Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Yard Space Allocation Algorithm for Unloading Containers at
Marine Terminals
Xingyu Wang 1 , Ning Zhao 1 and Chao Mi 1,2, *

1 Container Supply Chain Technology Engineering Research Center, Ministry of Education, Shanghai Maritime
University, Shanghai 201306, China; [email protected] (X.W.); [email protected] (N.Z.)
2 Shanghai SMUVision Smart Technology Ltd., Shanghai 201306, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The issue of unloading efficiency for containers is the operational bottleneck for most
traditional container terminals. In addressing the intricate challenges of space allocation in container
yards during ship unloading, this study focuses on the real-time, dynamic decision-making needs that
are currently unmet by existing planning methods. To tackle this, the article introduces a novel model
for container space allocation that aims to maximize the “attractiveness” of yard spaces. This model
factors in key considerations like the allocation of container handling equipment resources, the rate
of container handling equipment traversing the yard, and container handling equipment operations
across containers. A unique Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS)-based algorithm is developed to solve
this multi-objective problem. The algorithm’s efficacy is rigorously tested via numerical experiments,
where it outperforms existing approaches like UCT-MCTS, AMAF-MCTS, and manual scheduling
plans using practical engineering examples. This research not only provides a more dynamic and
efficient method for yard space allocation but also offers empirical evidence to support its practicality
and effectiveness.

Keywords: container terminal; unloading container; container space allocation; Monte Carlo tree
search algorithm

1. Introduction
Citation: Wang, X.; Zhao, N.; Mi, C.
Yard Space Allocation Algorithm for Serving as a critical junction between terrestrial and maritime networks, container
Unloading Containers at Marine terminals are pivotal in the sphere of maritime logistics and transportation. As economic
Terminals. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, globalization and regional economic integration gain momentum, trade volumes have
2109. https://doi.org/10.3390/ surged. This uptick in global container freight movement has necessitated the deployment
jmse11112109 of larger container vessels [1,2]. Simultaneously, the arrival of gargantuan vessels has
Academic Editor: Nam Kyu Park
complicated the daily management of container terminals. Ports are gearing up to tackle
the logistical challenges presented by these mega-vessels, some of which have capacities
Received: 30 September 2023 exceeding 20,000 TEU [3].
Revised: 31 October 2023 In light of advancements in science and technology, cutting-edge methodologies
Accepted: 1 November 2023 encompassing big data analytics and artificial intelligence are increasingly being integrated
Published: 4 November 2023
into the operational frameworks of container terminal management. Digital transformation
and automation have become inescapable trends in the realm of yard management [4].
These technological shifts are complemented by an array of new technologies and solutions
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
in logistics transportation, addressing challenges that were historically reliant on manual
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. human intervention. Whether it is monitoring the displacement of the foundation pit [5],
This article is an open access article positioning the three-dimensional attitude of the container [6], or measuring the position of
distributed under the terms and the container during lifting operation [7], intelligent technology has replaced the traditional
conditions of the Creative Commons manual methods and achieved more accurate, efficient, and automated operations. The
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// selection of an unloading container plan is also such a problem. In the past, it relied
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ on manual planning and deployment, which may fail to consider the mixed stacking of
4.0/). multiple ships and cannot adjust the plan dynamically according to the yard equipment,

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11112109 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 2 of 22

which may result in the waste of yard resource space to a certain extent. In the case
of the relative shortage of yard resources in container terminals, the yard has become
a bottleneck in the operation of container terminals. Therefore, it is necessary to study
the decision algorithm for selecting the unloading position of container terminals, and
achieving intelligent unloading is an inevitable step in the intelligent transformation of
container terminals.
The research question of this paper focuses on the algorithm for selecting unloading
positions for containers in the port production system. The quality and rationality of this
algorithm directly impact the efficiency of loading and unloading operations, making it
one of the key points in the intelligent transformation of port production. Specifically, this
research aims to dynamically allocate yard positions for unloaded containers via computer
automation without the need for manual planning. Taking into account equipment avail-
ability, task distribution, and stacking conditions, the system assigns yard positions based
on stacking principles [8]. The objective is to reduce the operational costs of terminal yards,
overcome the limitations of traditional manual planning for unloading and stacking, and
thus effectively improve the utilization rate of both spatial and mechanical resources in
terminal yards.
The contributions of this paper include the following aspects: This paper takes into ac-
count the current unloading operation in terminals, follows the selection of yard equipment,
and proposes a yard container space allocation model with the goal of maximizing the
attractiveness of container spaces. Due to the complexity of the model, this paper proposes
a corresponding MCTS algorithm based on Monte Carlo tree search. To accelerate the
solution speed and improve the solution efficiency, unnecessary duplicate operations are
avoided by adding a nested tree strategy method in the algorithm. This paper establishes a
dynamic system capable of adapting to various factors, such as equipment availability and
task distribution, thus eliminating the inefficiencies of manual planning.
While container terminal operations have been the subject of numerous studies, most
have focused on isolated elements of the process. With the rising complexity due to larger
vessels and increased trade volume, there is a pressing need for integrated and dynamic
solutions. This study bridges this gap by presenting an optimization model and algorithm
that can dynamically adapt to multiple operational variables. By doing so, the paper
furnishes terminal operators with practical insights that facilitate enhanced efficiency in
the utilization of both spatial and mechanical resources.

2. Literature Review
There are many relevant studies on the management of container terminal yards.
Kizilay and Eliiyi et al. [9] conducted a comprehensive literature review on yard man-
agement, proposing that with the advancement of terminal equipment technology, the
bottleneck of the berth has been almost resolved, and the bottleneck of terminal production
operations has shifted to the yard. The storage space and space planning issues of the yard
are important research directions in the future. In this section, the relevant research on the
problem of container terminal yard space container space allocation is summarized from
three aspects: optimization objectives, optimization methods, and result analysis.

2.1. Optimization Objectives

In the container space allocation problem, Zhang et al. [10] established a model with the
goal of minimizing the number of container crane operations and used a machine learning
algorithm based on mixed branch and bound method to solve it. Hang Yu et al. [11]
aimed to improve the utilization rate of the automated container terminal yard, proposed a
shared interval strategy and established a two-stage mathematical model for optimizing
the allocation of yard space. Houming Fan et al. [12] aimed to minimize the completion
time of all storage requests and the total reprocessing time during retrieval processes,
established a collaborative optimization model and designed a hybrid genetic algorithm
based on variable neighborhood search to solve the model. Daniela Ambrosino et al. [13]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 3 of 22

established a model with the goal of minimizing the footprint of containers and proposed
a mixed 0/1 linear programming model and heuristic method to solve the problem. Niu
et al. [14] designed a group intelligence algorithm to solve the problem of container truck
scheduling and container space allocation with the goal of minimizing the distance traveled
by container trucks and the total delay time for all tasks. They proposed particle swarm
optimization and bacterial colony optimization algorithms.

2.2. Optimization Methods

As the container space allocation problem is a typical NP-hard problem [15], exact
algorithms are typically used to calculate small-scale instances. For example, Petering
et al. [16] established a mixed integer programming mathematical model to study the
container handling problem and used CPLEX to solve it. For large-scale problems of
container space allocation, some scholars adopt modern heuristic algorithms such as
genetic algorithms. Mingzhu Yu et al. [17] proposed a genetic algorithm with embedded
simulation to study how to minimize the total waiting time during space allocation and the
waiting time of external trucks in the future container retrieval process. Lu Zhen et al. [18]
constructed a two-stage stochastic integer programming model and developed a primitive
decomposition algorithm that passes the columns of the second-stage problem to the first-
stage problem to approximate the decision making of the second stage. Finally, numerical
experiments were conducted to verify the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed
algorithm. Considering the arrival time and operation time of inbound vessels, Liu CC
et al. [19] constructed a two-objective model based on the time buffer insertion method
and proposed a two-stage heuristic algorithm to solve this problem. Luo JB et al. [20]
used a mixed integer programming (MIP) model to describe the hybrid problem of how
to efficiently schedule vehicles, allocate storage locations for containers, and use genetic
algorithms to solve them.

2.3. Result Analysis

The container space allocation problem belongs to practical application-oriented prob-
lems, and the computational results need to be applied in reality. Describing the relationship
between the number of container crane operations and the yard utilization rate can provide
scientific decision making for port container space allocation. For example, Wu and Ting
et al. [21] used a beam search algorithm to solve the container handling problem, and the
results showed that the number of containers in the stack and the stack height are closely
related to the number of stacks. Such conclusions are consistent with reality. Hu et al. [22]
divided the problem of allocating export containers into two continuous parts for solution
and discussed the relationship between the number of containers in different stacks, stack
utilization rate, container handling rate, and the distance of container transportation trucks
in multiple objectives under different stack utilization rates. These findings are elaborated
upon in subsequent works by Galle et al. [23] and Wang et al. [24].

2.4. Summary
The problem of container yard space allocation has always been a hot topic in the
field of container port management research. Allocation methods that rely on manual
planning and allocation have limitations. For instance, they do not take into account
the mixed stacking of multiple ships, cannot dynamically adjust plans based on yard
equipment orientation, and there is a certain probability of causing waste of yard resource
space. Researchers studying the actual production yard allocation problem usually focus on
optimizing objectives, optimization algorithms, and result analysis. Although traditional
optimization methods, such as genetic algorithms, perform well in some scenarios, they
may encounter limitations when dealing with complex yard allocation problems. The
biggest feature is that each step of the solution is relatively fixed. If faced with a choice,
following preset rules to randomly select is more beneficial for solving the problem than
making optimal decisions. Therefore, probability algorithms can greatly improve the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 4 of 22

algorithm’s performance. The Monte Carlo tree search algorithm [25] provides a new
direction for solving this problem. Unlike traditional selection algorithms such as genetic
algorithms, Monte Carlo tree search estimates the optimal choice for each step via a large
number of random simulations. This method shows strong advantages in dealing with
complex decision-making problems, especially in situations with a large number of possible
choices and uncertainties and is more suitable for the problem of space allocation in the
yard. It is noteworthy that this study combines the Monte Carlo tree search algorithm with
a multi-objective slot selection model, offering a novel perspective and solution strategy for
the container slot allocation problem of unloading ships. This unique approach not only
enhances the efficiency of problem solving but also paves the way for future research by
providing a new direction and framework.

3. Mathematical Models
In this section, we will provide a detailed description of the container unloading space
selection problem and establish a model for selecting container unloading space with the
objective function of maximizing the attractiveness of container slots in the yard.

3.1. Problem Description

The container yard is a critical area within the port designated for storing contain-
ers, playing an essential role that encompasses tasks such as loading and unloading,
transferring, storing, and the handing over of containers. The operational efficiency and
effectiveness of this area are directly influenced by the joint planning between terminal
operators and shipping companies. Effective management of the container yard is pivotal
in elevating the port’s operational efficiency and enhancing its overall competitiveness.
Specifically, by optimizing yard management, the dwell time of ships at the port can be
reduced, thereby lowering operational costs and increasing vessel turnover rates. Addition-
ally, higher throughput of containers and effective utilization of yard equipment not only
improve operational efficiency but also make the port a more attractive logistics hub for
more shipping companies and consigners. The typical layout of the container terminal yard
is shown in Figure 1. The storage space of a container terminal yard is composed of several
container zones, with container truck lanes between each zone. Additionally, each container
zone may be equipped with 0–2-yard cranes for operations. Container unloading slots can
be categorized as zone, row, stack, and level. Specific information about the placement of
containers is determined by combining factors such as zone number, row number, stack
(tier) number, and level number. Via corresponding coding rules, each container slot is
assigned a unique identifier.
In practical production, the most significant difference between the intelligent unload-
ing mode and the traditional unloading mode is that the intelligent unloading mode no
longer requires the advance preparation of an unloading storage plan. When preparing the
unloading storage plan, containers are grouped first, and then storage areas are allocated
for each type of container. Common grouping rules can be summarized as follows: separate
storage for empty and loaded containers, consideration of trans-shipment destinations,
allocation based on container owner for empties, and separate storage for refrigerated,
hazardous, and oversized containers. Although the intelligent unloading entry selection
does not require the preparation of an unloading storage plan, the basic storage rules are
the same as in the traditional unloading mode.
Intelligent unloading entry selection assigns a space in real-time for each unloading
container. When the unloading container is placed on horizontal transport machinery, its
storage slot in the yard is already determined, making the slot allocation more flexible.
This flexibility is impossible to achieve using manual selection but is easily achievable via
automated selection algorithms. Therefore, the core of intelligent unloading entry selection
lies in the design of the space selection algorithm.
J.J.Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng. 2023,11,
Eng.2023, 11,2109
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of
of 22
23

Vessel

Quay crane

Yard trunk

Yard crane

Lane
Subblock

Block

Lane
tier

bay

row

Lane
Lane Lane Lane

Figure1.1.Simplified
Figure Simplifiedlayout
layoutof
ofcontainer
containerterminal.
terminal.

There are several

Intelligent unloadinglimiting
entryfactors when
selection choosing
assigns yardin
a space slots for unloading
real-time for eachcontainers.
unloading
The most crucial factors include ensuring that the selected yard slot is available, meaning it
container. When the unloading container is placed on horizontal transport machinery, its
is not occupied by other containers, not reserved for other containers, or not designated as
storage slot in the yard is already determined, making the slot allocation more flexible.
a reefer container plug; and ensuring that there are available yard cranes in the container
This flexibility is impossible to achieve using manual selection but is easily achievable via
zone where the selected yard slot is located, meaning there are yard cranes in the container
automated selection algorithms. Therefore, the core of intelligent unloading entry selec-
zone, and they are not engaged in other tasks.
tion lies in the design of the space selection algorithm.
To maximize the efficiency of terminal operations and resource utilization, our berth
There are several limiting factors when choosing yard slots for unloading containers.
selection algorithm specifically takes into account a variety of complex factors in dynamic
The most crucial factors include ensuring that the selected yard slot is available, meaning
operations. It has the capability to make real-time adjustments to unloading instructions,
it is not occupied by other containers, not reserved for other containers, or not designated
balancing the storage tasks in different container areas and the workload of yard cranes.
as a reefer container plug; and ensuring that there are available yard cranes in the con-
This avoids issues such as yard congestion due to uneven crane workload or cranes idling
tainerwaiting
while zone where for new the tasks.
selected yard
This highslot is located,
level of dynamic meaning there are yard
responsiveness cranes
enables the in the
algo-
container zone, and they are not engaged in other tasks.
rithm to precisely adapt to the real-time requirements and changes in terminal unloading
To maximize
operations. By focusingthe efficiency
on dynamicof terminal operations
adjustments, and resource
the algorithm utilization,
breaks throughour theberth
lim-
selection algorithm specifically takes into account a variety of complex
itations of static yard planning, significantly elevating the dynamism of berth selection factors in dynamic
operations.
decisions. It has
This, in the
turn, capability to make
further boosts thereal-time adjustmentsefficiency
overall operational to unloading instructions,
and competitive-
balancing
ness of the the
port.storage tasks in different container areas and the workload of yard cranes.
This avoids issues such as yard congestion due to uneven crane workload or cranes idling
while
3.2. waiting for new tasks. This high level of dynamic responsiveness enables the algo-
Assumptions
rithm to
In theprecisely
contextadapt to the real-time
of constructing requirements
the model and changes
for container in terminal
unloading entry unloading
selection,
operations. By focusing on dynamic adjustments, the algorithm
with the aim of arranging container zones and yard positions based on different levels breaks through the limi-
of
tations ofgroups,
container static yardthe planning,
following significantly
assumptionselevating
are made:the dynamism of berth selection de-
cisions. This, in turn, further boosts the overall operational efficiency and competitiveness
(1) Containers entering and exiting the port yard are stored separately.
of the port.
(2) Due to the fact that special containers need to be stored in special container zones
within the yard, and the majority of containers are standard containers, this study
3.2. Assumptions
considers only standard containers and does not account for other container types.
(3) The In the context of constructing
distribution the model
of available capacity forfor container
yard unloading
slots during entry selection,
the planned period with
and
the aim of arranging container zones and yard positions
the workload for each operational row in the yard are known. based on different levels of con-
tainer
(4) groups,
During thethe following
loading assumptions
and unloading are made:
operations, issues such as mechanical breakdowns
are not considered, assuming that all process
(1) Containers entering and exiting the port yard are stored steps can function normally.
separately.
(5) The yard does not pre-reserve flip slots for each
(2) Due to the fact that special containers need to be stored in special operational row. When a particular
container zones
row requires a flip slot, the slot is locked for that purpose.
within the yard, and the majority of containers are standard containers, this study
considers only standard containers and does not account for other container types.
(3) The distribution of available capacity for yard slots during the planned period and
the workload for each operational row in the yard are known.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 6 of 22

3.3. Symbol Definitions

(1) Model Dimensions
I: Representing all on-site containers in the yard, i,i0 ∈ I.
J: Representing the attraction methods of on-site containers in the yard to the target
container, primarily including five attraction methods: longitudinal attraction, right-side
attraction, left-side attraction, front-row attraction, and rear-row attraction.
K: Representing all waiting-to-be-allocated containers, k ∈ K.
L: Representing the bill of lading numbers of all waiting-to-be-allocated containers,
l ∈ L.
N: Representing the owners of all waiting-to-be-allocated containers, n ∈ N.
(2) Model parameters
ak : Representing the horizontal transport distance between the berth, on-site container
i attracted in mode j, and the selected container zone and row for unloading container k.
sk : Representing the dimensions of unloading container k.
co k : Representing the owner of unloading container k.
ie f k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether unloading container k is a heavy container. When
unloading container k is heavy, the parameter is 1; when it is not, the parameter is 0.
isi,k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether unloading container k has the same dimensions as
on-site container i. When the two containers have the same dimensions, the parameter is 1;
when they are different, the parameter is 0.
isl k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the dimensions of container k are 45 ft. When the
dimensions of container k are 45 ft, the parameter is 1; when they are not, the parameter is 0.
ibl i,j,k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the yard slot selected by on-site container i,
attracted in mode j, for container k can accommodate a 45 ft container. When the yard slot
selected by on-site container i, attracted in mode jj, for container k can accommodate a 45 ft
container, the parameter is 1; when it cannot, the parameter is 0.
i f bi,j,k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the yard slot selected by on-site container i,
attracted in mode j, for unloading container k is the same as the yard slot in which on-site
container i is located in its container zone. When the yard slot selected by on-site container
i, attracted in mode j, for unloading container k is the same as the yard slot in which on-site
container i is located in its container zone, the parameter is 1; when they are different, the
parameter is 0.
i f ri,j,k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the yard slot space selected by on-site container
i, attracted in mode j, for unloading container k is in the same stack as the yard slot space
where on-site container i is located in its container zone. When the yard slot space selected
by on-site container i, attracted in mode j, for unloading container k is in the same stack as
the yard slot location where on-site container i is located in its container zone, the parameter
is 1; when they are in different stacks, the parameter is 0.
iabi,j,k : When the dimensions of the container in the adjacent slot to the yard slot
selected by on-site container i, attracted in mode j for unloading container k differ from
the dimensions of the container in the yard slot selected by on-site container i, attracted in
mode j, for unloading container k, the parameter is 1. When the adjacent slot to the yard
slot selected by on-site container i, attracted in mode j, for unloading container k is empty,
the parameter is 0. When the dimensions of the container in the adjacent slot to the yard
slot selected by on-site container i, attracted in mode j, for unloading container k are the
same as the dimensions of the container in the yard slot selected by on-site container i,
attracted in mode j, for unloading container k, the parameter is −1.
ibgi : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the dimensions of the slot where on-site container
i is located are 20 ft. When the dimensions of the slot where on-site container i is located
are 20 ft, the parameter is 1; when they are not, the parameter is 0.
lck : Represents the bill of lading number for unloading container k.
ilci,k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the bill of lading number of unloading container
k is the same as that of on-site container i. When the bill of lading number of unloading
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 7 of 22

container k is the same as that of on-site container i, the parameter is 1; when they are
different, the parameter is 0.
ioci,k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the owner of unloading container k is the same as
the owner of on-site container i. When the owner of unloading container k is the same as the
owner of on-site container i, the parameter is 1; when they are different, the parameter is 0.
ti : Represents the number of tiers or stack levels of on-site container i.
mti : Represents the maximum allowable stack height for on-site container i’s stack or
stack tier.
ibti,j,k,l : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the yard slot selected by on-site container i,
attracted in mode j, for unloading container k, is storing a container from bill of lading
l. When the yard slot selected by on-site container i, attracted in mode j, for unloading
container k is storing a container from bill of lading l, the parameter is 1; when it is not, the
parameter is 0.
iboi,j,k,n : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the yard slot selected by on-site container i,
attracted in mode j, for unloading container k, is storing a container from owner n. When
the yard slot selected by on-site container i, attracted in mode j, for unloading container k
is storing a container from owner n, the parameter is 1; when it is not, the parameter is 0.
inb j : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the j attraction mode is a between-bay attraction
mode (front-bay attraction mode or rear-bay attraction mode). When the j attraction mode
is a between-bay attraction mode (front-bay attraction mode or rear-bay attraction mode),
the parameter is 1; when it is not, the parameter is 0.
iyci,j,k,n : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the yard area selected by on-site container i,
attracted in mode j, for unloading container k, has yard crane (gantry crane) n. When there
is a yard crane (gantry crane) n, the parameter is 0; when there is no yard crane (gantry
crane), the parameter is 1.
wyci,j,k,n : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the yard area selected by on-site container i,
attracted in mode j, for unloading container k, has yard crane n in operation. When there is
a yard crane in operation at the yard area, the parameter is 1; when there is no yard crane
in operation at the yard area, the parameter is 0.
ini,j,k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the yard slot selected by on-site container i,
attracted in mode j, for unloading container k is empty. When the yard slot is empty, the
parameter is 1; when it is not empty, the parameter is 0.
il i,j,k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the yard slot selected by on-site container i,
attracted in mode j, for unloading container k is locked. When the yard slot is locked, the
parameter is 0; when it is not locked, the parameter is 1. When a yard slot in a bay needs to
reserve a flip slot, the slot is locked.
ilbi,j,k : 0–1 matrix indicating whether the bay where the yard slot selected by on-site
container i, attracted in mode j, for unloading container k is located is locked. When the
bay is locked, the parameter is 0; when it is not locked, the parameter is 1.
di,j,k : Represents the distance from the yard slot selected by on-site container i, attracted
in mode j, for unloading container k to the outer roadway.
(3) Decision variables
Xi,j,k : 0–1 matrix, where Xi,j,k = 1 indicates that on-site container i attracts container
k in mode j, and Xi,j,k = 0 indicates that on-site container i does not attract container k in
mode j.

3.4. Model Construction

The total objective function is to maximize the attractiveness of the container yard
slots for unloading containers. Therefore, K = 1. γ represents the coefficients or weights
assigned to different sub-objectives when selecting the unloading positions. These weights
are used to balance the relative importance of each sub-objective in the optimization
problem. The model for selecting the unloading container’s entry position in the yard is as
follows:
F = max γ1 F100 + γ2 F4 + γ3 F5 + γ4 F6 − γ5 F7


(1)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 8 of 22

The objective function (1) maximizes the attractiveness of yard slots in the unload-
ing position selection, with different importance levels for each sub-objective. Here,
γ1 , γ2 , γ3 , γ4 , γ5 represent weights, and γ1 + γ2 + γ3 + γ4 + γ5 = 1. These weights enable
researchers to explicitly specify the relative priorities and importance of each sub-objective
during the optimization process, thereby influencing the final optimization outcome.

∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K ilci,k ·i f bi,j,k ·ie f k Xi,j,k

 
∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K IFBi,j,k + Xi,j,k
F1 = max   × 100% (2)
 
∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K ioci,k ·i f bi,j,k ·(1−ie f k ) Xi,j,k
+ ∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K i f bi,j,k + Xi,j,k

Sub-objective function (2) indicates that when the unloading container is a heavy
container, the better the selection results when there are more containers in the same
container zone bay that belong to the same bill of lading as the unloading container; when
the unloading container is an empty container, the better the selection results when there
are more containers in the same container zone bay that belong to the same owner as the
unloading container.

∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K ∑l ∈ L ibti,j,k,l ·ie f k · X i,j,k

 
F2 = min (3)
+∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K ∑n∈ N iboi,j,k,n ·(1 − ie f k )· X i,j,k

Sub-objective function (3) represents that when the unloading container is heavy, the
higher the purity within the same container zone bay (fewer bills of lading), the better the
selection results. Similarly, when the unloading container is empty, the higher the purity
within the same container zone bay (fewer owners), the better the selection results. This
aims to achieve the separation of large-ticket containers and miscellaneous-ticket containers.
 
1
F1 0 = max α1 F1 + α2 (4)
F2
Sub-objective function (4) aims to maximize the purity of container zone bays. It
considers F1 ∈ [0, 1] and F2 ∈ [1, +∞], where α1 and α2 represent weights, and α1 + α2 = 1.

F1 00 = max β 1 F1 0 + β 2 F3


(5)
Sub-objective function (5) aims to maximize the purity of stack tiers. When the
unloading container is heavy, the more containers in the same stack tier that belong to the
same bill of lading, the better the selection results. Similarly, when the unloading container
is empty, the more containers in the same stack tier that belong to the same owner, the
better the selection results, aiming to reduce the need for flipping containers.

F1 00 = max β 1 F1 0 + β 2 F3


(6)

Sub-objective function (6) aims to maximize overall purity, which includes both con-
tainer zone bay purity and stack tier purity. β 1 and β 2 represent weights, and β 1 + β 2 = 1.
 
F4 = max ∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K 2 − iyci,j,k − wyci,j,k Xi,j,k (7)

Sub-objective function (7) aims to maximize the attractiveness of yard slots based on
the availability of yard equipment (gantry cranes) and ongoing yard operations.

F5 = max ∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K inb j ·iabi,j,k · Xi,j,k (8)

Sub-objective function (8) aims to maximize the attractiveness of yard slots by promot-
ing cross-distribution of different-sized containers when selecting new slots.

F6 = max ∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K di,j,k · Xi,j,k (9)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 9 of 22

Sub-objective function (9) considers safety by minimizing the potential for yard crane
operations that involve crossing containers, aiming to select slots farther from the outer
roadway.
F7 = min∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K ak · Xi,j,k (10)

Sub-objective function (10) minimizes horizontal transport distances, prioritizing slots

closer to the berth when multiple yard slots are available for selection.

∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J Xi,j,k = 1 (11)

Constraint (11) ensures that each unloading container will always be placed in the
yard by attracting it to a specific slot by a certain on-site container in a specific manner.

∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K Xi,j,k = 1 (12)

Constraint (12) indicates that an unloading container will always be attracted to a yard
slot by a certain on-site container in a specific manner.

∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K ini,j,k ·il i,j,k ·Xi,j,k = 1 (13)

Constraint (13) is the slot availability constraint. When unloading containers need
to be stacked in the yard, it is necessary to check if the yard slot is available. This mainly
involves checking whether the yard slot is empty, meaning there are no other containers
already stacked in that slot, and whether the slot is locked by other containers or tasks.
Locking means that other tasks are scheduled to operate in that slot, making it unavailable
for further operations. If the slot is empty but locked by other containers, it cannot be used
for stacking.  
∑i ∈ I ∑ j∈ J ti + iy j Xi,j,k ≤ mti (14)

Constraint (14) is the stack tier height constraint, indicating that the height of a stack
tier should not exceed the specified stack tier height. Different terminals may have different
stack tier height requirements, typically around four tiers. When a row in the yard has
reached the maximum allowable stack tier height, no more containers can be stacked above
it.
∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K isi,k ·Xi,j,k = 1 (15)

Constraint (15) is the container size constraint, stating that containers in the same bay
should be the same size. Different-sized containers should not be stacked in the same bay.

∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K i f bi,j,k ·ilbi,j,k ·inb j ·Xi,j,k = 1 (16)

Constraint (16) is the new bay availability constraint. When a new bay is needed, the
selected bay must be available. A bay must satisfy the condition that it does not have other
containers stacked in it, and it has not been locked by other tasks.

∑i∈ I ∑ j∈ J ∑k∈K isl k ·ibl i,j,k ·Xi,j,k = 1 (17)

Constraint (17) specifies that 45 ft containers can only be placed in bays that allow the
stacking of 45 ft containers. Typically, 45 ft containers are stacked at the two ends of the
container yard in two large bays.

4. Algorithm Design
The problem studied in this paper, which is the intelligent unloading position selection
for unloading containers, is a decision problem with multiple choices and requires satisfying
multiple objectives and constraints. As the number of unloading containers increases,
solving the problem becomes exponentially more challenging. Using commercial softwares
 the container yard in two large bays.

4. Algorithm Design
The problem studied in this paper, which is the intelligent unloading position selec-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 tion for unloading containers, is a decision problem with multiple choices and requires 10 of 22
satisfying multiple objectives and constraints. As the number of unloading containers in-
creases, solving the problem becomes exponentially more challenging. Using commercial
softwares like12.10
like CPLEX CPLEX
may12.10 may notaprovide
not provide solutiona within
solution within a reasonable
a reasonable time frametime
for frame for
real-world
real-world port requirements. Therefore, this paper proposes the use of the Monte
port requirements. Therefore, this paper proposes the use of the Monte Carlo tree search Carlo
tree search
(MCTS) (MCTS) to
algorithm algorithm
obtain antoapproximate
obtain an approximate optimal
optimal solution solution
to the to the
problem. Theproblem.
algorithm
The algorithm process is illustrated
process is illustrated in Figure 2. in Figure 2.

Initialize the
Begin
selection state

Generate a Monte Carlo

selection decision tree

Tree node selection

False

Leaf node expansion

Leaf nodes are pruned

True
Whether to
complete the position True End
False selection task
Whether pruning or not

False

Monte Carlo simulation

Update the initial status of the

selection
Node updating and
backpropation

Whether pruning or not True Container i selection decisions

Figure
Figure2.2.Flow
Flowchart
chartofofMonte
MonteCarlo
Carlotree
treesearch
searchalgorithm
algorithmfor
forunloading
unloadingpositioning.
positioning.

TheMonte
The MonteCarlo
Carlotree
treesearch
search(MCTS)
(MCTS)algorithm
algorithmdesigned
designedininthisthispaper
paperfor forunloading
unloading
positionselection
position selectionduring
duringunloading
unloadingoperations
operationsinvolves
involvesfive
fivemain
mainsteps
stepsinineach
each iteration:
iteration:
SelectionPolicy,
Selection Policy,Expansion
ExpansionPolicy,
Policy,Simulation
SimulationPolicy,
Policy,Backpropagation
BackpropagationPolicy, Policy,andandthethe
newly added Pruning Policy. The specific framework of the MCTS algorithm
newly added Pruning Policy. The specific framework of the MCTS algorithm for unload- for unloading
position
ing selection
position is depicted
selection in Figure
is depicted 3. The
in Figure pruning
3. The step is
pruning introduced
step to quickly
is introduced reduce
to quickly
the solution space and improve the efficiency of the algorithm. By embedding
reduce the solution space and improve the efficiency of the algorithm. By embedding the the objective
functions and constraints of the unloading position selection model into the Monte Carlo
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW functions and constraints of the unloading position selection model into
objective the
11 of 23
tree search
Monte Carlo algorithm,
tree search the goal is to
algorithm, theultimately solve the problem
goal is to ultimately solve theofproblem
selecting of unloading
selecting
positions positions
unloading for unloading containers.
for unloading containers.
Selection Expansion Pruning Simulation Backpropagation

?
A
Selection Policy Expansion Policy Pruning Policy Simulation Policy Backpropagation Policy

Figure
Figure3.3.Monte
MonteCarlo
Carlotree
treesearch
searchalgorithm
algorithmframework
frameworkfor
forunloading
unloadingentry
entryselection.
selection.

4.1.Selection
4.1. SelectionPolicy
Policy
Theselection
The selection of
of tree
tree nodes
nodes occurs
occurs after
afterupdating
updatingnode
nodeinformation,
information,and
andit it
is is
based on
based
the magnitude of node evaluation values. It proceeds from the root node downward
on the magnitude of node evaluation values. It proceeds from the root node downward until
until it reaches a leaf node. Different selection policies utilize various methods for calcu-
lating tree node evaluation values. Commonly used selection evaluation methods include
the UCT algorithm, AMAF algorithm, and RAVE algorithm.
(1) UCT algorithm
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 11 of 22

it reaches a leaf node. Different selection policies utilize various methods for calculating
tree node evaluation values. Commonly used selection evaluation methods include the
UCT algorithm, AMAF algorithm, and RAVE algorithm.
(1) UCT algorithm
s
2ln( N )
UCT i = Xi + 2C (18)
Ni
N represents the number of times the current node has been visited, Ni represents the
number of times the child nodes have been visited, and X i represents the estimated utility
value of the child nodes after multiple visits. C is a positive constant used to balance the
trade-off between exploration and exploitation in the algorithm’s search process.
(2) AMAF algorithm
s
∑ Qi + Qi0


2ln( N + N 0 )
AMAFi = 0 + 2C (19)
Ni + Ni Ni + Ni0
Ni represents the actual number of times node i has been visited, Qi represents the
actual return value of node i, Ni0 and Qi0 represent the number of times and return value
obtained for node i using the AMAF strategy, N represents the number of times the parent
node i has been visited, and N 0 represents the increase in the number of visits.
(3) RAVE algorithm

REVEr = αAMAFr + (1 − α)UCTi (20)

The RAVE algorithm combines the characteristics of the UCT and AMAF algorithms,
improving both convergence speed and solution quality via weighted methods. The process
of determining the value of α is dynamic and optimized using the RAVE strategy. The
algorithm uses AMAF to determine the generation direction of the search tree and then
fine-tunes the precise search direction using UCT. In the RAVE algorithm, the value of α
decreases as the number of visits increases.
M − m( N )
 
α = max 0, (21)
M

This article uses the REVE algorithm as the selection strategy. Starting from the root
node, it always selects the child node with the highest REVE value until it reaches a leaf
node. This policy is used in the unloading space selection algorithm until the unloading
container is placed in the optimal space.

4.2. Expansion Policy

The expansion policy is applied during the expansion phase of the tree search. Node
expansion refers to the situation where the current state is at a leaf node, but the space
selection task is not yet complete, so the current node is expanded in a meaningful way.
During expansion, all possible space selections for the next unloading container space must
be identified. At this stage, the expanded space selections must satisfy all the constraints of
the unloading space selection model. An example is shown in Figure 4, where several bay
positions are considered.
 During expansion, all possible space selections for the next unloading container space
During
must beexpansion,
identified. all possible
At this stage,space selectionsspace
the expanded for the next unloading
selections container
must satisfy all thespace
con-
must be identified. At this stage, the expanded space selections must satisfy
straints of the unloading space selection model. An example is shown in Figure 4, all thewhere
con-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 straints of the
several bay unloading
positions are space selection model. An example is shown in Figure 4, 12
considered. where
of 22
several bay positions are considered.
Bill of Lading A
Bill of Lading B
Bill of Lading A
Bill of Lading B

Bill of Lading C Bill of Lading D

Bill of Lading C Bill of Lading D

20ft 40ft 40ft 20ft

20ft 40ft 40ft 20ft

01 04 08 11
01 04 08 11

Figure 4.Expansion
Expansion policycase
case forcontainer
container spaceselection.
selection.
Figure 4. Expansion policy
Figure 4. policy case for
for containerspace
space selection.
Assuming the
Assuming the current
current unloading
unloading container
container isis aa 20
20 ftft container
container from
from Bill
Bill of
of Lading
Lading B,B,
Assuming
theavailable
availablespacethe current
spaceselections unloading
selectionsare
arebays container
bays01,01,04,
04,08, is
08,and a
and1120 ft
11in container from
inaaparticular Bill
particularblock of
blockarea. Lading
area.Due
DuetoB,
to
the
the
sizeavailable space
constraints selections
during are bays
stacking, the 01, 04, 08,cannot
container and 11 inplaceda particular block area.
0. Due to
size constraints during stacking, the container cannot be be placed in baysin bays 04 and
04 and There-
0. Therefore,
size
fore,constraints
during during stacking,
expansion, only 01
baysthe
011container
and arecannot be placedThe in bays 04 and 0. There-
during expansion, only bays and are 1considered.
considered.
The expanded expanded
searchsearch tree
tree at at
this
fore, during
this stage expansion,
is shown only
in Figure bays 01 and 1 are considered. The expanded search tree at
stage is shown in Figure 5. 5.
this stage is shown in Figure 5.
R
R

A1 A2
A1 A2

B01 B01 B01

... B11 B11 B11
...
‐1
B01
‐1
‐2
B01
‐2
‐3
B01
‐3
... ‐1
B11
‐1
‐2
B11
‐2
‐3
B11
‐3
...

01 Bay 11 Bay
01 Bay 11 Bay
Figure5.5.Expansion
Figure Expansionpolicy.
policy.
Figure 5. Expansion policy.
4.3. Pruning Policy
4.3. Pruning Policy
4.3. Pruning
PruningPolicy
is a crucial step in the context of the unloading entry selection problem,
Pruning is a crucial step in the context of the unloading entry selection problem, pri-
primarilyPruningconsidering whether
is a crucial step in it satisfies the unloading container entry selection model.
marily considering whether it the context
satisfies theofunloading
the unloading entry entry
container selection problem,
selection pri-
model.
Continuing
marily with the example
considering whether ofit the unloading
satisfies the container from
unloading the previous
container entry section, suppose
selection model.
Continuing with the example of the unloading container from the previous section, sup-
the current unloading
Continuing containerofbelongs
with unloading
the example to Bill of Lading B.from
the unloading To maximize Equation (6),sup-
the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEERpose
REVIEW the current container belongs tocontainer
Bill of Ladingthe previous
B. To maximizesection,
Equation
13 of 23
space
pose in Bay
thespace 01
currentis eliminated
unloading from the
container fromexpanded
belongs results. The pruned search tree after this
(6), the in Bay 01 is eliminated theto Bill of Lading
expanded B. The
results. To maximize Equation
pruned search tree
step
(6), is shown
the space in
in Figure
Bay 016.is eliminated from the expanded results. The pruned search tree
after this step is shown in Figure 6.
after this step is shown in Figure 6.
R

A1 A2

B01
‐1
B01
‐2
B01
‐3
... B11
‐1
B11
‐2
B11
‐3
...

01 Bay 11 Bay

Pruning

Figure6.6. Pruning
Figure Pruningpolicy.
policy.

4.4. Simulation Policy

Monte Carlo simulation is based on the expanded child nodes, and it randomly sim-
ulates the entire selection process until the selection task is completed. The simulation
 ‐1 ‐2 ‐3 ‐1 ‐2 ‐3

01 Bay 11 Bay

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 Pruning 13 of 22

Figure 6. Pruning policy.

4.4.Simulation
4.4. SimulationPolicy
Policy
MonteCarlo
Monte Carlosimulation
simulationis is based
based on on thethe expanded
expanded child
child nodes,
nodes, and itand it randomly
randomly sim-
simulates
ulates the the entire
entire selection
selection process
process until
until thethe selection
selection taskisiscompleted.
task completed.The
Thesimulation
simulation
process for
process for unloading
unloading entry
entry selection
selection is
is illustrated
illustrated in
in Figure
Figure 7.7.

Start State

Simulation Policy

Final State

Figure
Figure7.7.Simulation
Simulationprocess
processof
ofunloading
unloadingpositioning.
positioning.

The
Thesimulation
simulationpolicy
policyadopted
adoptedininthis article
this is based
article on on
is based the the
objective function
objective in the
function in
the model for selecting the destination of unloading containers discharged
model for selecting the destination of unloading containers discharged from ships. The from ships.
greater the 𝑅thevalue,
The greater Ri value, the better
the better the attraction
the attraction of container 𝑖 for the
of container i forcurrently
the currently waiting
waiting con-
container,
tainer, and and the higher
the higher the probability
the probability of container 𝑖 being
of container i being selected.
selected. In thisInarticle,
this article,
a rou-a
roulette
lette wheelwheel selection
selection methodmethod is used
is used to choose
to choose each each expanded
expanded leaf node
leaf node in thein the search
search tree,
tree, calculate
calculate the probability
the probability of eachof each expanded
expanded leaf node leaf node
being being selected,
selected, and compareand compare
to select
to select
the the container
container with the maximum 𝑃 value. PThe
with the maximum i value. The probability
probability of a container
of a container being
being selected
selected is calculated
is calculated as follows: as follows:
Ri
pi = 𝑅 (22)
𝑝 ∑i ∈ I Ri (22)
∑ 𝑅
4.5. Backtracking Policy
Policy policies commonly include UCT policy, AMAF policy, and REVE
Backpropagation
4.5. Backtracking
policy. REVE combines UCT and AMAF but follows the same backpropagation approach
Backpropagation policies commonly include UCT policy, AMAF policy, and REVE
as AMAF, as shown in Figure 8. If node A3 also meets the conditions, the information of
policy.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWREVE combines UCT and AMAF but follows the same backpropagation approach 14 of 23
nodes A2, R, and A3 will be updated at this point. This paper adopts the AMAF and REVE
as AMAF, as shown in Figure 8. If node A3 also meets the conditions, the information of
policy backtracking method to facilitate the search for a more satisfactory solution.
nodes A2, R, and A3 will be updated at this point. This paper adopts the AMAF and REVE
policy backtracking method to facilitate the search for a more satisfactory solution.
R

A1 A2 A3

B11
‐1
B11
‐2
B11
‐3
...

Figure8.8.AMAF
Figure AMAFand
andREVE
REVE backtracking
backtrackingpolicies.
policies.

4.6. Nested Tree Policy

After completing an unloading approach location task, it is necessary to recreate the
search tree and give an initial state. However, if the current search tree and node infor-
mation can be retained after completing an unloading approach location task, this greatly
reduces the computational load of the algorithm and improves the solution speed of the
algorithm, as shown in Figure 9. This method of preserving the search tree is called Nested
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 14 of 22
Figure 8. AMAF and REVE backtracking policies.

4.6.Nested
4.6. NestedTree
TreePolicy
Policy
Aftercompleting
After completing an an unloading
unloading approach
approachlocation
locationtask,
task,it itis is
necessary
necessaryto to
recreate the
recreate
search tree and give an initial state. However, if the current search tree
the search tree and give an initial state. However, if the current search tree and node and node infor-
mation can be
information canretained after after
be retained completing an unloading
completing approach
an unloading approachlocation task, this
location greatly
task, this
reducesreduces
greatly the computational load ofload
the computational the of
algorithm and improves
the algorithm and improves the solution speedspeed
the solution of the
algorithm,
of as shown
the algorithm, in Figure
as shown 9. This9.method
in Figure of preserving
This method the search
of preserving tree is called
the search tree is Nested
called
Monte Monte
Nested Carlo Search (NMCS).
Carlo Search (NMCS).

S0
decision

S1 S1

Decision Tree S0

Figure9.9.Nested
Figure Nestedtree
treepolicy.
policy.

5.5.Experiments
Experiments
5.1. Experimental Platform
5.1. Experimental Platform
The algorithm program for solving the unloading site selection problem in this paper
The algorithm program for solving the unloading site selection problem in this paper
was developed using the Python programming language. The experimental environment
was developed using the Python programming language. The experimental environment
includes a Windows 10 64-bit operating system, an Intel Core i7-8550U processor, 8 GB of
includes a Windows 10 64-bit operating system, an Intel Core i7-8550U processor, 8 GB of
RAM, and a quad-core 2.00 GHz CPU.
RAM, and a quad-core 2.00 GHz CPU.
5.2. Experimental Data
5.2. Experimental Data
Based on the Monte Carlo tree search algorithm designed in Chapter 4 for the unload-
Based
ing site on the
selection Monte(REVE-MCTS
problem Carlo tree search algorithm
algorithm), designed
it was applied in Chapter
to select 4 for thesites
unloading un-
loading site selection problem (REVE-MCTS algorithm), it was applied to select
for 182 containers, with a total of 1920 available yard slots. Due to the large size of the unloading
sites forspace,
solution 182 containers, withwas
the algorithm a total
set toofrun
1920
foravailable yard slots.
10,000 iterations. Due toCarlo
In Monte the large size of
tree search
the solution space, the algorithm was set to run for 10,000
algorithms, more iterations generally lead to better solutions. iterations. In Monte Carlo tree
search algorithms, more iterations generally lead to better solutions.
Since the REVE policy was used as the selection policy in the Monte Carlo tree search
Sincedesigned
the REVEin policy
√
algorithm this was used
paper, theasvalue
the selection
of C waspolicy
set toin 1/
the Monte Carlo algorithm
2 to ensure tree search
algorithm designed
effectiveness. in this
The impact paper,
factors thedetermined
were value of Cbased
was set on to 1/√2 ratings,
expert to ensure algorithm
as shown in
Table 1.

Table 1. Numerical values of impact factors.

Parameter α1 α2 β1 β2 γ1 γ2 γ3 γ4 γ5
Value 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

This paper uses actual data from a portion of the containers at a container terminal in
Ningbo Port as case study data. The data include information on the current storage status
in the container yard for containers, as shown in Figure 10. There are four container yards
labeled as Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4. Each yard has 20 bays, each bay has 6 rows (strings), and
each row can stack up to 4 layers. Therefore, there are a total of 1920 slots available for 20 ft
containers. However, considering the need to reserve slots for container flips, the actual
number of slots available for selection by the containers may be less than 1920.
 This paper uses actual data from a portion of the containers at a container terminal
in Ningbo Port as case study data. The data include information on the current storage
status in the container yard for containers, as shown in Figure 10. There are four container
yards labeled as Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4. Each yard has 20 bays, each bay has 6 rows (strings),
and each row can stack up to 4 layers. Therefore, there are a total of 1920 slots available
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 15 of 22
for 20 ft containers. However, considering the need to reserve slots for container flips, the
actual number of slots available for selection by the containers may be less than 1920.
01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Q1 Q2

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Q3 Q4

Stack Four Layers Stack Three Layers Stack Two Layers Stack One Layers 20ft Container 40ft Container

Figure10.
Figure Storagestatus
10.Storage statusininthe
theblock.
block.

Table22describes
Table describesthe
theinformation
informationofofthe
theimported
importedcontainers
containersofofaacontainer
containership
shiptotobe
be
unloaded.
unloaded.
Table 2. Information on containers to be unloaded.
Table 2. Information on containers to be unloaded.
Container
Container Containers Containers
Num‐ Containers Containers Containers
Containers BillBill
of of Unloading
Unloading
Number Size Type Status Lading Sequence
ber Size Type Status Lading Sequence
CARU2728930
CARU2728930 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded A A 1 1
GLDU3749610 20 GP loaded A 2
GLDU3749610
MEDU1453684 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded A A 2 3
MEDU1453684
GATU0579972 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded A A 3 4
FBLU2025567
GATU0579972 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded A D 4 5
INKU6569676
FBLU2025567 2040 GPGP loaded
loaded D D 5 6
MEDU1770544 20 GP loaded D 7
INKU6569676
MEDU1782360
4020 GPGP loaded
loaded
D F 6 8
MEDU1770544
CLHU3763693 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded D F 7 9
MEDU1782360
GATU1126570 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded F E 8 10
GLDU5246641
CLHU3763693 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded F E 9 11
MEDU1705507 20 GP loaded E 12
GATU1126570 20 GP loaded E 10
CATU2912820 20 GP loaded C 13
GLDU5246641
CRXU1163607 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded E C 11 14
MEDU1705507
GATU0714619 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded E C 12 15
GLDU3647877
CATU2912820 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded C C 13 16
IPXU3977733
CRXU1163607 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded C C 14 17
MEDU1527895 20 GP loaded C 18
GATU0714619
MEDU1652304 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded C C 15 19
GLDU3647877
CARU2151745 2020 GPGP loaded
loaded C C 16 20
IPXU3977733 20 GP loaded C 17
MEDU1527895 20
5.3. Calculation of Experimental ResultsGP loaded C 18
The Monte Carlo tree search algorithm for solving the unloading container space
selection problem was utilized to obtain space selection results for some of the unloading
containers. The results for a portion of the unloading containers are shown in Table 3.
The selection results of 182 unloading containers are shown in Figure 11. In Figure 11,
each letter or color represents a bill of lading number for unloaded heavy containers, and
each letter or color represents a container owner for unloaded empty containers, providing
a more intuitive display of the location selection results.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 16 of 22

Table 3. Selection results of containers to be unloaded.

Container Container Container Container Bill of Unloading Yard

Number Size Type Status Lading Sequence Slots
CARU2728930 20 GP loaded A 1 Q10161
GLDU3749610 20 GP loaded A 2 Q10162
MEDU1453684 20 GP loaded A 3 Q10163
GATU0579972 20 GP loaded A 4 Q10164
FBLU2025567 20 GP loaded D 5 Q23311
INKU6569676 40 GP loaded D 6 Q23651
MEDU1770544 20 GP loaded D 7 Q23312
MEDU1782360 20 GP loaded F 8 Q23313
CLHU3763693 20 GP loaded F 9 Q23314
GATU1126570 20 GP loaded E 10 Q10711
GLDU5246641 20 GP loaded E 11 Q10712
MEDU1705507 20 GP loaded E 12 Q10713
CATU2912820 20 GP loaded C 13 Q23321
CRXU1163607 20 GP loaded C 14 Q23322
GATU0714619 20 GP loaded C 15 Q23323
GLDU3647877 20 GP loaded C 16 Q23324
IPXU3977733 20 GP loaded C 17 Q23331
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
MEDU1527895 20 GP loaded C 18 Q23332
MEDU1652304 20 GP loaded C 19 Q23333
CARU2151745 20 GP loaded C 20 Q23334

A H B B H H
A H E B B H H
Q101 Q104 Q107
A B H E B B H B H
A B H E B B H B H
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Z A K Q S U V Z Z
Z A K L P Q S U T V Z Z
Q110 Q113 Q119
Z A K L P Q S U T V Y Z Z
Z A A K L P Q S U T V Y Z Z
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Z H H D C C C C C
Z H H Q233 D C C C C C
Q125 Q236
Z H H H D C C C C C
Z H H H D C D C C C C C
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

E I M M R R R R
Q130 Q227 G E I C M M Q221 D R R R R
G E I C M M D R R R R R
M X A G E I C M M D R R R R R
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

X X X X
Q215 X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X A
1 2 3 4 5 6

11.Position
Figure 11.
Figure Positionselection results
selection of small-scale
results studies. studies.
of small-scale
5.3.1. Comparative Analysis of Manual Allocation Solution Results
5.3.1.The
Comparative Analysis
manual yard plan of to
was used Manual Allocation
select the Solution
unloading position, andResults
the final selection
results
Theof some containers
manual yard to be unloaded
plan was usedareto
shown in the
select Table 4.
unloading
position, and the fina
tion results of some containers to be unloaded are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Manual selection results.

Container Container Container Container Bill of Unloading Y

 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 17 of 22

Table 4. Manual selection results.

Container Container Container Container Bill of Unloading Yard

Number Size Type Status Lading Sequence Slots
CARU2728930 20 GP loaded A 1 Q10161
GLDU3749610 20 GP loaded A 2 Q10162
MEDU1453684 20 GP loaded A 3 Q10163
GATU0579972 20 GP loaded A 4 Q10164
FBLU2025567 20 GP loaded D 5 Q23311
INKU6569676 40 GP loaded D 6 Q23651
MEDU1770544 20 GP loaded D 7 Q23312
MEDU1782360 20 GP loaded F 8 Q23313
CLHU3763693 20 GP loaded F 9 Q23314
GATU1126570 20 GP loaded E 10 Q10711
GLDU5246641 20 GP loaded E 11 Q10712
MEDU1705507 20 GP loaded E 12 Q10713
CATU2912820 20 GP loaded C 13 Q23314
CRXU1163607 20 GP loaded C 14 Q23321
GATU0714619
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 GP loaded C 15 Q23322 18 of 23
GLDU3647877 20 GP loaded C 16 Q23323
IPXU3977733 20 GP loaded C 17 Q23324
MEDU1527895 20 GP loaded C 18 Q23331
MEDU1652304 20 GP loaded C 19 Q23332
Comparing
CARU2151745 the20results of manual
GP selection
and
loaded intelligent
C selection, Q23333
20 it is evident that
intelligent selection concentrates more on large-ticket containers while distributing small-
ticketComparing
containers.theThis
results of manual
better selection
adheres to theand intelligent selection,
“centralized it is evident
and dispersed” that
selection rule.
intelligent selection concentrates more on large-ticket containers while distributing
Additionally, intelligent selection improves unloading selection efficiency and enhances small-
ticket containers. This better adheres to the “centralized and dispersed” selection rule.
container yard space utilization.
Additionally, intelligent selection improves unloading selection efficiency and enhances
container yard space utilization.
5.3.2. Algorithm Convergence Analysis
5.3.2.To
Algorithm Convergence
further validate Analysis
the effectiveness of the algorithm, let us take one of the containers,
To further validate
CARU2728930, the effectiveness
as an example. of the
The final algorithm,
selected let is
space usQ10161.
take one of theconvergence
The containers, curve
of the algorithm is shown in Figure 12. Due to the large solution space, curve
CARU2728930, as an example. The final selected space is Q10161. The convergence of
the simulation
the algorithm is shown in Figure 12. Due to the large solution space, the simulation
process is very complex, leading to slow convergence. The objective function tends to flat-process
is very complex, leading to slow convergence. The objective function tends to flatten out
ten out around 8500 iterations. It is evident that the longer the Monte Carlo tree search
around 8500 iterations. It is evident that the longer the Monte Carlo tree search algorithm
algorithm runs,
runs, the better the
the better quality.
solution the solution quality.

Figure 12.Convergence
Figure 12. Convergencecurve.
curve.
Via the analysis of the selection results, it was found that all the containers were finally
Via the analysis of the selection results, it was found that all the containers were fi-
stacked in Q1 and Q2 areas. To verify the applicability of the container unloading space
nally stacked
selection in Q1
algorithm, weand
nowQ2 areas.
reduce theTo verifyofthe
number applicability
available of the container
import container unloading
storage areas
space selection algorithm, we now reduce the number of available import
from four to two, removing Q3 and Q4 areas. All other conditions remain the same. We container stor-
age areastofrom
continue four
use the to two,CARU2728930
container removing Q3asand Q4 areas.
an example, Allthe
with other
finalconditions remain the
selected space
being Q10161.
same. The convergence
We continue to use thecurve of the algorithm
container in this scenario
CARU2728930 is shown inwith
as an example, Figure 13.final se-
the
lected space being Q10161. The convergence curve of the algorithm in this scenario is
shown in Figure 13. It is observed that the objective function tends to flatten out around
4000 iterations. This demonstrates that the size of the solution space has a significant im-
pact on the algorithm’s performance, and a smaller solution space tends to yield satisfac-
 nally stacked in Q1 and Q2 areas. To verify the applicability of the container unloading
space selection algorithm, we now reduce the number of available import container stor
age areas from four to two, removing Q3 and Q4 areas. All other conditions remain the
same. We continue to use the container CARU2728930 as an example, with the final se
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 18 of 22
lected space being Q10161. The convergence curve of the algorithm in this scenario is
shown in Figure 13. It is observed that the objective function tends to flatten out around
4000 iterations. This demonstrates that the size of the solution space has a significant im
It is observed that the objective function tends to flatten out around 4000 iterations. This
pact on the algorithm’s performance, and a smaller solution space tends to yield satisfac
demonstrates that the size of the solution space has a significant impact on the algorithm’s
tory solutions.
performance, and a smaller solution space tends to yield satisfactory solutions.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23

Figure 13.Improved
Figure13. Improvedconvergence curve.
convergence curve.
To further understand the impact of the number of iterations on the container unload-
To further
ing space selectionunderstandthe thenumber
impactofofiterations
the number of 5000.
iterations on conditions
the container un
conditions remainalgorithm,
the same. Using is set to
the container CARU2728930 Allasother
an example, the final
loading
remain space
the same. selection
Using the algorithm,
container the number
CARU2728930 as of
an iterations
example, the is set
final to 5000.
selected All other
space
selected space is Q10134, stacked on top of the existing containers in the yard. The con-
is Q10134, stacked on top of the existing containers in the yard. The convergence curve of
vergence curve of the algorithm in this scenario is shown in Figure 14. It can be observed
the algorithm in this scenario is shown in Figure 14. It can be observed that the objective
that the objective function did not converge. This highlights the importance of the number
function did not converge. This highlights the importance of the number of iterations in
of
theiterations
algorithm’sinsolution
the algorithm’s
process. solution process.

Figure 14.Convergence
Figure 14. Convergenceafter modifying
after the number
modifying of iterations.
the number of iterations.
In this paper, the REVE-MCTS algorithm is adopted, and in order to verify the superi-
ority In
of this paper, thethe
the algorithm, REVE-MCTS algorithmwith
algorithm is compared is adopted, and in and
the UCT-MCTS order to verify the supe-
AMAF-MCTS
riority of the
algorithms. algorithm,
At the same time, the algorithmtheisinfluence
considering compared with
of the the UCT-MCTS
number and
of iterations on the AMAF-
MCTS algorithms.
algorithm, the resultsAtare
the sameintime,
shown Tableconsidering
5. the influence of the number of iterations
on the algorithm,
According the results
to Table are shown inconvergence
5, the corresponding Table 5. curves are shown in Figure 15.
One common characteristic of all three algorithms is that the convergence improves as the
number
Table of iterations increases.
5. Comparison However,
of convergence of thewith more
three iterations,
algorithms the REVE-MCTS
under algorithm
different iterations.
clearly outperforms the UCT-MCTS algorithm and the AMAF-MCTS algorithm. The
Algorithm
REVE-MCTS algorithm is better at searching for more satisfactory solutions.
Number UCT‐MCTS AMAF‐MCTS RAVE‐MCTS
of Iterations
500 0.1246 0.1835 0.1748
1000 0.1944 0.2964 0.2176
1500 0.2433 0.3236 0.2603
2000 0.2926 0.3578 0.3238
2500 0.3975 0.3970 0.4068
3000 0.4312 0.4298 0.4174
 Figure 14. Convergence after modifying the number of iterations.

In this paper, the REVE-MCTS algorithm is adopted, and in order to verify the supe-
riority of the algorithm, the algorithm is compared with the UCT-MCTS and AMAF-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 19 of 22
MCTS algorithms. At the same time, considering the influence of the number of iterations
on the algorithm, the results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Comparison of convergence of the three algorithms

Table 5. algorithms under
under different
different iterations.
iterations.

Algorithm
Number UCT‐MCTS AMAF‐MCTS RAVE‐MCTS
of Iterations
500 0.1246 0.1835 0.1748
1000 0.1944 0.2964 0.2176
1500 0.2433 0.3236 0.2603
2000 0.2926 0.3578 0.3238
2500 0.3975 0.3970 0.4068
3000 0.4312 0.4298 0.4174
3500 0.4589 0.4583 0.4122
4000 0.4762 0.4835 0.4872
4500 0.4919 0.5012 0.5027
5000 0.5220 0.5122 0.5402
5500 0.5387 0.5346 0.6314
6000 0.5421 0.5781 0.6749
6500 0.5619 0.5927 0.7015
7000 0.5884 0.6122 0.7329
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7500 0.5917 0.6231 0.740220 of 23
8000 0.5968 0.6388 0.7516
8500 0.5981 0.6419 0.7588
number of 9000 0.5998 with more iterations,
iterations increases. However, 0.6431 the REVE-MCTS 0.7601
algorithm
9500
clearly outperforms 0.6019algorithm and the
the UCT-MCTS 0.6544 0.7615 The
AMAF-MCTS algorithm.
REVE-MCTS 10,000
algorithm is better 0.6027 0.6576
at searching for more satisfactory solutions.0.7618

According to Table 5, the corresponding convergence curves are shown in Figure 15.
One common characteristic of all three algorithms is that the convergence improves as the

Figure 15.
Figure Comparison of
15. Comparison of convergence
convergence of
of the
the three
three algorithms.
algorithms.

5.3.3. Algorithm Effectiveness Analysis

5.3.3. Algorithm Effectiveness Analysis
To validate the effectiveness of the unloading container positioning algorithm and
To validate the effectiveness of the unloading container positioning algorithm and
assess the feasibility of its decision making in solving real operational problems, the tradi-
assess the feasibility of its decision making in solving real operational problems, the tra-
tional dockyard operations personnel were asked to arrange positions for 182 unloading
ditional dockyard operations personnel were asked to arrange positions for 182 unloading
containers based on their operational experience. They used the traditional planning and
containers
positioningbased onUnder
policy. their operational experience.the
the same conditions, They used the results
comparison traditional planning
of the and
positioning
positioning policy. Under the same conditions, the comparison results of the positioning
objective function for unloading containers and the results of manual planning positioning
objective
are shown function for16.
in Figure unloading
Using thecontainers
intelligentand the results
algorithm of manual
to solve planning container
the unloading position-
ing are shown in Figure 16. Using the intelligent algorithm to solve the unloading
positioning problem results in better overall performance compared to the manual planning con-
tainer positioning
and scheduling problem results in better overall performance compared to the manual
method.
planning and scheduling method.
 ditional dockyard operations personnel were asked to arrange positions for 182 unloading
containers based on their operational experience. They used the traditional planning and
positioning policy. Under the same conditions, the comparison results of the positioning
objective function for unloading containers and the results of manual planning position-
ing are shown in Figure 16. Using the intelligent algorithm to solve the unloading con-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 20 of 22
tainer positioning problem results in better overall performance compared to the manual
planning and scheduling method.

Figure 16. Comparison of the values of each objective function under the two schemes.

The solving
The solving times
timesareareshown
shownininTable
Table6.6.Using
Usingthethe intelligent
intelligent algorithm
algorithm to solve
to solve the
the unloading container positioning problem can reduce the solving time
unloading container positioning problem can reduce the solving time and improve oper- and improve
operational
ational efficiency.
efficiency. The unloading
The unloading container
container intelligent
intelligent positioning
positioning algorithm
algorithm is notisonly
not
only capable of reducing the workload of yard planning personnel but also
capable of reducing the workload of yard planning personnel but also has practical sig-has practical
significance
nificance forfor
thethe intelligent
intelligent management
management of the
of the dockyard.
dockyard.

Table 6. Comparison of solution time under the two schemes.

Manual Scheduling Intelligent Algorithms

Bit Selection Time (s) 1167 528

5.3.4. Algorithm Robustness Analysis

Robustness, also known as insensitivity or stability, primarily represents the degree to
which an algorithm depends on its parameters. A smaller value of robustness indicates
better robustness, demonstrating that the algorithm is less sensitive to parameter changes
and that the parameter has a weaker impact on the algorithm’s performance.

Cbest − Cavg
Ef = × 100% (23)
Cbest

In Equation (23), E f represents the robustness performance metric, Cbest represents

the algorithm’s best solution, and Cavg represents the average solution. For the unloading
space selection problem, a calculation based on Equation (23) yields a value of 4.82%.
This demonstrates that the algorithm has good robustness performance and is not highly
dependent on its parameters.

6. Conclusions
The production activities at container terminals primarily encompass four critical
stages: loading, unloading, cargo assembly, and container retrieval. In the unloading phase,
the allocation of storage space for unloaded containers in the yard serves a pivotal bridging
role. It not only impacts the berthing time of the container ships but also has implications
for subsequent container retrieval operations. The primary focus of this paper is to address
the problem of allocating storage space for unloaded containers. This study is targeted
at traditional container terminal loading and unloading workflows. It aims to automate
the process of allocating yard positions for unloaded containers via computer systems,
eliminating the need for manual planning. The system dynamically assigns yard positions
by comprehensively considering factors such as equipment availability, task distribution,
and current stacking conditions. This paper establishes an unloading space selection model
based on the actual stacking rules and corresponding constraints at the container terminal,
with the objective of maximizing space attractiveness. The proposed approach builds upon
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 21 of 22

the Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm and introduces improvements, including
pruning during the four main stages of each iteration (selection, expansion, simulation, and
backpropagation) to enhance algorithm convergence speed. It also incorporates a nested
tree policy after completing each task to reduce computational requirements and enhance
overall algorithm performance. This customized Monte Carlo tree search algorithm is
designed to address unloading space selection problems effectively.
The numerical experiment results show that the proposed algorithm can basically
surpass the level of manual planning in comprehensive performance under different scale
cases, and its performance is more prominent in large-scale cases. The longer the algorithm
calculation time and the more iterations, the better the location selection effect. In the
numerical experiment, the algorithm obtained the solution in an average of 528 s, which
was about 54% faster than the manual planning time of 1167 s. The REVE-MCTS algorithm
selected in the numerical experiment was significantly better than the other two algorithms
in large-scale cases and had good robustness. In addition to optimizing the space utilization
of the yard, it also showed excellent convergence performance in iterative testing compared
to other algorithms such as UCT-MCTS and AMAF-MCTS. The robustness index of the
algorithm was 4.82%, showing high stability and low parameter dependence.
The algorithm proposed in this paper fulfills multiple requirements for the stor-
age space allocation of unloaded containers. First, it deviates from the traditional labor-
intensive approach of manual planning, thereby freeing up labor resources. Second, it
ensures that unloaded containers are efficiently moved from the ship and strategically
placed within the yard, achieving dynamic space allocation to enhance efficiency. Third,
the algorithm facilitates the automatic stacking of bulk containers, reducing the rate of
container flipping in subsequent pick-up operations. The application of this algorithm
holds significant promise for improving operational efficiency in container terminal un-
loading processes.
In future research, it may be worthwhile to explore the use of historical data to uncover
potential objective patterns, such as predicting unloading container stacking times. This
could provide a more reliable basis for unloading space assignment decisions and optimize
yard management.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.W. and N.Z.; methodology, X.W. and N.Z.; software,
C.M.; validation, X.W. and N.Z.; formal analysis, X.W. and N.Z.; investigation, X.W., N.Z. and C.M.;
resources, X.W. and C.M.; data curation, X.W. and N.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, X.W.;
writing—review and editing, X.W. and C.M.; visualization, N.Z.; supervision, X.W., N.Z. and C.M.;
project administration, X.W., N.Z. and C.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai
Municipality (No. 22ZR1427700 and No. 23692106900).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data used in this study did not involve any public data sets.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Stahlbock, R.; Voß, S. Operations research at container terminals: A literature update. OR Spectr. 2008, 30, 1–52. [CrossRef]
2. Wen, W.; Fan, H.; Zhang, W.; Ma, M.; Li, Y. Simulating the growth of container ship size and port city economy development.
In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation, Lijiang, China, 8–10 August 2015;
pp. 2574–2579. [CrossRef]
3. Dulebenets, M.A. Application of evolutionary computation for berth scheduling at marine container terminals: Parameter tuning
versus parameter control. IEEE Trans. Intelligent. Transp. Syst. 2017, 19, 25–37. [CrossRef]
4. Jin, J.G.; Lee, D.H.; Cao, J.X. Storage Yard Management in Maritime Container Terminals. Transp. Sci. 2016, 50, 1300–1313.
[CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2109 22 of 22

5. Mi, C.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Feng, Y.; Zhang, Z. A Vision-based Displacement Measurement System for Foundation Pit.
IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2023, 72, 2525715. [CrossRef]
6. Mi, C.; Huang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Postolache, O. Design and Implementation of 3-D Measurement Method for Container
Handling Target. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1961. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Postolache, O.; Mi, C. A vision-based container position measuring system for ARMG. Meas.
Control 2023, 56, 596–605. [CrossRef]
8. Yu, H.; Deng, Y.; Zhang, L.; Xiao, X.; Tan, C. Yard Operations and Management in Automated Container Terminals: A Review.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3419. [CrossRef]
9. Kizilay, D.; Eliiyi, D.T. A comprehensive review of quay crane scheduling, yard operations and integrations thereof in container
terminals. Flex. Serv. Manuf. J. 2021, 33, 1–42. [CrossRef]
10. Zhang, C.; Guan, H.; Yuan, Y.; Chen, W.; Wu, T. Machine learning-driven algorithms for the container relocation problem. Transp.
Res. Part B 2020, 139, 102–131. [CrossRef]
11. Yu, H.; Huang, M.; Zhang, L.; Tan, C. Yard template generation for automated container terminal based on bay sharing strategy.
Ann. Oper. Res. 2022. [CrossRef]
12. Fan, H.; Peng, W.; Ma, M.; Yue, L. Storage Space Allocation and Twin Automated Stacking Cranes Scheduling in Automated
Container Terminals. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022, 23, 14336–14348. [CrossRef]
13. Ambrosino, D.; Xie, H. Optimization approaches for defining storage strategies in maritime container terminals. Soft Comput.
2023, 27, 4125–4137. [CrossRef]
14. Niu, B.; Xie, T.; Tan, L.; Bi, Y.; Wang, Z. Swarm intelligence algorithms for Yard Truck Scheduling and Storage Allocation Problems.
Neurocomputing 2016, 188, 284–293. [CrossRef]
15. Bruns, F.; Knust, S.; Shakhlevich, N.V. Complexity results for storage loading problems with stacking constraints. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
2016, 249, 1074–1081. [CrossRef]
16. Petering, M.E.H.; Hussein, M.I. A new mixed integer program and extended look-ahead heuristic algorithm for the block
relocation problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 231, 120–130. [CrossRef]
17. Yu, M.; Liang, Z.; Teng, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Cong, X. The inbound container space allocation in the automated container terminals.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 179, 115014. [CrossRef]
18. Zhen, L.; Zhuge, D.; Wang, S.; Wang, K. Integrated berth and yard space allocation under uncertainty. Transp. Res. Part B
2022, 162, 1–27. [CrossRef]
19. Liu, C.; Zhang, C.; Zheng, L. A bi-objective model for robust yard allocation scheduling for outbound containers. Eng. Optim.
2016, 49, 113–135. [CrossRef]
20. Luo, J.; Wu, Y.; Mendes, A.B. Modelling of integrated vehicle scheduling and container storage problems in unloading process at
an automated container terminal. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 94, 32–44. [CrossRef]
21. Wu, K.; Ting, C. A beam search algorithm for minimizing reshuffle operations at container yards. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Logistics and Maritime Systems, Busan, Republic of Korea, 15–17 September 2010. [CrossRef]
22. Hu, W.; Wang, H.; Min, Z. A storage allocation algorithm for outbound containers based on the outer-inner cellular automaton.
Inf. Sci. 2014, 281, 147–171. [CrossRef]
23. Galle, V.; Barnhart, C.; Jaillet, P. Yard crane scheduling for container storage, retrieval, and relocation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018, 271,
288–316. [CrossRef]
24. Wang, K.; Zhen, L.; Wang, S.; Laporte, G. Column generation for the integrated berth allocation, quay crane assignment, and yard
assignment problem. Transp. Sci. 2018, 52, 812–834. [CrossRef]
25. Rimmel, A.; Teytaud, F.; Teytaud, O. Biasing Monte-Carlo simulations through RAVE values. In International Conference on
Computers and Games; Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture
Notes in Bioinformatics); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; Volume 6515, pp. 59–68. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.