the path network. The disadvantage of the routing
procedure is that the computation could be very intensive which increases drastically
with the size of the path network or the number of vehicles.
Compared with uni-directional path AGV systems, there are obvious advantages of
bi-directional path AGV systems in terms of utilization of vehicles and potential
throughput efficiencies. Egbelu and Tanchoco showed a marked improvement in
productivity and a reduction in the number of vehicles required in bi-directional path
AGV systems [Egbelu & Tanchoco 1986]. The control of bi-directional path AGV

– 11 –
systems can be complex because of the contention of multiple vehicles for the shared
path segments. In this case, the routing algorithms must be able to eliminate potential
head-to-head collisions among vehicles, and deadlocks. [Egbelu & Tanchoco 1986] first
suggested the use of bi-directional path networks for routing AGVs. However, no
algorithm is given to guarantee the optimality of routes for vehicles in the paper.
Daniels first introduced an algorithm to route vehicles in a bi-directional flow path
network, in which the partitioning shortest path (PSP) algorithm [Glover et al. 1985] is
applied to find the shortest path for an AGV [Daniels 1988]. The correctness and
feasibility (in terms of time/space requirements) of the algorithm was theoretically
proven. The algorithm can find a conflict-free shortest-time route for a newly added
AGV without changing the existing routes of the other vehicles. The computational
complexity of routing a single AGV is O( N × A ) , where N represents the number of
nodes and A the number of arcs in the path network (arcs are the path segments and
nodes are the stations or junctions of paths). Therefore, it also suffers from high
computational cost if the size of path network or the number of vehicles involved is
large. In addition, when a path is allocated to a vehicle x, it is considered unusable by
other newly added vehicles before x reaches its destination. In reality, the path segments
of the path are only partially occupied by the vehicle during some time windows. A
newly added vehicle still could run on the path segments within their free time
windows. However, sometimes the algorithm may fail to find a path even if there exists
one for a vehicle. In other words, the algorithm does not allow vehicles to use path
resource that could otherwise be shared during different time windows. Hence the
algorithm is only suitable for a system with a small path network and number of AGVs.
In order to share the path segments within their free time windows, Huang et al.
proposed a labeling algorithm to find a shortest time path for routing a single vehicle in
a bi-directional path network [Huang et al. 1989]. The algorithm converts every arc
(physical path segment) of the original path network into a node with two arcs linking
with the original two nodes (these two nodes are junctions of path segments or stations).
Hence a converted network is obtained and then labels are assigned to free time
windows defined for each node. By comparing the labels of every node, a shortest time
path could be obtained if it exists. The algorithm has the time complexity of
O( D 2 log D ) for a single vehicle, where D is the total number of time windows of all

– 12 –
nodes in the converted network. The main disadvantage of the algorithm is the
unacceptably large amount of computation. The converted network has double number
of arcs and at least double number of nodes than the original network (because in a
connected graph, the node number N and the arc number A satisfy A ≥ N − 1 ), and
every node has at least one time window. Therefore the information of network could
require a lot of memory space. The actual time complexity for a single vehicle is
O(( N + A )2 log( N + A )) , where N and A represent the numbers of nodes and arcs in
the original path network respectively.
Kim and Tanchoco also presented a conflict-free shortest-time algorithm for routing
AGVs in a bi-directional path network [Kim & Tanchoco 1991]. The proposed
algorithm is based on Dijkstra’s shortest-path algorithm. It maintains, for each node, a
list of time windows reserved by scheduled vehicles and a list of free time windows
available for vehicles to be scheduled. The concept of time window graph is introduced,
in which the node set represents the free time windows and the arc set represents the
reachability among free time windows. Then the algorithm routes vehicles through the
free time windows of the time window graph instead of the physical nodes of the path
network. To get an optimal routing solution, the algorithm could take a large amount of
time. Specifically, it requires O( v 4 n 2 ) computations in the worst case, where v is the
number of vehicles and n is the number of nodes. Therefore, it will be more suitable for
a small system with a few vehicles.
Kim and Tanchoco later gave the operational control of bi-dirctional path network
AGV systems for the conflict-free shortest-time routing algorithm [Kim & Tanchoco
1993]. The research employs a conservative myopic strategy, in which only one vehicle
is considered at a time and all the previous decisions are strictly respected and a
subsequent travel schedule is assigned only after the vehicle becomes idle. Using this
strategy, to find a path from the current position of a vehicle to a pickup station and then
to the drop-off station, the system controller need only call at most twice the conflict-
free shortest-time routing algorithm described in [Kim & Tanchoco 1991] after the
decision on vehicle dispatching is made.

4.1.2 Dynamic Routing Algorithms

The preceding algorithms are static and global routing methods, which generally take a
relatively long time to compute an optimal route. To speed up the processes of finding

– 13 –
optimal or feasible routes for AGVs, dynamic routing techniques and algorithms are
proposed.
Taghaboni and Tanchoco proposed a dynamic routing technique, namely
incremental route planning, which can route AGVs relatively quickly [Taghaboni &
Tanchoco 1995]. The algorithm selects the next node for the vehicle to visit so as to
reach its destination based on the status of neighbouring nodes and information about
the global network. The next node is selected among all adjacent nodes such that it will
result in the shortest travel time. The decision of next node selection is repeated until the
vehicle reaches its destination. The algorithm can work in both uni-directional and bi-
directional path networks. However, compared with the complete route planner
[Taghaboni & Tanchoco 1995], the incremental route planning can not achieve a high
efficiency when the number of tasks and vehicles increase. The algorithm may also not
obtain an optimal route and correctly predict the delays in some cases.
Based on dynamic programming, Langevin et al. presented an algorithm which
could give an optimal integrated solution for planning the dispatching, conflict-free
routing, and scheduling of AGVs in a flexible manufacturing system [Langevin et al.
1996]. The algorithm defines a partial transportation plan as a schedule and a route for
each vehicle satisfying a subset of the transporation tasks. States are defined
corresponding to the partial transportation plans. The dynamic programming operations
work on the states to find the best final state set which contains the optimal solution.
However, as stated in the study, the number of states could be astronomical for a large
system. To make it usable, a procedure is designed to elimiate some of the states. Even
so, the computation can be very expensive. And the fatal limitation is that the algorithm
only considers the system with two vehicles, although the path network may be bi-
directional. Therefore, the throughput of such a system may not scale up with the
number of tasks. An extended version of the algorithm is also given in the study to deal
with the system with more than two vehicles. However, it still cannot guarantee the
optimality of the solutions. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize this part of work.

4.2 Path Optimization

Due to the large amount of computation for finding the optimal routes in a general path
network, many researchers propose the idea of tailoring the path network to achieve a

– 14 –
higher efficiency. This part of work emphasizes on the optimization of path layout
rather than routing algorithms with consideration of the given facility and pickup/drop-
off stations (or P/D stations for short). This optimization problem is usually formulated
in integer programming models.

4.2.1 0-1 Integer Programming Models

Gaskins and Tanchoco first formulated the path layout problem as a zero-one integer
programming model with consideration of the given facility layout and pickup/drop-off
stations [Gaskins & Tanchoco 1987]. The objective is to find an optimal path network
which will minimize total traveling distance of loaded vehicles. However, the paper
only considers uni-directional path network, which has lower utilization [Egbelu &
Tanchoco 1986]. The distance traveled by unloaded vehicles is not taken into
considerations, which may affect the routing control and system throughput. The main
limitation of the study is that it only considers a fleet of AGVs with the same origin and
destination every time. These AGVs run along the same route. Therefore, in this case
routing control is trivialized since issues such as congestion, deadlocks and conflicts,
will never arise. Because routing control is not taken into account, when AGVs with
different origins and destinations run simultaneously, conflicts may occur among them.
Another limitation from the formulated zero-one integer programming model is that it
has a very low probability to obtain a non-empty solution set. Moreover, for practical
problems, the number of zero-one variables tends to be very large and computational
efficiency becomes a critical issue.
Based on a zero-one integer programming model and the branch-and-bound method,
Kaspi and Tanchoco proposed an alternative formulation [Kaspi & Tanchoco 1990] of
the AGV path layout problem described in [Gaskins & Tanchoco 1987]. The new
approach can obtain the best path design provided that the pickup/drop-off stations
location and facility layout are given. The procedure, compared with the algorithm in
[Gaskins & Tanchoco 1987], reduces the computation time at the cost of the quality of
path design because not all of the possibilities are enumerated. However, this study
shares the same limitation with the previous one.

4.2.2 Intersection Graph Method

An Intersection Graph Method (IGM) is presented by [Sinriech & Tanchoco 1991] for
solving AGV Flow Path Optimization Model developed by [Kaspi & Tanchoco 1990].

– 15 –
A procedure based on the technique of branch-and-bound is described wherein only a
reduced subset of all nodes in the path network is considered. Only intersection nodes
are used to find optimal solutions. With this improved procedure, the number of
branches of the main problem is only half of that of the method described in [Kaspi &
Tanchoco 1990]. The amount of computation is thus greatly reduced. Therefore, this
approach could be adopted by a relatively large AGV system. However, because only
intersection nodes in path are used, the algorithm might miss some optimal solutions.
The same problem is also studied by Goetz and Egbelu in a different approach
[Goetz & Egbelu 1990]. They modeled and solved the problem of selecting the guide
path as well as the location of the pickup and drop-off stations as an integer linear
program. The objective is to minimize the total distance traveled by both loaded and
unloaded AGVs. A heuristic algorithm is used in the study to reduce the size of the
problem. The reduction makes the approach more amenable for use in the design of
large path layouts. Then the problem of determining the optimal locations of the
pickup/drop-off stations is formulated based on the reduced problem. The paper also
exploits the structure of the problem to reduce the number of constraints required to
solve the path layout problem. However, the issues of vehicle number that the system
could have and the routing control on the optimized path network are not considered in
the study, which are obviously related to the final goal of the system optimization. The
path studied here is uni-directional, which, to some extent, results in a low path
utilization and system throughput. Table 3 summarizes the works reviewed in the
preceding paragraphs.

4.3 Routing Algorithms for Specific Path Topologies

Some algorithms are proposed for routing AGVs in specific path topologies, such as
single-loop, multi-loops, and mesh.

4.3.1 Closed Single-loop

Tanchoco and Sinriech suggested an optimal closed single-loop path layout for an AGV
system [Tanchoco & Sinriech 1992]. An algorithm based on integer programming is
given to find the optimal single loop. With the single-loop path layout, the routing
algorithm could be very straightforward. In this case, if all vehicles run in the same
direction with uniform speed, no collisions may occur among them because there are no

– 16 –
intersections in the optimal singe loop path. As the paper claims, however, the system
throughput drops down a little compared with general path systems. It allows at most
ten vehicles to run simultaneously around the single loop [Tanchoco & Sinriech 1992].
Therefore, such an AGV system could not be very suitable for a large material handling
system with a relatively great number of vehicles and stations.

4.3.2 Non-overlapping Closed Loops

Lin and Dgen provided an algorithm for routing AGVs among non-overlapping closed
loops within a tandem AGV system [Lin & Dgen 1994]. Stations within each loop are
served by a single dedicated vehicle. The transit area located between two adjacent
loops serves as an interface and allows loads to be transferred from one loop to another.
If a load needs to be delivered to a station not located within the same loop, the load
needs more than one vehicle to carry it to its destination. A task-list time-window
algorithm is employed to find a shortest travel time path based on the current status to
route a vehicle from point A to point B. The computation for a routing decision is
relatively small. However, since only one vehicle serves a loop, the throughput of the
system is very low. Besides, the device used to transfer loads from one loop to another
usually increases the system cost. Therefore, the scale of such a system could not be
very large. The paper did not address the design issue of the loops, which is crucially
related to the system efficiency.

4.3.3 Segmented Flow Topology

Similar to the multi-loops path layout in [Lin & Dgen 1994], Sinriech and Tanchoco
proposed an alternative path topology – Segmented Flow Topology (SFT) [Sinriech &
Tanchoco 1994]. The SFT can be used in conjunction with each of the following three
network types: connected, partitioned and split-flow. The general SFT is comprised of
one or more zones, each of which is separated into non-overlapping segments with each
segment serviced by a single vehicle. Transfer buffers are located at both ends of every
segment. Since there is only one vehicle moving in a segment, no path segment
contentions will occur. The vehicle can move bi-directionally in the segment. Therefore,
the routing control for such a path topology is very simple. The advantage of the SFT
can be easily recognized by the lower value of flow × dis tan ce compared with that of
the other path topologies, such as single-loop, bi-directional and uni-directional
conventional paths, etc. However, the transferring devices in the buffers are the

– 17 –
additional cost of the overall system. The operations of transferring loads among
segments may be time-consuming and sometimes cause delay of transportation.

4.3.4 Linear Array, H-tree, 2D-mesh etc.

Hsu and Huang gave time and space complexities for some basic AGV routing
operations in several specific bi-directional path topologies [Hsu & Huang 1994, Huang
& Hsu 1994]. The routing operations include simple delivery, distribution, scattering,
accumulation, gathering, sorting and total exchange. All these operations are achieved
in the following path topologies: linear array, ring, H-tree, star, 2D-mesh, n-cube and
cube-connected cycles and complete graph. The upper bounds of time and space
complexities for those AGV routing in those path topologies are Θ( n 2 ) and

Θ( n 3 ) respectively, where n is the number of nodes in the path topologies. However,

the paper does not give in detail the routing algorithms and the techniques to avoid
congestion, conflicts, deadlocks etc. It also causes additional system cost if every node
in the path network has an arbitration capability. Table 4 summarizes this part of work.

5. Scheduling Algorithms

The AGV systems considered above usually have a relatively small number of vehicles
and P/D jobs. In this case, the problem of AGV scheduling is trivial with the existing
solutions of path network optimization and routing control. However, for an AGV
system with a great number of P/D jobs and a large size of AGV fleet, such as container
handling in a seaport, the scheduling of AGVs becomes nontrivial. It should be studied
separately from routing problem and path layout design. However, recent research on
AGV scheduling is relatively scarce and limited in scope.
A typical work on AGV scheduling is by Akturk and Yilmaz in 1996. They
proposed an algorithm to schedule vehicles and jobs in a decision-making hierarchy
based on the mixed integer programming [Akturk & Yilmaz 1996]. The proposed
micro-opportunistic scheduling algorithm (MOSA) combines two perspectives, namely
job-based and vehicle-based approaches, into a single algorithm in which both the
critical jobs and the travel time of unloaded vehicles are considered simultaneously. The
scheduling problem is defined similarly to, but not identically as, the Time Constrained
Vehicle Routing Problem (TCVRP) which is proven to be NP-hard by [Kolen et al.

– 18 –
1987]. The problem is thus solvable in polynomial time because the objective is to
minimize the deviation of the time windows rather than the distance traveled by
vehicles in TCVRP. However, the MOSA is only applicable for AGV systems with a
small number of jobs and vehicles. This is because with the increase of job number and
the size of vehicle fleet, the amount of computation for the solution could become
unacceptably large.
Qiu and Hsu presented a scheme to schedule and route AGVs on a bi-directional
linear path layout [Qiu & Hsu 1999, 2000]. The proposed algorithm actually combines
the functions of scheduling and routing, and employs the idea of concurrent processing.
When AGVs are scheduled and routed to run along the linear tracks, no conflicts,
congestion, livelocks or deadlocks will arise. All jobs can be completed within a very
short time. The efficiency of the algorithm is not constrained by the size of the system.
Because the algorithm is given based on the designed linear path layout, it can be
classified into the category of routing (and scheduling) algorithms for specific path
topologies. However, how to schedule and route pickup/drop-off jobs continuously is
still unsolved in the paper. Moreover, the stringent (and unrealistic) synchronization
requirements of vehicles should be relaxed to meet realistic applications.
Kim and Bae presented a model for scheduling AGVs for multiple container cranes
[Kim & Bae 1999]. The primary objective is to minimize the delay of carrying out all
loading and unloading operations. In other words, the goal is to minimize the waiting
time of container cranes rather than to minimize the idle running of AGVs. Issues
related to AGV routing are not taken into considerations. Hence with the increase of the
number of AGVs, congestion or even collisions of AGVs might occur at the operating
area of container cranes.

6. Future Directions & Concluding Remarks

For future research, we believe that the most promising area is in the development of
new AGV routing algorithms for specific path topologies:
• In many applications, the AGV path networks are regular graphs, e.g. linear
array, loop/loops, 2D-mesh. For example, in a container handling application,
the container stacking yards are usually arranged as rectangular areas connected
with mesh-like paths.

– 19 –
 • Routing algorithms for specific path topologies usually have relatively lower
computational complexity compared with those for general path topology.
• Developing routing algorithms for specific path topologies is relatively more
feasible than those for general path topology. Meanwhile, because we can
exploit the characteristics of these specific topologies, we could develop
algorithms that are more efficient.
AGV scheduling should be treated as a different problem from AGV routing.
However, we cannot disregard its association with routing when developing scheduling
algorithms. One of the feasible and possibly effective ways is to combine the functions
of scheduling and routing into one algorithm, as the algorithm presented by Qiu and
Hsu.10,11 Another way is to first give a scheduling plan and then develop suitable
routing algorithm for it. Another strategy is to study scheduling algorithms based on a
given routing algorithm.
In spite of the pervasive applications of AGV systems, the problems of scheduling
and routing of AGVs still call for much attention to. Even in the latest conferences on
robotics and intelligent vehicles, e.g. the 1999 International Conference on Field and
Service Robotics38 and 1999 Symposium on Intelligent Transportation Systems,39
much study focuses on the difficult issues such as automated driving of vehicles,
intelligentization of vehicles, intelligent navigation mechanisms, robot vision, image
processing, information fusion, etc. Relatively fewer papers refer to scheduling and
routing of AGVs. It should be pointed out that even if issues on vehicle automation or
intelligentization are fully resolved, this does not mean that the problems of scheduling
and routing will disappear accordingly. Without suitable algorithms of scheduling and
routing, no one can guarantee that congestion or deadlocks will not occur even if all
vehicles are driven by human drivers. On the other hand, with good scheduling and
routing algorithms, based on the current level of AGV technologies, an AGV system
could be put into operation before the difficult issues mentioned above are resolved. As
a case in point, presently at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, a project of
AGV application in a container handling system is being studied.40 The main goal is to
schedule and route AGVs within a mesh-like path and container stacking areas (as
shown in Figure 4). The solutions to the problems could greatly decrease the system
costs because in this case AGVs may not require too much intelligence.

– 20 –
 In conclusion, it should be clear that AGV systems are, intrinsically, parallel and
distributed systems that require a high degree of concurrency. We feel that the routing
and scheduling of these systems should be a fertile area where computer scientists and
engineers can have significant impacts and contributions.

Buffers in An AGV is loading/unloading

yard areas at a container crane
for AGVs
Bi-directional loading or
paths unloading Container cranes A container ship

An AGV Free AGVs are A loaded AGV An AGV is

is loading running to their is running to its unloading
origins to load destination

Containers stacking in yard areas (different colors

represent different stacking heights of containers)

Figure 4. AGVs in a mesh-like path and container stacking areas

– 21 –
 Table 1 Static Routing Algorithms for General Path Topology

Broadbent et al. Daniels 1988 Huang et al. 1989 Kim & Tanchoco
1985 1991, 1993
Problems Finding conflict- Finding conflict-free Finding conflict-free Finding conflict-free
Solved free shortest time shortest time routes for shortest time routes for shortest time routes for
routes for AGVs AGVs AGVs AGVs
Basic Dijkstra’s Partitioning shortest Dijkstra’s shortest path
Algorithms shortest path path algorithm – algorithm; conservative
algorithm myopic strategy
Computational O( N 2 ) O( N × A ) O(( N + A )2 log( N + A )) O( v 4 N 2 )
Complexity (average case) (average case) (average case) (worst case)
Path Direction Bi-directional Bi-directional Bi-directional Bi-directional
Easy to execute and Time windows are used Easy to execute and
Advantages Easy to execute faster than Broadbent’s for every node; the control; fast
utilization of path
segments are increased
Heavy Heavy computation; low Heavy computation; large Heavy computation;
Disadvantages computation; low utilization of path amount of data of large amount of data of
utilization of segments; may cause converted network to path network to maintain
path segments failure in finding routes maintain
that actually exist

Legend: N – node number in the path network; A – arc number in the path network; v – vehicle number;

– 22 –
 Table 2 Dynamic Routing Algorithms for General Path Topology

Taghaboni & Tanchoco 1995 Langevin et al. 1996

Problems Solved Finding a conflict-free route for AGVs Integrated solution for AGV dispatching,
conflict-free routing and scheduling
Basic Algorithms Incremental route planning Dynamic programming
Optimality of Solutions Not guaranteed Not guaranteed
Path direction Bi-directional & Uni-directional Bi-directional
Advantages Relatively fast in routing decision Easy to execute and control
Low efficiency when the numbers of tasks and Since only two vehicles are allowed in
Disadvantages vehicles increase; also no optimal routing the system, the system throughput and
solutions could be guaranteed; path utilization could be very low; only
suitable for very small system with a few
stations

– 23 –
 Table 3 Path Optimization

Gaskins & Tanchoco Kaspi & Tanchoco Sinriech & Tanchoco Goetz & Egbelu 1990
1987 1990 1991
Path optimization to Path optimization to Path optimization to Path optimization to
Problems Solved minimize total distance minimize total minimize total distance minimize total distance
traveled by loaded distance traveled by traveled by loaded traveled by both loaded
vehicles loaded vehicles vehicles and unloaded vehicles
Zero-one integer Zero-one integer Intersection Graph Integer linear
Basic Algorithms programming programming; Method; programming
branch-and bound Branch-and-bound
Path Topologies General General General General
Path Direction Uni-directional Uni-directional Uni-directional Uni-directional
Very easy to An improvement of An improved model of Problem size is reduced;
implement for a fleet the approach in that proposed in [Kaspi & distance traveled by
Advantages of AGVs with the [Gaskins & Tanchoco Tanchoco 1990]; reduced unloaded vehicles is
same origins and 1987]; reduced number of problem considered together;
destinations; computation; branches; optimality optimality is hence better
optimality guaranteed guaranteed ensured
Conflicts may occur Distance traveled by Only intersection nodes of Routing control and
Disadvantages when there are AGVs unloaded AGVs is not the path network are vehicle number are not
with different origins considered; low considered; optimal considered in the study
and destinations; heavy system throughput; solutions may be missed which are important for
computation; low still heavy AGV systems
system throughput computation

– 24 –
 Table 4 Algorithms for Specific Path Topologies (to be continued)

Tanchoco &Sinriech Lin & Dgen 1994 Sinriech & Tanchoco Hsu & Huang 1994
1992 1994
Optimizing the path Routing AGVs among Routing AGVs among Route planning for basic
Problems layout configuration in several non-overlapping several non-overlapping routing functions on
Solved a closed single loop closed loops; finding path segments; finding several specific basic path
shortest travel time path shortest travel time path topologies
Basic Integer programming The task-list time-window – –
Algorithms algorithm
Linear array, ring, H-tree,
Path Closed single-loop Multi-loop Segmented path star, 2D-mesh, n-cube,
Topologies topology cube-connected cycles,
complete graph,
Path Direction Uni-directional Bi-directional or Uni- Bi-directional or Uni- Bi-directional
directional directional

– 25 –
 Table 4 Algorithms for Specific Path Topologies (continued)

Tanchoco &Sinriech Lin & Dgen 1994 Sinriech & Tanchoco Hsu & Huang 1994
1992 1994
Routing control is Easy for routing control An alternative design of Give the time and space
very easy; no since every loop is served that in [Lin & Dgen complexities for basic
Advantages conflicts or by a single vehicle; 1994]; relatively low routing functions which are
deadlocks will value of flow×distance upper- bounded by Θ( n 2 )
occur; easy for and Θ( n 3 ) respectively
implementation
Low system Low system throughput; Low system throughput Routing control not given
throughput ; only additional cost needed for with one vehicle serving in detail; the assumption of
Disadvantages suitable for small transit device between in a segment; additional arbitration capability for
system two adjacent loops; cost for transit device; every buffer is too idealized
indirect transportation indirect transportation
may cause delay may cause delay

– 26 –
7. References

1. Akturk, M. S. and Yilmaz, H., 1996, Scheduling of Automated Guided Vehicles in a

Decision-Making Hierarchy. Int’lJof Production Research, 34(2), 577-591.
2. Broadbent, A. J., Besant, C. B., Premi, S. K., and Walker,S. P. 1985, Free ranging
AGV Systems: Promises, Problems and Pathways. Proc. of the 2nd Int’l Conf. on
Automated Materials Handling, (IFS Publication Ltd., UK), pp. 221-237.
3. Daniels, S. C., 1988, Real-time Conflict Resolution in Automated Guided Vehicle
Scheduling. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Industrial Eng., Penn. State University, USA.
4. Dantzig, G., 1963, Linear Programming and Extensions. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, N.J.
5. Egbelu, P. J. and Tanchoco, J. M. A., 1984, Characterization of Automatic Guided
Vehicle Dispatching Rules. Int’l J. of Production Research, 22(3), 359-374.
6. Egbelu, P. J. and Tanchoco, J. M. A., 1986, Potentials for Bidirectional Guidepath
for Automatic Guided Vehicle Systems. Int’l J. of Prod. Res., 24(5), 1075-1097.
7. Gaskins, R. J. and Tanchoco, J. M. A., 1987, Flow Path Design for Automated
Guided Vehicle Systems. Int’l J. of Production Research, 25(5), 667-676.
8. Glover, F., Klingman, D. D. and Phillips, N. V., 1985, A New Polynomially
Bounded Shortest Path Algorithm. Operations Research, 33(1) 65-73.
9. Goetsch, D.L., 1990, Advanced Manufacturing Technology. Delmar Publishers Inc.
10. Goetz, W. G. and Egbelu, P. J., 1990, Guide Path Design and Location of Load
Pick-up/drop-off Points for an Automated Guided Vehicle System. Int’l J. of
Production Research, 28(5), 927-941.
11. Gondran, M. and Minoux, M., 1984, Chapter 2, 8, 10,11, Graphs and Algorithms. A
Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
12. Hollier, R. H., 1987, Automated Guided Vehicle Systems. IFS (Publications) Ltd.,
UK and Springer-Verlag.
13. Hsu, W. J. and Huang, S. Y., 1994, Route Planning of Automated Guided Vehicles.
Proc. of Intelligent Vehicles, Paris, 479-485.
14. Huang, J., Palekar, U. S. and Kapoor, S. G., 1989, A Labeling Algorithm for the
Navigation of Automated Guided Vehicles. Advances in Manu. Systems Eng., Proc.
of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, PED-Vol. 37, 181-193.

– 27 –
15. Huang, S. Y. and Hsu, W. J., 1994, Routing Automated Guided Vehicles on Mesh-
Like Topologies. Int’l Conf. on Automation, Robotics and Computer Vision.
16. Kaspi, M. and Tanchoco, J. M. A., 1990, Optimal Flow Path Design of Uni-
directional AGV Systems. Int’l J. of Production Research, 28(6), 915-926.
17. Kim, C. W. and Tanchoco, J. M. A., 1991, Conflict-free Shortest-time Bi-directional
AGV Routing. Int’l J. of Production Research, 29(12), 2377-2391.
18. Kim, C. W. and Tanchoco, J. M. A., 1993, Operational Control of a Bi-directional
Automated Guided Vehicle Systems. Int’l J. of Production Res., 31(9), 2123-2138.
19. Kim, K. H. and Bae, J. W., 1999, Dispatching Automated Guided Vehicles for
Multiple Container-Cranes. Seminar on Port Design and Operations Technology,
Pan Pacific Hotel, Singapore, 4-5 Nov 1999.
20. Koff, G. A., 1986, Basis of AGVS. SME ULTRATECH, Vol. 1, Conference
Procedings, September. 3.1-3.17.
21. Kolen, A. W. J., Rinnooy-Kan, A. H. G. and Trienekens, H. W. J. M., 1987, Vehicle
Routing with Time Windows. Operations Research, 35(2), 266-274.
22. Langevin, A., Lauzon, D. and Riopel, D., 1996, Dispatching, Routing and
Scheduling of Two Automated Guided Vehicles in a Flexible Manufacturing
System. Int’l J. of Flexible Manufacturing System, 8(1996): 246-262.
23. Lin, J. T., 1986, Development of a Graphic Simulation Model for Design of
Automated Guided Vehicle Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Industrial
Engineering, Lehigh University, USA.
24. Lin, J. T. and Dgen, P.-K., 1994, An Algorithm for Routing Control of a Tandem
Automated Guided Vehicle System. Int’l J. of Production Res., 32(12), 2735-2750.
25. Material Handling Institute, 1983. Considerations for Planning and Installing
Automated Guided Vehicle Systems.
26. Proceedings of the International Conference on Field and Service Robotics, August
29-31, 1999, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
27. Qiu, L. and Hsu, W. J., 1999, Scheduling and Routing of AGVs on a Linear Path
Layout. Technical Report: CAIS-TR-99-27, Centre for Advanced Information
Systems, School of Applied Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,
Oct 1999. Also available at http://www.cais.edu.sg:8000/.

– 28 –
28. Qiu, L. and Hsu, W. J., 2000, Conflict-free AGVs Routing in a Linear Path Layout.
Accepted for the 5th Int’l Conf. on Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Singapore,
March 2000.
29. Soh, J. T. L., Hsu, W. J., Huang, S. Y. and Ong, A. C. Y., 1996, Decentralized
Routing Algorithms for Automated Guided Vehicles. Proc. of ACM Symposium of
Applied Computing, 473-479.
30. Sinriech, D. and Tanchoco, J. M. A., 1991, Intersection Graph Method for AGV
Flow Path Design. Int’l J. of Production Research, 29(9), 1725-1732.
31. Sinriech, D. and Tanchoco, J. M. A., 1994, SFT – Segmented Flow Topology. In
Material Flow Systems in Manufacturing, chapter 8, J. M. A. Tanchoco (ed.),
London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 200-235.
32. Storm, J. O., 1985, The Role of AGVS in an FMS Environment. Proc. of Sessions
VII and X, ProMat 85, MHI, February 25-28.
33. Swamy, M. N. S. and Thulasiraman, K., 1981, Chapter 3, 15, Graphs, Networks,
and Algorithms. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
34. Symposium on Intellegent Transportation Systems. Nov 29-30, 1999, Singapore.
Also available at http://www.inrialpes.fr/sharp/SITS.99/.
35. Taghaboni, F. and Tanchoco, J. M. A., 1995, Comparison of Dynamic Routing
Techniques for Automated Guided Vehicle Systems. Int’l J. of Production
Research, 33(10), 2653-2669.
36. Taha, H. A., 1995, Operations Research, an Introduction. Prentice Hall Int’l, Inc.,
Simon & Schuster (Asia) Pte. Ltd., Singapore, fifth edition.
37. Tanchoco, J. M. A. and Sinriech, D., 1992, OSL-Optimal Single-Loop Guided Paths
for AGVS. Int’l J. of Production Research, 30(3), 665-681.
38. Vee, V. Y., Ye, R., Shah, S. N. and Hsu, W. J., 1999, Meeting Challenges of
Container Port Operations for Next Millennium. Technical Report: CAIS-TR-99-25,
Centre for Advanced Information Systems, School of Applied Science, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. Available at http://www.cais.edu.sg:8000/.
39. Wilson, R. J. and Watkins, J. J., 1990, Chapter 8, 9, Graphs: an Introductory
Approach. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
40. Yu, X. and Huang, S. Y., 1997, A Centralized Routing Algorithm for AGVs in
Container Ports. Proc. of 4th Int’l Conf. on Computer Integrated Manu., pp 589-600.

– 29 –