Maritime Economics & Logistics (2024) 26:307–341

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-023-00254-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic

review of operations research applications

Buddhi A. Weerasinghe1 · H. Niles Perera1 · Xiwen Bai2

Accepted: 14 January 2023 / Published online: 4 February 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2023

Abstract
Operations research techniques have helped optimize container terminal opera-
tions over the past decades and have been a regular feature of maritime logistics and
maritime supply chain literature in addition to being in practice at container termi-
nals across the globe. Our systematic review collated through Scopus, 1768 papers
published in the domain and analyzed them to nd the main research clusters, and
explore future research directions. Studies on both quayside and landside planning
are grouped in ve research clusters: discussing simulation, scheduling, automation,
quayside operations, integrated operations and container transportation. In addition,
the evolution of optimization techniques in planning container terminal operations
is discussed, along with the suggested trajectory of the research agenda under each
cluster. The analysis nds that genetic algorithms, integer linear programming and
heuristics are the most widely used operations research techniques in container ter-
minal optimization. While clusters of research in areas such as simulating container
terminal operations, scheduling operations and automated terminals have received a
great deal of attention, research focusing on integrated and dynamic operations has
been scarce over the past years, suggesting a new area of contributions. The review
proposes the application of methods such as neural network- and deep learning mod-
els related to articial intelligence to widen our understanding of container terminal
operations.

Keywords Container terminals · Systematic review · Bibliometric analysis ·

Optimization · Maritime logistics · Port optimization

* H. Niles Perera
[email protected]
1
Center for Supply Chain, Operations and Logistics Optimization, University of Moratuwa,
Katubedda, Sri Lanka
2
Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Vol.:(0123456789)
308 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

1 Introduction

Seaport container terminals play a vital role in maritime transportation. Maritime

transport is crucial for sustaining the supply chains around the world. Besides, con-
tainerized transportation represents 20%–30% of the world maritime trade by vol-
ume (UNCTAD 2021). Furthermore, approximately 70% of the cargo is handled
within global seaborne container trade in terms of value (Dadashi et al. 2017). Fur-
thermore, in 2021, 815.6 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) were handled
in container ports around the world. Our literature search posits that only four sys-
tematic review studies have focused on container terminal operations as the scope
of their study: automation (Kon et al. 2020), machine learning applications (Filom
et al. 2022), container terminal performance (Kurniawan et al. 2022) and classifying
games in container terminal logistics (Nasution et al. 2022). Similarly, applications
of operations research in container terminal operations have not come under scrutiny
in any recent review study (Fig. 4).
We therefore discuss the literature on planning container terminal operations
summed up by introducing our research objectives in Sect. 1. Section 2 explains
the systematic process of the study while Sect. 3 includes a bibliometric analysis. A
cluster analysis related to the research areas and to the evolution of OR techniques in
planning container terminal operations is introduced in Sect. 4. The paper concludes
in Sect. 5 with the summary of our results, its contributions and future research
directions.

1.1 Container terminal operations

The activities involved in handling containers inside a container terminal are dened
as container terminal operations. Container terminal operations are split into two
categories: (1) landside operations and (2) quayside operations (as illustrated in
Fig. 1), including the transshipment process. At the quayside, container vessels are
operated as follows.
Quay Gantry Crane (QGC) is the key instrument that is employed for quayside
operations and there are two types of quay cranes: (1) high-prole QGC and (2)
low-prole QGC. The most important operations container terminals perform are
quayside operations: loading and discharging, better known as cargo handling opera-
tions. Under landside operations, classied as yard and gate, stacking and picking
are performed at the yard using yard cranes (YC). The most common types of YCs
are rubber-tired gantry (RTG) cranes, rail-mounted gantry (RMG) cranes, and strad-
dle carriers (SC). There, yard trucks (YT) or trailers on rails are recognized as the
main connectors between the quay and yard operations.
Gate operations is the point that connects the internal operations with the exter-
nal stakeholders. Gates are responsible for facilitating cargo ows in and out of the
terminal. Imports and exports consist of cargoes belonging to logistics companies or
customers outside the port, unlike the internal trucks maintained by the port includ-
ing inter-terminal transportation (ITT) (Liu C et al. 2016). As Fig. 1 explains, there
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 309

Fig. 1 Container terminal operations

Fig. 2 Planning tasks—container terminal operations

are four ows at gate operations: (1) exports, (2) imports, (3) ITT receiving and (4)
ITT deliveries. While export and import operations connect the terminal with ship-
pers and consignees, who are the external indirect outside customers of the terminal,
transshipment terminals need ITT operations to enhance their processes by connect-
ing all the terminals within one container port.

1.2 Container terminal planning

1.2.1 Quayside operations planning

Operations planning tasks related to the loading and discharging processes are iden-
tied in quayside operations planning. As Fig. 2 illustrates (Böse 2020), the main
planning tasks within quayside operations address issues concerning berth allocation
problems (BAP), quay crane scheduling (QCS), and quay crane assignment (QCA).
310 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

The berth is dened as an area where vessels are moored to start cargo handling
operations. When a specic berth is allocated to a vessel (as per BAP), it is neces-
sary to consider factors such as the processing rate (productivity), the eciency of
the equipment, the number of QCs available, and the total number of crane moves
to be done (Carlo et al. 2015). The time needed for cargo handling operations is
calculated using the number of QC moves involved. The QCA problem concerns
the decision on the number of cranes on each vessel with their identity. Therefore,
the optimal number of cranes should be determined before identifying the cranes to
work on the vessel (Ursavas 2014).
The stowage plan that contains information about the containers that are planned
to be loaded is provided by the central planner of vessel operations. Similarly, infor-
mation, such as weight, destination port, etc., of the containers is established in the
initial plan (Beens and Ursavas 2016). The space allocation is fullled by the avail-
able containers in the yard in VSP. Under QCA, the number of quay cranes that are
deployed on a vessel is decided, and the cranes are positioned at the relevant vessel
bays (Chen et al. 2012). Berth allocation, determining QCs to the vessels, and VSP
are the key planning tasks of the quay area at both tactical and operational levels.
The berth planner’s focus is dened by shifts as well as by weekly and monthly ves-
sel schedules at the tactical level while the vessel planner’s focus is determined by
vessel operations at the operational level.

1.2.2 Landside operations planning

Landside operations take place at the container yard and so do the activities lead-
ing to gate operations. A yard is a plot where containers are temporarily stacked
until they are loaded to their outbound vessel or delivered to their consignee or other
stakeholders (Güven and Eliiyi 2018). Yard planning is the most important part of
yard management (YM) and it is a tactical-level decision process in container termi-
nals (Zhen et al. 2016). The space scarcity problem is a common issue in many lead-
ing container terminals (Jin et al. 2014). Problems arising from space scarcity cause
frequent changes in policies, high energy consumption and pressure on planners and
managers (Gerken et al. 2020). Expansion of the yard is the most frequently con-
sidered option to mitigate this problem (Kastner et al. 2020). Yard space allocation
(YSA), yard crane deployment (YCD), yard crane scheduling (YCS), and reshuing
operations are the major planning tasks within the purview of the yard management
as Fig. 2 displays (Böse 2020; Jin et al. 2014).
YSA deals with the problem of allocating suitable spaces to containers follow-
ing the stacking policies of the terminal. YC productivity, repositioning rate, and
service time are key performance indicators in stacking policies (Fibrianto et al.
2020). Stacking policies can be adjusted to match capacity levels (Stahlbock and
Voß 2007). Yard crane workload management involves scheduling (YCS) and YC
deployment (YCD) (Guo and Huang 2012). The major objective of YCS is to mini-
mize the average waiting time for vehicle jobs. In a loading process, YC operations
should start in advance and, therefore, a YC should be dedicated to every one-yard
subblock (Ji et al. 2015; Zhen et al. 2016).
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 311

In this context, the YT system depends on the feeding system in the yard end.
RTGs and RMGs are the most common YC equipment out of all available YC
options. Further, YT scheduling, linking the quayside and the yard side, is always
integrated with both quayside planning and landside planning (He et al. 2019). In
view of this, the purpose of the relevant research is to nd out, from among the jobs
which are planned, the one that incurs the least operational cost for the YT.
Another crucial requirement in this process is to plan gate operations since this
controls the interface between the gate and the yard. Here, it is necessary to decide
how many truck-turns can be operated, both incoming and outgoing, to jointly opti-
mize yard operations and gate queues. Optimizing truck queues is one of the key
challenges in gate operations planning, and the adoption of truck appointment sys-
tems is an emerging method to that eect (Caballini et al. 2020).

1.3 Review studies in container terminal operations

1.3.1 Types of review studies

The initial analysis based on a comparison of dierent ways of conducting review

studies, as presented by Grant and Booth (2009); Davarzani et al. (2016) and Perera
et al. (2019) is the basis for developing Table 1, which explains six dierent types
of review studies: critical review, systematic literature review, bibliometric analysis,
overview/literature overview, literature review, and review. A narrative of a deeper
analysis of a particular scope is conducted in the critical reviews, and ideas for
future research directions are explored in systematic literature reviews, carried out
under a systematic search. The bibliometric analysis encompasses the quantity of
literature and the trends in publications based on the authors, their aliations, etc.
A broader discussion of the scope of the research is in the overviews/literature
overviews, and the literature review introduces the previous studies that come under
an exact scope. As there is no guarantee of a systematic structure of conducting a
literature review, an umbrella view of the scope is explored within a broader per-
spective (Fig. 3).
It is noteworthy that only four systematic reviews have been so far published, out
of the 27 review studies we identied. 14.3% of review studies have been discussed
using a systematic approach and over 75%, conducted as overviews, reviews or liter-
ature reviews. The methods employed in bibliometric analysis and critical literature
reviews comprise 7.2% of the studies, as the core of the publication (Lau et al. 2017;
Hu et al. 2019).

1.3.2 Research clusters and evolution

Our search is conducted using the Scopus database and we nd that 27 review
studies were available as of 29th of December 2022. Seven clusters are intro-
duced: (1) truck appointment systems, (2) containerization and technology,
(3) computational modeling, (4) container terminal automation, (5) integrated
operations, (6) modeling and simulation and (7) yard optimization, depicted
312 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

Table 1 Types of review studies

Type of the Characteristics Synthesis
review

Critical Literature is reviewed critically Most signicant studies, narrative

review Referring to the most signicant studies in
the eld
Evaluating degree of analysis and concep-
tual innovation
Systematic Literature is searched systematically Systematic search, future directions
literature Appraisals and syntheses of research evi-
review dence are derived systematically
Discoveries and recommendations for prac-
tice are dened under future directions
Bibliometric A systematic review process based on the Quantity of literature, trends in publications
analysis authors’ perspective
Information: annual counts, authors, insti-
tutes, etc. are dened
Evaluating trends in publications
Overview/ There is no guarantee of a systematic Summary of literature overview ideas
Literature process
overview The literature overview refers only to
scientic publications, but other related
publications are also taken into considera-
tion
A summary of the literature is presented
Literature There is no guarantee on the systematicity Literature review, dened areas
review of the process followed
The literature is dened based on the
authors’ perspective of the eld
The discussion is developed based on the
pre-dened areas in the elds
Review It discusses a broad area Umbrella view, broad perspective
Papers considered the most signicant are
discussed critically
Umbrella views are discussed

in Fig. 4. Further, the way these areas have evolved in the past years is identi-
ed. Port logistics, simulation, and optimization were the areas of interest in the
review studies of the earlier years. Then, the focus of the reviews was directed
towards container stacking and storage under yard optimization. Recent studies
showcase that integrated operations, container terminal automations and truck
appointment systems are the trending areas in recent investigations, as depicted
in Fig. 4.

1.4 The background to developing a systematic review

Classifying clusters through systematically driven mechanisms ensures replicability

(Perera et al. 2019). In this sense, we found a limited number of systematic reviews
on container terminal automation (Kon et al. 2020), machine learning applications
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 313

Fig. 3 Types of review studies—distribution

Fig. 4 Evolution of review studies in container terminal operations

(Filom et al. 2022), container terminal performance (Kurniawan et al. 2022), and
classifying games in container terminal logistics (Nasution et al. 2022). Importantly,
three of these four systematic reviews are published in 2022. This indicates that
attention is directed towards systematic processes in developing review studies as
this enhances their scientic value.
While simulation studies are discussed by Dragović et al. (2017), OR applications
in container terminals are discussed by Gharehgozli et al. (2016), with emphasis on
314 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

exploring new technologies and OR models. Stahlbock and Voß (2007) conducted
the last review study, focusing purely on OR techniques under the cluster of mod-
eling and simulation, as depicted in Fig. 4. Dragović et al. (2017) point out that
most of the literature focuses on operational issues and is the most concentrated and
coherent in the eld of OR. However, the need to use the wide range of simulation
modeling capabilities, to provide integrated solutions, has been recently promoted.
Gharehgozli et al. (2016) have convincingly argued that OR models, encompassing
new constraints and objectives, are needed to manage container terminals eciently.
According the these authors, the operational research community must review and
update previous research on container terminal operations.
Therefore, a research gap emerges here, as container terminal optimization has
not been adequately covered, as a prime focus of OR research, in any of the review
studies published after 2007. Further, no systematic review study has been con-
ducted on OR applications in container terminal optimization. On the whole, the
main research objective of this study reads as: “Identifying the trends in operations
research contexts under container terminal operations planning, using a systematic
review process”.

2 Review methodology and initial data analysis

The systematic process developed for this review was decided after going through
a number of systematic review studies published in the domain of transport and
logistics (Davarzani et al. 2016; Perera et al. 2019). A most important aspect of sys-
tematic reviews is replicability (Lunin and Glock 2021). Perera et al. (2020) and
Davarzani et al. (2016) outline nine steps that can be identied: (1) dening the key-
word structure (KS), (2) search in a selected database, (3) narrowing down the result
based on the subject area, (4) use inclusion words to lter relevant publications, (5)
use exclusion words to lter out irrelevant publications, (6) verication with rel-
evant reference lists, (7) nalize the selected studies for the analysis, (8) conduct
bibliometric analysis and (9) generate the clusters and present trends in the scope.
Typically, dening the keyword structure (KS) is the most critical part of a sys-
tematic review, since this can decide the direction that it takes. Nevertheless, it is not
all about setting up a list of some common words that yields a search result. The list
must be able to include previous studies that are available in the dened database
with a permissible error rate (to make sure that irrelevant papers are not captured
while relevant ones are not excluded). The KS should be improved in the sixth step
which veries the list of results, if the studies that have been well-established in the
domain are not included. The KS is dened in Fig. 5, after some careful improve-
ments. Moreover, the structure of the KS includes two levels: (1) container terminal
operations and (2) OR techniques in container terminal planning tasks. The intersec-
tion of introduced levels that can include previously published studies in the scope is
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 315

Fig. 5 Keyword structure (KS)

the key assumption. The Scopus1 database is used for searching the relevant papers
using the dened KS as the second step. Then, the search result is narrowed down to
journal publications that are published in English.
The third step is to narrow down the search result based on the subject area. It
should be ltered carefully, since some of the relevant papers might come under
irrelevant subject areas. After sorting the search result, based on the relevance in
Scopus, irrelevant subject areas are identied as medicine, immunology and micro-
biology, pharmacology, toxicology and pharmaceutics, health professions, veteri-
nary, and nursing. Once this step is completed, the comma-separated values (CSV)
le is ready to be downloaded from Scopus. The initial search result in Scopus was
4509 (updated on 29th December 2022). Inclusion keywords were used to recog-
nize the most relevant studies to review. Studies that contain title or author keywords
representing the identied words from both the container terminal operations and
operations research contexts were selected in the rst phase of selection. The inclu-
sion keywords were searched within the abstracts as well. Thus, the inclusion pro-
cess captures 2394 papers in the initial stage. In addition to that, 2029 papers were
eliminated for using excluding keywords. A manual process was used to identify
papers when those were captured under both the excluding and including criteria. At
this time, 62 papers were selected to be included while 617 papers were eliminated
manually after carefully going through their abstracts individually. Ultimately, 1768
papers were identied as those which satisfy the inclusion criteria.

1
Evidence supports the use of Scopus (managed by Elsevier publishing) as an excellent source of mari-
time research articles (e.g., Davarzani et al. 2016). Furthermore, Scopus is the largest abstract and cita-
tion database for peer-reviewed academic literature (i.e., scientic journals, books, and conference pro-
ceedings) within the elds of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities.
In fact, Scopus covers over 20,000 peer-reviewed journals, which is more comprehensive than the Web-
of-Science database (managed by Thomson Reuters; includes only ISI indexed journals thus limiting to
approximately 12,000).
316 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

Fig. 6 Number of publications by year

3 Bibliometric Analysis

We have conducted a bibliometric analysis after dening the exact paper pool which
included 1768 studies. Figure 6 indicates the pattern in which they have been pub-
lished each year from 1975 until 2022, showcasing the growing interest in the eld.
The growth rate of 45% per annum is surpassed by the recording percentage, i.e.,
11.16% of the total number of studies published in 2021. That means less than 100
papers used to appear per annum before 2016. Table 2 displays how publication out-
lets are ranked based on the number of journal articles published.
European Journal of Operational Research leads (Table 2) while Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review occupies second position with
a margin of four articles, and Computers and Industrial Engineering appears in the
third position. “Maritime Economics and Logistics” and “Maritime Policy and Man-
agement”, with a full focus on maritime transportation, are in fourth and fth positions
respectively while OR Spectrum is also in the 5th position. This clearly indicates that
most of the publications that focus on operations research applications in container ter-
minal operations are published in outlets that bear a key focus on optimization through
operations research. This also implies that domain specic journals should encourage
more OR-based publications. According to our analysis, China, United States, South
Korea, Singapore, Germany, Hong Kong and Italy are the main contributors in research
on OR applications in container terminals.
Author contributions are evaluated on the basis of the number of their publications.
Table 3 presents the top 10 author positions.
Shanghai Maritime University, China, has produced more than 160 publications.
The National University of Singapore is the second in the list with 84 publications. The
third place is taken by Dalian Maritime University, China, and Pusan National Univer-
sity, South Korea, and Hong Kong Polytechnic University take fourth and fth places
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 317

Table 2 Publication outlets

Rank Journal No of studies

1 European Journal of Operational Research 86

2 Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation 85
Review
3 Computers and Industrial Engineering 79
4 Maritime Economics and Logistics 59
5 OR Spectrum 45
5 Maritime Policy and Management 45
7 Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 39
8 Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 38
9 Transportation Science 37
10 Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 30

Table 3 Contribution of the authors

Rank Author Institute No of studies

1 Kima K.H Zhejiang University, China 49

2 He J Shanghai Maritime University, China 28
3 Zhen L Shanghai University, China 26
4 Chew E.P National University of Singapore 22
4 Voß S University of Hamburg, Germany 22
6 Lee L.H National University of Singapore 21
6 Wang S Hong Kong Polytechnic University 21
8 Lee D.-H National University of Singapore 20
8 Yanga Z Ningbo University, China 20
8 Zenga Q Dalian Maritime University, China 19
a
MEL Editorial Board

respectively. The University of Genova is the only institute that secured a place in the
top 10 outside Asia according to Table 4.

4 Data analysis

The discussion on data analysis focuses mainly on two aspects of the research: (4.1)
OR applications optimization in container terminal planning and (4.2) the identied
research clusters.
318 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

Table 4 Top 20 universities

Rank Institution Location No of studies

1 Shanghai Maritime University Shanghai, China 167

2 National University of Singapore Singapore 84
3 Dalian Maritime University Dalian, China 83
4 Pusan National University Busan, South Korea 65
5 Hong Kong Polytechnic University Kowloon, Hong Kong 52
5 Shanghai University Shanghai, China 52
7 Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China 40
8 Tongji University Shanghai, China 39
9 University of Genova Genova, Italy 28
9 Tsinghua University Beijing, China 28
11 Dalian University of Technology Dalian, China 27
12 University of Hamburg Hamburg, Germany 26
13 Nanyang Technological University Singapore 25
13 University of Calabria Calabria, Italy 25
15 Beijing Jiaotong University Beijing, China 24
15 Delft University of Technology Delft, Netherlands 24
17 Wuhan University of Technology Wuhan, China 22
18 Technical University of Denmark Lyngby, Denmark 20
19 Erasmus University Rotterdam Rotterdam, Netherlands 19
20 Islamic Azad University Tehran, Iran 18

4.1 OR applications and optimization in container terminal planning

Quayside and landside are the key areas in container terminal operations (1.2). How-
ever, 14.8% of the studies have been conducted covering the overall aspects of con-
tainer terminal operations. Most of the studies in this category, such as Li H et al.
(2021), Mi et al. (2021) and Lu (2021) have been conducted on aspects such as auto-
mation and scheduling, which focus on the overall container terminal planning func-
tion, without deeper insights to separate planning functions. Similarly, Silberholz
et al. (1991); Beškovnik (2008); and Sislioglu et al. (2019) contribute with advances
regarding the way productivity of container terminals can be standardized. Luna
et al. (2018) discuss how to improve handling eciency within overall operations.
The authors interestingly nd that each additional hour spent on cargo handling
operations reduces the likelihood of an ecient service by 9.58%. Seth and Feng
(2020) claim that operational planning activities must be considered and intercon-
nected with investments in container ports.
Figure 7 shows that 85.2% of the studies have focused on the exact planning
functions within container terminal operations and how these have been distributed
among dierent planning functions.
Accordingly, quayside planning has attracted most of the studies, representing
53.27% of the total. Moreover, BAP attracts 49.94% of the studies out of those that
focus on quayside planning functions. There, Golias et al. (2009a, b) highlight the
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 319

Fig. 7 Distribution of studies within planning functions

importance of optimizing vessel arrivals, proposing novel berth allocation strategies

such as simulation modeling of the ship-berth link with priority service (Dragović
et al. 2005), vessel berthing and speed optimization policies (Alvarez et al. 2010),
bi-objective berth allocation formulation (Golias 2011; Zeng et al. 2017) and car-
bon-footprint minimization objectives through integrated approaches (Karakas et al.
2021). Zeng et al. (2017) claim that their model is benecial to terminal operators
and carriers, by promoting direct transshipments as an eective way of improving
eciency and thus the competitiveness of container ports.
The evolution of BAP can be also revealed by observing how article titles have
developed. The basic principles of BAP were discussed before 2010, moving
towards an integrated problem in the next decade (2010–2020).
The quay crane allocation (QCA)/scheduling problem comprises 31.29% of
the articles and the area of QCA/QCS appears in various aspects within opera-
tions research techniques. Thus Bierwirth and Meisel (2010) have conducted a
survey on berth allocation and QCS problems, focusing on loading and unload-
ing operations in container terminals (Li and Vairaktarakis 2004), time windows
(Kaveshgar and Huynh 2015a) and stability considerations (Ursavas 2017). The
evaluation of the available QCA/QCS methods (Sun et al. 2021), the integrated
QCA and scheduling problem (Safaeian et al. 2021), integration of quay and yard
operations (Kong et al. 2021) and sustainable approaches (Yu et al. 2022) are
few of the key areas that have been highlighted in our study, as avenues of future
research.
We nd that 18.77% of the quayside studies have focused on VSP, which is a
complex area where both the vessel operator’s and the terminal operator’s per-
spectives interact. Shields (1984) investigates the VSP for the rst time, in a study
that focuses on VSP as a separate area according to the database (2). Under VSP,
we nd that decision support systems (Saginaw and Perakis 1989), principles of
320 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

combinatorial optimization (Wilson and Roach 1999), master bay plan problems
(Ambrosino et al. 2004), constraint programming models for fast optimal VSP
(Delgado et al. 2012) and heuristics related applications (Ding and Chou 2015)
are the highlighted areas. Further, some areas covered in recent studies are apply-
ing expert knowledge (Chou and Fang 2021), benchmarking heuristics applica-
tions in VSP (Larsen and Pacino 2021), and minimizing over stowage in master
bay plans (Chao and Lin 2021).
As Fig. 7 shows, landside planning attracts 46.73% of the studies that focus on
planning functions. Within the landside, yard operations (89.23%) and gate oper-
ations (10.77%) are the key contributors. Therefore, YSPs (yard layout problems)
have received the highest contribution (around 36.35%) in landside studies. Some
highlights in the relevant literature are: distinguishing between the inbound/out-
bound categories of containers (Ting et al. 2010), minimizing dwell time (Moini
et al. 2012), integrated yard management (Karakas et al. 2021), dynamic stacking
problems (Gunawardhana et al. 2021), and integrated scheduling in automated
operations (Zhuang et al. 2022) which are all trending areas in yard management.
Yard crane assignment/scheduling is the next focus of the past studies. It is
found that attention has focused on YCS under landside operations, as much as
that on QSC under quayside operations. In this domain, yard crane deployment
(Laik and Hadjiconstantnou 2008), simulation and optimization (Legato et al.
2009), reducing carbon emissions (Ding et al. 2021) and collaborative and hybrid
approaches (Hsu et al. 2021a, b) gure prominent as some recent trends in this
area. 22.93% landside studies have focused on topics such as YTS-highlighted
integrated scheduling of YTS and YCS (Cao et al. 2010a, b) and multi-objective
optimization (Homayouni and Tang 2013) under YTS which is one of the main
contributors to integrated planning as it directly connects with both quayside and
landside operations. Here, one of the key focuses is automated operations within
YTS (Zhuang et al. 2022).
The main focuses within container terminal gate operations are ITT opera-
tions (37.50%) and external truck management, including functions of overall
gate operations (62.50%). The discussion of truck appointment systems at gates
is highlighted as the main focus of gate operations over the past decade (Zhao and
Goodchild 2013; Li et al. 2022). Along with this, papers have appeared over the
years based on topics that address reducing gas emissions at gates (Wasesa et al.
2021), ITT operations encouraging inter-terminal collaboration by introducing
optimization techniques (Adi et al. 2020) and simple optimization approaches to
break the barriers between terminals (Jin and Kim 2018).

4.2 The analysis on research clusters

The next step is to generate research clusters to underscore the network between
keywords that are connected and their evolution. Cluster analysis reveals how
studies are similar and connected through authors’ keywords which position
each study within their scope. Furthermore, the way keywords appear within the
timeline of research is also presented in our analysis. The methods, developed by
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 321

Fig. 8 Research clusters

Van-Eck and Waltman (2014), are used to achieve this through the network analy-
sis software, recommended by Davarzani et al. (2016) and Perera et al. (2019).
The software uses network theory principles to generate keyword clusters with
node weight (keywords) and link strength (Perera et al. 2019).
It is important to state that the author keywords in the selected studies con-
tribute to generate cluster graphs. Accordingly, Fig. 8 is generated using the key-
words that appear at a frequency of 8 times or more in the relevant literature.
By analyzing the author keywords, ve main research clusters emerge: (1) simu-
lating container terminal operations, (2) scheduling operations and automating
terminals, (3) optimizing quayside operations, (4) integrated operations in con-
tainer terminals and (5) container transportation. The following subsections pro-
vide a detailed description of each cluster, highlighting a fertile ground for future
research.

4.2.1 Cluster 1—simulating container terminal operations

4.2.1.1 Simulating container terminal operations and its evolution Simulating con-
tainer terminal operations is the rst cluster in which annual output of more than 10
papers has appeared since 2003. Under this theme, Chung et al. (1988) have con-
ducted a simulation analysis based on container handling, Raman and Ramkumar
322 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

(1988) have focused on the waiting time of ships and berth occupancy in ports in
their simulation model, Rego and Roucairol (1995) have introduced a dynamic multi-
terminal truck dispatching problem as a tabu search-based simulation model, and
Kim and Kim (1999) have led in a new scope in the literature that discusses segregat-
ing space allocation models for container inventories in container terminals. A key
strand that is observed here is the focus on overall operations, by introducing an early
simulation model. In other words, authors have focused on a broad perspective by
looking at container terminal operations with a bird’s eye view.
After the year 2000, most of the studies have focused on very specic areas,
with well-dened limited scopes which include separate planning tasks. Accord-
ingly, Uesugi et al. (2001) have discussed the scheduling problem in vehicle routing
under the constraint of the limited number of berths. In line with this, Nishimura
et al. (2001) have studied berth allocation planning in a public berth system using
genetic algorithms Steenken et al. (2004) have discussed the OR-based simulation
techniques in container terminals in their review study, pointing out that simulation
models have appeared within all the planning functions, such as quayside planning
(Buhrkal et al. 2011; Shang et al. 2016), yard planning (He et al. 2010; Karakas
et al. 2021), and gate operations planning (Chen et al. 2013a, b). Karakas et al.
(2021) demonstrated that the eciency of internal truck time can be improved from
27.8 to 42.8%, and the reduction of CO2 emissions from 30.1% to 70.3%, described
through their simulation results.

4.2.1.2 Trending methodologies: simulating container terminal operations Genetic

Algorithms (GA), integer linear programming, and heuristics are the methods that
have been frequently used under this cluster (Fig. 9). GA has been used across a
large range of operations in container terminal planning. QCS (Lee et al. 2008), BAP
(Golias et al. 2009a, b), Integrating BAP and QCA (Chang et al. 2010), YCS (He
et al. 2010) are all conducted using GA based frameworks. Integer linear program-
ming has been used within the areas of discrete BAP (Cordeau et al. 2005), integrated
BAP and QCA (Liu 2020; Iris et al. 2015), and container stowage planning problem
(Parreño et al. 2016). Heuristics are applied in various ways to optimize container
terminal operations (Monaco et al. 2014). Other than these trending methods, simu-
lated annealing, metaheuristic, queuing models, combinatorial optimization, swarm
optimization, multi-objective optimization, and dynamic programming are the meth-
odologies that have been applied in at least 10 studies or more.
There is an attempt in most studies to use more than one method to eliminate lim-
itations. For example, Kastner et al. (2021) propose a simulation model using meta-
heuristics, structured Parzen estimator, Bayesian optimization, simulated annealing,
and random search guide. It is evident that, in building simulation models, a key
limitation arises from the requirement of considering the constraints from integrated
points in the operations (Chamchang and Niyomdecha 2021). Similarly, as Chargui
et al. (2021a, b) have demonstrated, in implementing a MILP model to minimize a
normalized weighted sum of the mean absolute deviation of operator working hours,
and the total traveled distance of operators between assigned QCs, implementing
proposed simulation models remains another challenging area.
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 323

Fig. 9 OR applications—simulating container terminal operations

It is clear that robust optimization, impacts on maritime transport, uncertainty,

stowage planning, and liner shipping can be introduced as trending research direc-
tions for conducting more studies under cluster 1. Robust optimization is frequently
used to optimize quayside operations. Impacts on maritime transport is a suitable
area. Stowage planning is also critical, as it connects the container terminal and the
vessel operator. Dynamic techniques can be similarly introduced when conducting
simulations in the dynamic stacking problem (Gunawardhana et al. 2021). In this
respect, trac integrated yard allocation problems (Zhou et al. 2021), ecient lay-
outs for automated container terminals (Li X et al. 2021b) and simulating integrated
handling systems (Sha et al. 2021) can be suggested for future studies.

4.2.2 Cluster 2—Scheduling operations and automating terminals

4.2.2.1 Scheduling operations and automating terminals Two areas, namely sched-
uling operations and automating terminals come under one cluster in the analysis.
Eleven peer-reviewed journal articles discussing scheduling automated operations,
including Gharehgozli et al. (2021); Xu, et al. (2021a, b); Li Y et al. (2021c) and
Tan et al. (2021) have been published in 2021. The trend of proposing models for
scheduling automated container terminals explains why scheduling operations and
automating container terminals appear under one cluster.

4.2.2.2 Scheduling operations Scheduling operations is a trending topic accord-

ing to our analysis. Scheduling operations are needed for all planning tasks
324 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

(Weerasinghe et al. 2022). Both QCS (Unsal and Oguz 2013) and YCS (He et al.
2010), as well as truck scheduling problems (Cao et al. 2010a, b) are solved using
OR applications. Sequencing operations are also critical, since they can aect
container terminal eciency directly (Vis and Carlo 2010). Similar to observa-
tions under simulating container terminal operations cluster GA, integer linear
programming and heuristics are the methods that have been frequently used in the
second cluster as well (Chu et al. 2019).

4.2.2.3 Automating container terminals After Nabeshima et al. (1978) introduced

the discussion on automated container terminals, Chen et al. (2004) conducted a
study on automating port operations, and Yang et al. (2004) carried out another
one on simulation-based performance evaluation of transport vehicles at auto-
mated container terminals. According to Notteboom et al. (2022), there are three
stages of terminal automation: (1) adoption, (2) diusion and (3) maturity. The
authors predicted that yard management automations would have reached a level
of maturity by the end of the 2010–2020 decade. The authors further argued that
automating gate operations and truckers’ tasks will reach maturity level, from the
level of diusion, before 2030s, while yard cranes and quay cranes would remain
at early stages of automation. This shows the importance of adjusting planning
functions to automating operations. Thus, the subject of automated guided vehi-
cles provides the most popular area of study under automated container terminal
optimization (Lu and Wang 2019).

4.2.2.4 Trending methodologies: scheduling operations and automating termi-

nals As depicted in Fig. 10, BAP (Hansen et al. 2008), YCS (Ren 2012), and
sequence planning of quayside operations (Lu et al. 2013) are some of the areas
where GA has been applied. Further, automated stacking cranes (Dell et al. 2009),
yard allocations (Wan et al. 2009), integrated BAP, QCA, and QCS (Agra and
Oliveira 2018), block relocation problems (Lu et al. 2020), and rescheduling strat-
egies for BAP (Kim et al. 2021) are the key areas that integer linear programming
has been used, while heuristics are being applied with a similar frequency as inte-
ger linear programming in this cluster. BAP with a limited quay length (Imai et al.
2008), YSA (Wan et al. 2009) and stowage problems (Fazi 2019) are the key areas
these methods have been applied in various ways. Moreover, it is understood that
metaheuristic and simulated annealing are the techniques that are being applied at
least 10 times or more in cluster 2.
It is accepted that models should be updated when industry practices change.
In this respect, Gharehgozli et al. (2021), while improving their MILP model,
argue that the practice of deploying single automated stacking cranes (ASC) has
changed into deploying more than one crane to improve eciency. Also, Chen
and Zeng (2021) prove that MILP can be used to evaluate green ports in cases
where sustainable operations are demanded. According to Safaeian et al. (2021),
MILP can further address issues related to mitigating the limitation of unidirec-
tional movement of the quay cranes.
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 325

Fig. 10 OR applications—scheduling operations and automating terminals

Scheduling operations and automating terminals cover the areas of mathematical

modeling, integrated scheduling, automated container terminals, Lagrangian relaxa-
tion, combinatorial optimization, mixed, integer programming, simulated anneal-
ing, dynamic programming, and automated guided vehicles. Our study endorses the
position of Gunawardhana et al. (2021) that container terminals demand dynamic
scheduling and stacking tools to optimize their operations. According to Notteboom
et al. (2022), dynamics in the integration of dierent stages, i.e., adoption, diusion
and maturity of automation, should be considered in future studies on automating
container terminals.

4.2.3 Cluster 3—Optimizing quayside operations

4.2.3.1 Optimizing quayside operations and its evolution A quay area involves a few
critical planning tasks such as (1) the berth allocation problem (BAP), (2) QCA, (3)
QCS, (4) vessel stowage planning (VSP). These areas are discussed in other clusters
as well. However, according to Fig. 11, we are able to see that quayside operations
have a freestanding focus in optimizing container terminal planning.
As Fig. 11 clearly shows, BAP or BPP (berth planning problem) is the topic that
is investigated at the highest frequency. Studies on QCA and QCS have been con-
ducted as the next frequent topics in the list, while VSP remains the least focused
area. According to Weerasinghe et al. (2022), constraints from both sides, i.e.,
326 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

Fig. 11 Quayside operations planning studies

Fig. 12 OR applications—optimizing the quayside operations

terminal operator and vessel operator, are considered through VSP. Therefore, it is
important to solve VSP as an integrated problem since the vessel operator considers
it crucial for the whole voyage.

4.2.3.2 Trending methodologies: optimizing the quayside operations Figure 12

shows that GA is the method used more often, echoing our earlier ndings on simu-
lating container terminal operations, and scheduling operations and automating ter-
minals. It is noteworthy that integrating BAP and QCA (Zhang et al. 2010) and QCS
(Chang et al. 2010), VSP (Dubrovsky et al. 2002), and 3D VSP (Azevedo et al. 2018)
have been modeled using GA-based algorithms. At the same time, QCS (Lee et al.
2008) and loading sequence and rehandling strategies for multi-quay crane operations
(Ji et al. 2015) have been addressed using heuristic algorithms. In all these instances
it is clear that metaheuristic, integer linear programming (Liu M et al. 2016), simu-
lated annealing, and combinatorial optimization are the methods that have been mod-
elled as the next frequent ones.
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 327

It is often observed that uncertainty is one of the key challenges facing berth
planners, as rescheduling berths is dicult due to the limited number of berths. The
limitation of berths is the barrier that is discussed by most studies (Fernández and
Munoz-Marquez 2022). In this case, Kim et al. (2021) argue that rescheduling strat-
egies for berth planning in container terminals can be addressed using MILP. There-
fore, it is worth investigating the changing nature of berth planning through MILP in
future studies. In addition, worker performance variability is another area that chal-
lenges model designs. Chargui et al. (2021a, b) argue that heuristics and variable
neighborhood search can investigate limitations in worker performance variability.
Cluster 3 shows particle swarm optimization, optimal fuel consumption, applica-
tions in meta-heuristics, simulation optimization, and dynamic berth and QCS as
trending research directions. Here, more integrated studies are required to support
a smooth operation between quayside and landside. An assortment of studies can
be found under integrated berth planning, although the domain demands more inte-
grated studies between functions. Studies on automations are required to showcase
eective mechanisms of handling automated equipment. In this context, Gharehgo-
zli et al. (2021) showcase the ability to apply OR techniques to optimize automated
operations further. Thus, focus on automated guided vehicles (AGVs) has become
trending under this scope. However, still, studies that guide terminal operations to
synchronize the plan with all tasks, open an urgent research gap that needs to be
lled.

4.2.4 Cluster 4—Integrated operations in container terminals

4.2.4.1 Integrated operations in container terminals and its evolution Integrated

operations problems have been the main focus in most studies throughout the dec-
ade, starting from 2011. Accordingly, Kizilay and Eliiyi (2021) evaluate more than
200 preceding studies (2011–2020) and nd that the percentage of studies focus-
ing on the integrated perspective is less than 15%. While claiming that integration
has been explained in various ways in literature, Weerasinghe et al. (2022) dene it
as the application side of Terminal Operating Systems (TOS) in terminal planning.
Although most of the studies introduce integration as a method to connect two or
more planning functions, only 6.76% of the studies present an integrated focus. More-
over, Weerasinghe et al. (2022) claim that 69% of the integrated studies are related to
YTS and QCS and YCS appear respectively as 67% and 64% of integrated problems.

4.2.4.2 Trending methodologies: integrated operations in container terminal Again,

GA, Integer linear programming, and heuristics are the three main methods used in
integrated operations in container terminals cluster as well (Fig. 13). It is noted that
integrating scheduling of loading operations (Zeng and Yang 2009), integrating BAP
and QCA (Chang et al. 2010; Diabat and Theodorou 2014; Kaveshgar and Huynh
2015a, b), integrated scheduling of handling equipment (Lau and Zhao 2008), and
integrated scheduling of cranes, vehicles, and storage platforms at automated con-
tainer terminals (Zhou et al. 2020; Homayouni et al. 2014) are some key areas where
GA based algorithms have been applied.
328 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

Fig. 13 OR applications—integrated operations in container terminals

According to past research, prominent applications of integrated linear program-

ming include integrated yard truck and yard crane scheduling (Cao et al. 2010a, b;
He et al. 2015), and integrated BAP and QCA (Iris et al. 2015; Kenan et al. 2022;
Diabat and Theodorou 2014). The strategy even covers integrated remarshaling and
berthing (Salido et al. 2011), straddle carrier scheduling in import terminals (Dkhil
et al. 2018), integrated BAP and QCA (Shang et al. 2016), and integrated scheduling
problems with dual-cycle operations (Zhang et al. 2014). In addition to that, heuris-
tics, column generation, metaheuristics, branch and bound combinatorial optimiza-
tion and Lagrangian relaxation are methods that have been applied frequently in the
cluster.
One main barrier in integrated planning is identifying the exact workload limita-
tions at each working station. There, a combination of heuristics and metaheuristics
is proposed by Hsu et al. (2021a, b) to mitigate workload limitations. The uncer-
tainty due to vessel arrival times at berths is a key variable to consider in integrated
models. To resolve this issue, Rodrigues and Agra (2021) propose a robust approach
for the integrated berth allocation and QCS problem under uncertain arrival times.
This implies that developing scheduling problems through integrated approaches is
a key limitation mentioned in the literature. However, Niu et al. (2021) propose a
multi-objective bacterial colony optimization algorithm for an integrated container
terminal scheduling problem.
From the above research interests, it emerges that the areas of numerical simula-
tion, column generation, dynamic QCA, integrated yard template, dynamic container
stacking, reducing internal congestion queuing theory, and planner role can be sug-
gested as trending research directions under cluster 4: Integrated operations in con-
tainer terminals. To contribute further to this area of study, Weerasinghe and Niles
Perera (2021) highlight the importance of integrated planning in container termi-
nals. Based on the research ndings achieved so far, three directions are suggested:
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 329

uncertainty, planner role, and the integration of planning functions. In this regard,
according to Bai et al. (2021), social perspectives of maritime management can be
investigated to enhance the sustainability of container terminal operations. On the
whole, according to the observations of our study, it can be suggested that these
studies be linked with cluster 1 to provide more compressive results through simula-
tion under integrated studies.

4.2.5 Cluster 5—Container transportation

4.2.5.1 Container transportation and its evolution Containers are transported both
inside the terminal and in and out of it. Therefore, optimizing internal transport is
critical. Decision support systems that help to schedule container transportation,
including internal and external truck scheduling, play a vital role within this cluster
(Petering 2011; Van Hee and Wijbrands 1988). Further, Abdelmagid et al. (2021),
while discussing truck appointment scheduling models and directions for future
research in a review study, highlight the vessel berthing time and the truck turnaround
time as the two most critical factors to consider in scheduling trucks. In internal truck
scheduling, yard trucks (terminal tractors) and ITT are considered.
The process is further developed by Chen et al. (2013a, b) who propose a queue-
ing-based bi-objective model for optimizing truck arrival patterns aiming at reduc-
ing truck emissions at container terminals in a low carbon economy. More systema-
ticity is added to this by Zheng et al. (2016) who propose to solve truck scheduling
on a dedicated transportation route using integer linear programming. In all these
instances, it is found that yard truck scheduling (Homayouni et al. 2012; Cao et al.
2010a, b), the truck assignment problem (Vahdani et al. 2019), and ITT (Heilig et al.
2017) are the areas that heuristics have been applied as a method to solve optimiza-
tion problems. Thus, it is argued that ITT (Tierney et al. 2014), truck appointment
systems (Torkjazi et al. 2018) and yard truck deployment (Chargui et al. 2021a, b)
are the key areas where integer linear programming has been applied. Under this
cluster, Tabu search algorithms and GA-based frameworks have been frequently
used to improve container terminal operations planning (Guo et al. 2021).

4.2.5.2 Trending methodologies: container transportation Considering the multi

constraints in a system, while developing models, is a challenge. As a solution, Xu
et al. (2021a, b) propose a hybrid genetic algorithm and simulated annealing model
that eliminate multi constraints. They further argue that mixed-integer nonlinear
programming can contribute to developing truck appointment systems with multi
constraints (Xu et al. 2021a, b). This shows that it is critical to integrate dierent per-
spectives into one study. However, it is useful to know that Fan et al. (2019) propose
a combined approach that considers both the hybrid genetic algorithms and variable
neighborhood search to introduce green practices into terminal appointment systems
(Fig. 14).
Cluster 5: Container transportation suggests truck appointment systems, discrete
event simulation, and optimal vehicle routing as trending research directions. In this
context, Caballini et al. (2020) show that their combined data-mining optimization
approach to managing truck operations in container terminals using TAS reduce
330 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

Fig. 14 OR applications—container transportation and its evolution

empty truck trips by 34%. However, studies on ITT take a bird’s eye view on inte-
grated operations, while terminals demand studies on implementing ITT operating
systems. Since it is critical to implement operating systems by connecting dierent
types of TOS, this will be an interesting area for future research. It is important to
consider the attempt of Perera and Perera (2022) to explain, as a solution, pixel-
oriented mobility modelling in container transport. Further, machine learning tech-
niques can be suggested towards optimizing truck movements since it connects with
various aspects that cannot be controlled by the terminal operator. ITT operations
should be thus optimized while truck appointment systems focus on external truck
movements.

4.3 Evolution and future research directions

As depicted above, the areas of OR in maritime logistics, green port, robust opti-
mization, energy consumption, mathematical modeling, truck appointment systems,
maritime transport, uncertainty, numerical simulation and particle swarm optimi-
zation appear to be trending topics with a frequency of 8 times or more (Fig. 15).
Researchers, from Gharehgozli et al. (2017) to Sun et al. (2021), have illustrated
their problem within the area of OR in the maritime industry. The discussion of
robust optimization, introduced by Shang et al. (2016), has been further advanced by
Xiang and Liu (2021); Lujan et al. (2021) and Rodrigues and Agra (2021) who have
carried out their studies following the same direction.
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 331

Fig. 15 Evolution—OR applications in container terminal operations planning

In maritime transport, the discussion on green ports nowadays is high on the

research agenda. One encounters optimum terminal truck allocation (Esmer et al.
2010), CO2 emissions evaluation by yard tractors during loading (Yu et al. 2017),
decision support systems for investigating green practices (Longo 2019), low carbon
berth allocation under uncertainty (Zhen et al. 2021) and yard cranes transforma-
tion and deployment (Tan et al. 2022) as the main areas that the green port concept
has focused. It is timely that Bai and Lam (2014) discuss the environmental impact
assessments needed to further enhance green operations, and that Xin et al. (2014)
discuss energy-aware control for automated container terminals. One of the main
observations made here is that only four to ve studies were published under these
trending areas in 2021.

5 Conclusions

This study was carried out as a systematic review of operations research techniques,
in planning container terminal operations. We established that the frequency of
publications on container terminal operations planning, pursued through such tech-
niques, has recently increased. To make this more evident, our study provides an
overview of available literature within the dened scope under ve research clus-
ters developed through a careful analysis of a large pool of author keywords listed
above. It is understood that recent studies focus predominantly on green ports and
the sustainable energy aspects in container terminal operations. Also, GA-based
techniques, integer linear programming, and heuristic algorithms appear as key OR
tools to solve operational requirements in container terminal operations planning.
332 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

It is interesting to note that the most popular operations planning area within con-
tainer terminal operations has been berth allocation. However, a focus on industry-
academia collaboration has been quite low within the identied scope, despite the
growth of publications in recent years. Therefore, more industry collaborative work
is needed for the growth of this eld. Future studies are encouraged to be more of
an integrated nature that could contribute to solving the uncertainty problem in
container terminal operations. Finally, it is emphasized that, in order to achieve
expansive eciencies, emerging methods such as neural network models and rule-
based models that use machine learning and articial intelligence must be explored
extensively.
Acknowledgements The authors thank the Senate Research Committee, University of Moratuwa, Sri
Lanka, for funding this research through grant ID SRC/LT/2020/20. We are extremely thankful to the
editor and the reviewers for their constructive comments that have helped us immensely to improve the
quality of our manuscript.

Data availability Not applicable.

References
Abdelmagid, A.M., M.S. Gheith, and A.B. Eltawil. 2021. A comprehensive review of the truck appoint-
ment scheduling models and directions for future research. Transport Reviews. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01441647.2021.1955034.
Adi, T.N., Y.A. Iskandar, and H. Bae. 2020. Q-learning-based technique for reduction of number of
empty-truck trips in inter-terminal transportation. ICIC Express Letters, Part B: Applications 11
(10): 987–994. https://doi.org/10.24507/icicelb.11.10.987.
Agra, Agostinho, and Maryse Oliveira. 2018. MIP approaches for the integrated berth allocation and
quay crane assignment and scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research 264
(1): 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.040.
Alvarez, J.F., T. Longva, and E.S. Engebrethsen. 2010. A methodology to assess vessel berthing and
speed optimization policies. Maritime Economics and Logistics 12 (4): 327–346. https://doi.org/
10.1057/mel.2010.11.
Ambrosino, D., A. Sciomachen, and E. Tanfani. 2004. Stowing a containership: The master bay plan
problem. Transportation Research Part a: Policy and Practice 38 (2): 81–99. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tra.2003.09.002.
Azevedo, A.T., L.L. de Salles Neto, A.A. Chaves, and A.C. Moretti. 2018. Solving the 3D stowage plan-
ning problem integrated with the quay crane scheduling problem by representation by rules and
genetic algorithm. Applied Soft Computing Journal 65: 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.
2018.01.006.
Bai, Xiwen, and Jasmine Siu Lee. Lam. 2014. Dynamic regional port cluster development: Case
of the ports across Taiwan strait. GeoJournal 80 (5): 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10708-014-9567-5.
Bai, Xiwen, Xiunian Zhang, Kevin X. Li, Yaoming Zhou, and Kum Fai Yuen. 2021. Research topics and
trends in the maritime transport: A structural topic model. Transport Policy 102: 11–24. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.12.013.
Beens, Marie Anne, and Evrim Ursavas. 2016. Scheduling cranes at an indented berth. European Journal
of Operational Research 253 (2): 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.02.038.
Beškovnik, B. 2008. Measuring and increasing the productivity model on maritime container terminals.
Pomorstvo 22 (2): 171–183.
Bierwirth, C., and F. Meisel. 2010. A survey of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling problems in
container terminals. European Journal of Operational Research 202 (3): 615–627. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.031.
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 333

Böse, Jürgen W. 2020. Handbook of terminal planning. Operations research/computer science interfaces
series. Vol. 49. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8408-1.
Buhrkal, K., S. Zuglian, S. Ropke, J. Larsen, and R. Lusby. 2011. Models for the discrete berth allocation
problem: A computational comparison. Transportation Research Part e: Logistics and Transporta-
tion Review 47 (4): 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.11.016.
Caballini, C., M.D. Gracia, J. Mar-Ortiz, and S. Sacone. 2020. A combined data mining—optimization
approach to manage trucks operations in container terminals with the use of a TAS: Application
to an Italian and a Mexican port. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102054.
Cao, J.X., D.-H. Lee, J.H. Chen, and Q. Shi. 2010b. The Integrated Yard Truck and Yard Crane schedul-
ing problem: Benders’ decomposition-based methods. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review 46 (3): 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2009.08.012.
Cao, J., Q. Shi, and D.-H. Lee. 2010a. Integrated quay crane and yard truck schedule problem in con-
tainer terminals. Tsinghua Science and Technology 15 (4): 467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1007-0214(10)70089-4.
Carlo, Héctor J., Iris F.A. Vis, and Kees Jan Roodbergen. 2015. Seaside operations in container terminals:
Literature overview, trends, and research directions. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal
27 (2–3): 224–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-013-9178-3.
Chamchang, P., and H. Niyomdecha. 2021. Impact of service policies on terminal gate eciency: A
simulation approach. Cogent Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.
1975955.
Chang, D., Z. Jiang, W. Yan, and J. He. 2010. Integrating berth allocation and quay crane assignments.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 46 (6): 975–990. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.05.008.
Chao, S.-L., and P.-H. Lin. 2021. Minimizing overstowage in master bay plans of large container ships.
Maritime Economics and Logistics 23 (1): 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00126-6.
Chargui, K., T. Zouadi, A. El Fallahi, M. Reghioui, and T. Aouam. 2021. Berth and quay crane alloca-
tion and scheduling with worker performance variability and yard truck deployment in container
terminals. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tre.2021.102449.
Chargui, K., T. Zouadi, A.E. Fallahi, M. Reghioui, and T. Aouam. 2021a. Coupling the ILS optimisation
algorithm and a simulation process to solve the travelling Quay-Crane worker assignment and bal-
ancing problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.
2021.1907241.
Chen, G., K. Govindan, and M.M. Golias. 2013a. Reducing truck emissions at container terminals in a
low carbon economy: proposal of a queueing-based bi-objective model for optimizing truck arrival
pattern. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 55: 3–22. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2013.03.008.
Chen, G., K. Govindan, and Z. Yang. 2013b. Managing truck arrivals with time windows to alleviate
gate congestion at container terminals. International Journal of Production Economics 141 (1):
179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.033.
Chen, Jiang Hang, Der Horng Lee, and Jin Xin Cao. 2012. A combinatorial benders’ cuts algorithm for
the quayside operation problem at container terminals. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review 48 (1): 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.06.004.
Chen, P., Z. Fu, A. Lim, and B. Rodrigues. 2004. Port yard storage optimization. IEEE Transactions on
Automation Science and Engineering 1 (1): 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2004.829412.
Chen, S., and Q. Zeng. 2021. Carbon-ecient scheduling problem of electric rubber-tyred gantry cranes
in a container terminal. Engineering Optimization. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2021.19722
93.
Chou, C.-C., and P.-Y. Fang. 2021. Applying expert knowledge to containership stowage planning:
An empirical study. Maritime Economics and Logistics 23 (1): 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1057/
s41278-018-0113-0.
Chu, Feng, Junkai He, Feifeng Zheng, and Ming Liu. 2019. Scheduling multiple yard cranes in two adja-
cent container blocks with position-dependent processing times. Computers and Industrial Engi-
neering 136 (October): 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.013.
Chung, Y.-G., S.U. Randhawa, and E.D. McDowell. 1988. A simulation analysis for a transtainer-based
container handling facility. Computers and Industrial Engineering 14 (2): 113–125. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0360-8352(88)90020-4.
334 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

Cordeau, J.-F., G. Laporte, P. Legato, and L. Moccia. 2005. Models and Tabu Search heuristics for the
berth-allocation problem. Transportation Science 39 (4): 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.
1050.0120.
Dadashi, Ali, Maxim A. Dulebenets, Mihalis M. Golias, and Abdolreza Sheikholeslami. 2017. A novel
continuous berth scheduling model at multiple marine container terminals with tidal considera-
tions. Maritime Business Review 2 (2): 142–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/mabr-02-2017-0010.
Davarzani, Hoda, Behnam Fahimnia, Michael Bell, and Joseph Sarkis. 2016. Greening ports and mari-
time logistics: A review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 48: 473–
487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.007.
Delgado, A., R.M. Jensen, K. Janstrup, T.H. Rose, and K.H. Andersen. 2012. A constraint program-
ming model for fast optimal stowage of container vessel bays. European Journal of Operational
Research 220 (1): 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.028.
Dell, R.F., J.O. Royset, and I. Zyngiridis. 2009. Optimizing container movements using one and two
automated stacking cranes. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization 5 (2): 285–302.
https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2009.5.285.
Diabat, A., and E. Theodorou. 2014. An integrated quay crane assignment and scheduling problem. Com-
puters and Industrial Engineering 73 (1): 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.12.012.
Ding, D., and M.C. Chou. 2015. Stowage planning for container ships: A heuristic algorithm to reduce
the number of shifts. European Journal of Operational Research 246 (1): 242–249. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2015.03.044.
Ding, Y., Y. Yang, L. Heilig, E. Lalla-Ruiz, and S. Voss. 2021. Deployment and retrot strategy for
rubber-tyred gantry cranes considering carbon emissions. Computers and Industrial Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107645.
Dkhil, H., A. Yassine, and H. Chabchoub. 2018. Multi-objective optimization of the integrated prob-
lem of location assignment and straddle carrier scheduling in maritime container terminal at
import. Journal of the Operational Research Society 69 (2): 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1057/
s41274-017-0184-9.
Dragović, B., N.K. Park, Z. Radmilović, and V. Maraš. 2005. Simulation modelling of ship-berth link
with priority service. Maritime Economics and Logistics 7 (4): 316–335. https://doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.mel.9100141.
Dragović, Branislav, Ernestos Tzannatos, and Nam Kuy Park. 2017. Simulation modelling in ports
and container terminals: Literature overview and analysis by research eld, application area
and tool. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 29 (1): 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10696-016-9239-5.
Dubrovsky, O., G. Levitin, and M. Penn. 2002. A genetic algorithm with a compact solution encoding
for the container ship stowage problem. Journal of Heuristics 8 (6): 585–599. https://doi.org/10.
1023/A:1020373709350.
Esmer, S., I.B. Cetin, and O. Tuna. 2010. A simulation for optimum terminal truck number in a Turkish
port based on Lean and Green concept. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 26 (2): 277–296.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2092-5212(10)80006-9.
Fan, H., X. Ren, Z. Guo, and Y. Li. 2019. Truck scheduling problem considering carbon emissions under
truck appointment system. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226256.
Fazi, S. 2019. A decision-support framework for the stowage of maritime containers in inland shipping.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 131: 1–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tre.2019.09.008.
Fernández, E., and M. Munoz-Marquez. 2022. New formulations and solutions for the strategic berth
template problem. European Journal of Operational Research 298 (1): 99–117. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ejor.2021.06.062.
Fibrianto, Henokh Yernias, Bonggwon Kang, Bosung Kim, Annika Marbach, Tobias Buer, Hans-Dietrich
Haasis, Soondo Hong, and Kap Hwan Kim. 2020. A simulation study of a storage policy for a
container terminal. In Dynamics in logistics. LDIC 2020, ed. M. Freitag, H.D. Haasis, H. Kotzab,
and J. Pannek, vol. 1, 62–69. Lecture notes in logistics. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-44783-0_6.
Filom, S., A.M. Amiri, and S. Razavi. 2022. Applications of machine learning methods in port opera-
tions—a systematic literature review. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transporta-
tion Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102722.
Gerken, Paul, Herbert Kotzab, and Hans G. Unseld. 2020. Resource sharing as a management concept for
digital logistics terminals. In Dynamics in logistics. LDIC 2020, ed. M. Freitag, H.D. Haasis, H.
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 335

Kotzab, and J. Pannek, vol. 1, 79–88. Lecture notes in logistics. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-030-44783-0_8
Gharehgozli, A., O. Gharehgozli, and K. Li. 2021. Mixed integer programming models on scheduling
automated stacking cranes. International Journal of Business Analytics 8 (4): 11–33. https://doi.
org/10.4018/IJBAN.2021100102.
Gharehgozli, Amir Hossein, Debjit Roy, and René De Koster. 2016. Sea container terminals: New tech-
nologies and or models. Maritime Economics and Logistics 18 (2): 103–140. https://doi.org/10.
1057/mel.2015.3.
Gharehgozli, A.H., F.G. Vernooij, and N. Zaerpour. 2017. A simulation study of the performance of
twin automated stacking cranes at a seaport container terminal. European Journal of Operational
Research 261 (1): 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.01.037.
Golias, Mihalis M. 2011. A bi-objective berth allocation formulation to account for vessel handling time
uncertainty. Maritime Economics and Logistics 13 (4): 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2011.
21.
Golias, M.M., M. Boile, and S. Theofanis. 2009a. Berth scheduling by customer service dierentiation: A
multi-objective approach. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 45
(6): 878–892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2009.05.006.
Golias, M.M., G.K. Saharidis, M. Boile, S. Theofanis, and M.G. Ierapetritou. 2009b. The berth alloca-
tion problem: Optimizing vessel arrival time. Maritime Economics and Logistics 11 (4): 358–377.
https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2009.12.
Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and
associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal 26 (2): 91–108. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
Gunawardhana, Janith A., H. Niles Perera, and Amila Thibbotuwawa. 2021. Rule-based dynamic con-
tainer stacking to optimize yard operations at port terminals. Maritime Transport Research 2
(March): 100034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2021.100034.
Guo, W., M. Ji, and H. Zhu. 2021. Multi-period coordinated optimization on berth allocation and yard
assignment in container terminals based on truck route. iEEE Access 9: 83124–83136. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3086185.
Guo, Xi., and Shell Ying Huang. 2012. Dynamic space and time partitioning for yard crane workload
management in container terminals. Transportation Science 46 (1): 134–148. https://doi.org/10.
1287/trsc.1110.0383.
Güven, Ceyhun, and Deniz Türsel. Eliiyi. 2018. Modelling and optimisation of online container stacking
with operational constraints. Maritime Policy and Management 46 (2): 201–216. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03088839.2018.1450529.
Hansen, P., C. Oǧuz, and N. Mladenović. 2008. Variable neighborhood search for minimum cost berth
allocation. European Journal of Operational Research 191 (3): 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2006.12.057.
He, J., D. Chang, W. Mi, and W. Yan. 2010. A hybrid parallel genetic algorithm for yard crane schedul-
ing. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 46 (1): 136–155. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2009.07.002.
He, J., Y. Huang, W. Yan, and S. Wang. 2015. Integrated internal truck, yard crane and quay crane sched-
uling in a container terminal considering energy consumption. Expert Systems with Applications
42 (5): 2464–2487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.016.
He, Junliang, Caimao Tan, and Yuting Zhang. 2019. Yard crane scheduling problem in a container termi-
nal considering risk caused by uncertainty. Advanced Engineering Informatics 39: 14–24. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2018.11.004.
Heilig, L., E. Lalla-Ruiz, and S. Voß. 2017. Port-IO: An integrative mobile cloud platform for real-time
inter-terminal truck routing optimization. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 29 (3–4):
504–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-017-9280-z.
Homayouni, S.M., M.R. Vasili, S.M. Kazemi, and S.H. Tang. 2012. Integrated scheduling of SP-AS/
RS and handling equipment in automated container terminals. In 42nd International conference
on computers and industrial engineering 2012, CIE 2012, vol. 2, 781–92. Isfahan: Department of
Industrial Engineering, Lenjan Branch, Islamic Azad University. https://www.scopus.com/inward/
record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84892996615&partnerID=40&md5=7828794f3b701692f5dc31ce69e9f7
8b.
336 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

Homayouni, S.M., and S.H. Tang. 2013. Multi objective optimization of coordinated scheduling of cranes
and vehicles at container terminals. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. https://doi.org/10.
1155/2013/746781.
Homayouni, S.M., S.H. Tang, and O. Motlagh. 2014. A genetic algorithm for optimization of integrated
scheduling of cranes, vehicles, and storage platforms at automated container terminals. Journal
of Computational and Applied Mathematics 270: 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2013.11.
021.
Hsu, H.-P., H.-H. Tai, C.-N. Wang, and C.-C. Chou. 2021. Scheduling of collaborative operations of yard
cranes and yard trucks for export containers using hybrid approaches. Advanced Engineering Infor-
matics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101292.
Hsu, H.-P., C.-N. Wang, H.-P. Fu, and T.-T. Dang. 2021. Joint scheduling of yard crane, yard truck, and
quay crane for container terminal considering vessel stowage plan: An integrated simulation-based
optimization approach. Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9182236.
Hu, Q., B. Wiegmans, F. Corman, and G. Lodewijks. 2019. Critical literature review into planning of
inter-terminal transport: In port areas and the Hinterland. Journal of Advanced Transportation.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9893615.
Hwan Kim, K., and H. Bae Kim. 1999. Segregating space allocation models for container inventories in
port container terminals. International Journal of Production Economics 59 (1): 415–423. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00028-0.
Imai, A., E. Nishimura, and S. Papadimitriou. 2008. Berthing ships at a multi-user container terminal
with a limited quay capacity. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
44 (1): 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2006.05.002.
Iris, Ç., D. Pacino, S. Ropke, and A. Larsen. 2015. Integrated berth allocation and quay crane assign-
ment problem: Set partitioning models and computational results. Transportation Research Part e:
Logistics and Transportation Review 81: 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.06.008.
Ji, M., W. Guo, H. Zhu, and Y. Yang. 2015. Optimization of loading sequence and rehandling strategy for
multi-quay crane operations in container terminals. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 80: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.05.004.
Jin, Jian Gang, Der Horng Lee, and Jin Xin Cao. 2014. Storage yard management in maritime container
terminals. Transportation Science 50 (4): 1300–1313. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2014.0527.
Jin, X., and K.H. Kim. 2018. Collaborative inter-terminal transportation of containers. Industrial Engi-
neering and Management Systems 17 (3): 407–416. https://doi.org/10.7232/iems.2018.17.3.407.
Karakas, S., M. Kirmizi, and B. Kocaoglu. 2021. Yard block assignment, internal truck operations, and
berth allocation in container terminals: Introducing carbon-footprint minimisation objectives. Mar-
itime Economics and Logistics 23 (4): 750–771. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-021-00186-7.
Kastner, Marvin, Ann-Kathrin Lange, and Carlos Jahn. 2020. Expansion planning at container terminals.
In Dynamics in logistics. LDIC 2020, ed. M. Freitag, H.D. Haasis, H. Kotzab, and J. Pannek, vol.
1, 62–69. Lecture notes in logistics. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44783-0_
11.
Kastner, M., N. Nellen, A. Schwientek, and C. Jahn. 2021. Integrated simulation-based optimization of
operational decisions at container terminals. Algorithms. https://doi.org/10.3390/a14020042.
Kaveshgar, N., and N. Huynh. 2015a. A genetic algorithm heuristic for solving the quay crane scheduling
problem with time windows. Maritime Economics and Logistics 17 (4): 515–537. https://doi.org/
10.1057/mel.2014.31.
Kaveshgar, N., and N. Huynh. 2015b. Integrated quay crane and yard truck scheduling for unloading
inbound containers. International Journal of Production Economics 159: 168–177. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.028.
Kenan, N., A. Jebali, and A. Diabat. 2022. The integrated quay crane assignment and scheduling prob-
lems with carbon emissions considerations. Computers and Industrial Engineering. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cie.2021.107734.
Kim, A., H.-J. Park, J.-H. Park, and S.-W. Cho. 2021. Rescheduling strategy for berth planning in con-
tainer terminals: An empirical study from Korea. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9050527.
Kizilay, D., and D.T. Eliiyi. 2021. A comprehensive review of quay crane scheduling, yard operations and
integrations thereof in container terminals. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10696-020-09385-5.
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 337

Kon, W.K., N.S.F. Abdul Rahman, R. Md. Hanaah, and S. Abdul Hamid. 2020. The global trends of
automated container terminal: A systematic literature review. Maritime Business Review 6 (3):
206–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-03-2020-0016.
Kong, L., M. Ji, and Z. Gao. 2021. Joint optimization of container slot planning and truck scheduling
for tandem quay cranes. European Journal of Operational Research 293 (1): 149–166. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.12.005.
Kurniawan, F., S.N. Musa, N.H. Moin, and T.R. Sahroni. 2022. A systematic review on factors inu-
encing container terminal’s performance. Operations and Supply Chain Management 15 (2):
174–192. https://doi.org/10.31387/oscm0490339.
Laik, N., and E. Hadjiconstantnou. 2008. Container assignment and yard crane deployment in a con-
tainer terminal: A case study. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10 (1–2): 90–107. https://doi.
org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100193.
Larsen, R., and D. Pacino. 2021. A heuristic and a benchmark for the stowage planning problem. Mar-
itime Economics and Logistics 23 (1): 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00172-5.
Lau, H.Y.K., and Y. Zhao. 2008. Integrated scheduling of handling equipment at automated con-
tainer terminals. Annals of Operations Research 159 (1): 373–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10479-007-0262-5.
Lau, Y., C. Ducruet, A.K.Y. Ng, and X. Fu. 2017. Across the waves: A bibliometric analysis of con-
tainer shipping research since the 1960s. Maritime Policy and Management 44 (6): 667–684.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2017.1311425.
Lee, D.-H., H.Q. Wang, and L. Miao. 2008. Quay crane scheduling with non-interference constraints
in port container terminals. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review 44 (1): 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2006.08.001.
Legato, P., P. Canonaco, and R.M. Mazza. 2009. Yard crane management by simulation and optimi-
sation. Maritime Economics and Logistics 11 (1): 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2008.23.
Li, C.-L., and G.L. Vairaktarakis. 2004. Loading and unloading operations in container terminals. IIE
Transactions (institute of Industrial Engineers) 36 (4): 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408
170490247340.
Li, H., J. Peng, X. Wang, and J. Wan. 2021a. Integrated resource assignment and scheduling optimiza-
tion with limited critical equipment constraints at an automated container terminal. IEEE Trans-
actions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 22 (12): 7607–7618. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TITS.2020.3005854.
Li, N., H. Haralambides, H. Sheng, and Z. Jin. 2022. A new vocation queuing model to optimize truck
appointments and yard handling-equipment use in dual transactions systems of container termi-
nals. Computers and Industrial Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108216.
Li, X., Y. Peng, J. Huang, W. Wang, and X. Song. 2021. Simulation study on terminal layout in auto-
mated container terminals from eciency. Economic and Environment Perspectives’. Ocean
and Coastal Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105882.
Li, Y., D. Chang, Y. Gao, Y. Zou, and C. Bao. 2021. Automated container terminal production opera-
tion and optimization via an adaboost-based digital twin framework. Journal of Advanced
Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1936764.
Liu, C. 2020. Iterative heuristic for simultaneous allocations of berths, quay cranes, and yards under
practical situations. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.11.008.
Liu, C., L. Zheng, and C. Zhang. 2016a. Behavior perception-based disruption models for berth allo-
cation and quay crane assignment problems. Computers and Industrial Engineering 97: 258–
275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.04.008.
Liu, M., C.-Y. Lee, Z. Zhang, and C. Chu. 2016b. Bi-objective optimization for the container terminal
integrated planning. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 93: 720–749. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trb.2016.05.012.
Longo, F. 2019. Sustainability in logistic hubs: A decision support system for investigating green
practices at container terminals. International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling 14
(3): 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSPM.2019.101008.
Lu, C., B. Zeng, and S. Liu. 2020. A study on the block relocation problem: Lower bound derivations
and strong formulations. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 17 (4):
1829–1853. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2020.2979868.
338 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

Lu, H., and S. Wang. 2019. A study on multi-ASC scheduling method of automated container terminals
based on graph theory. Computers and Industrial Engineering 129: 404–416. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cie.2019.01.050.
Lu, H., H. Zhen, Y. Huang, and W. Yan. 2013. Assembly sequence planning of quayside container crane
based on improved immune algorithm. Journal of Applied Sciences 13 (22): 4922–4928. https://
doi.org/10.3923/jas.2013.4922.4928.
Lu, Y. 2021. The Three-stage integrated optimization of automated container terminal scheduling based
on improved genetic algorithm. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/
2021/6792137.
Lujan, E., E. Vergara, J. Rodriguez-Melquiades, M. Jiménez-Carrión, C. Sabino-Escobar, and F. Gutier-
rez. 2021. A fuzzy optimization model for the berth allocation problem and quay crane allocation
problem (BAP + QCAP) with n quays. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 9 (2): 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9020152.
Luna, J.H., J. Mar-Ortiz, M.D. Gracia, and D. Morales-Ramírez. 2018. An eciency analysis of cargo-
handling operations at container terminals. Maritime Economics and Logistics 20 (2): 190–210.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0074-8.
Lunin, A., and C.H. Glock. 2021. Systematic review of kinect-based solutions for physical risk assess-
ment in manual materials handling in industrial and laboratory environments. Computers and
Industrial Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107660.
Mi, C., Y. Huang, C. Fu, Z. Zhang, and O. Postolache. 2021. Vision-based measurement: Actualities
and developing trends in automated container terminals. IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement
Magazine 24 (4): 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIM.2021.9448257.
Moini, N., M. Boile, S. Theofanis, and W. Laventhal. 2012. Estimating the determinant factors of con-
tainer dwell times at seaports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 14 (2): 162–177. https://doi.org/
10.1057/mel.2012.3.
Monaco, M.F., M. Sammarra, and G. Sorrentino. 2014. The terminal-oriented ship stowage planning
problem. European Journal of Operational Research 239 (1): 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2014.05.030.
Nabeshima, Yasuo, Takahisa Kiryu, and Masakazu Arakaki. 1978. HITACHI AUTOMATED CON-
TAINER TERMINAL SYSTEM. Hitachi Review 27 (6): 295–300.
Nasution, N.K.G., X. Jin, and I.K. Singgih. 2022. Classifying games in container terminal logistics eld:
A systematic review. Entertainment Computing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2021.100465.
Nishimura, E., A. Imai, and S. Papadimitriou. 2001. Berth allocation planning in the public berth system
by genetic algorithms. European Journal of Operational Research 131 (2): 282–292. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00128-4.
Niu, B., Q. Liu, Z. Wang, L. Tan, and L. Li. 2021. Multi-objective bacterial colony optimization algo-
rithm for integrated container terminal scheduling problem. Natural Computing 20 (1): 89–104.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-019-09781-3.
Notteboom, Theo, Athanasios Pallis, and Jean-Paul. Rodrigue. 2022. Port economics. Management and
Policy. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429318184.
Parreño, F., D. Pacino, and R. Alvarez-Valdes. 2016. A GRASP algorithm for the container stowage slot
planning problem. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 94: 141–
157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.07.011.
Perera, H. Niles., Behnam Fahimnia, and Travis Tokar. 2020. Inventory and ordering decisions: A system-
atic review on research driven through behavioral experiments. International Journal of Operations
and Production Management 40 (7–8): 997–1039. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-05-2019-0339.
Perera, H. Niles., Jason Hurley, Behnam Fahimnia, and Mohsen Reisi. 2019. The human factor in sup-
ply chain forecasting: A systematic review. European Journal of Operational Research 274 (2):
574–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.10.028.
Perera, H. Niles., and H.Y. Ranjit Perera. 2022. Applications of pixel oriented mobility modelling in
transport & logistics. In Dynamics in logistics, ed. Michael Freitag, Aseem Kinra, Herbert Kotzab,
and Nicole Megow, 337–348. Cham: Springer.
Petering, M.E.H. 2011. Decision support for yard capacity, eet composition, truck substitutability, and
scalability issues at seaport container terminals. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 47 (1): 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.07.007.
Raman, H., and G. Ramkumar. 1988. Simulation model for analysis of waiting time of ships and berth
occupancy in ports. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India), Part MR: Marine Engineering
Division 68 (2): 35–40.
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 339

Rego, C., and C. Roucairol. 1995. Using Tabu search for solving a dynamic multi-terminal truck dis-
patching problem. European Journal of Operational Research 83 (2): 411–429. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0377-2217(95)00016-J.
Ren, W. 2012. Yard crane scheduling with time window and dynamic demand strategy based on resource
sharing. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and Its Applications 6 (8): 213–221.
https://doi.org/10.4156/jdcta.vol6.issue8.25.
Rodrigues, F., and A. Agra. 2021. An exact robust approach for the integrated berth allocation and
quay crane scheduling problem under uncertain arrival times. European Journal of Operational
Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.03.016.
Safaeian, M., F. Etebari, and B. Vahdani. 2021. An integrated quay crane assignment and scheduling
problem with several contractors in container terminals. Scientia Iranica 28 (2): 1030–1048.
https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2019.53338.3191.
Saginaw, D.J., II., and A.N. Perakis. 1989. Decision support system for containership stowage planning.
Marine Technology and SNAME News 26 (1): 47–61.
Salido, M.A., M. Rodriguez-Molins, and F. Barber. 2011. Integrated intelligent techniques for remar-
shaling and berthing in maritime terminals. Advanced Engineering Informatics 25 (3): 435–451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.10.001.
Seth, S., and Q. Feng. 2020. Assessment of port eciency using stepwise selection and window analysis
in data envelopment analysis. Maritime Economics and Logistics 22 (4): 536–561. https://doi.org/
10.1057/s41278-020-00155-6.
Sha, M., T. Notteboom, T. Zhang, X. Zhou, and T. Qin. 2021. Simulation model to determine ratios
between quay, yard and intra-terminal transfer equipment in an integrated container handling sys-
tem. Journal of International Logistics and Trade 19 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.24006/JILT.
2021.19.1.001.
Shang, X.T., J.X. Cao, and J. Ren. 2016. A robust optimization approach to the integrated berth allocation
and quay crane assignment problem. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review 94: 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.06.011.
Shields, Jonathan J. 1984. CONTAINERSHIP STOWAGE: A COMPUTER-AIDED PREPLANNING
SYSTEM. Marine Technology 21 (4): 370–83.
Silberholz, M.B., B.L. Golden, and E.K. Baker. 1991. Using simulation to study the impact of work rules
on productivity at marine container terminals. Computers and Operations Research 18 (5): 433–
452. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(91)90020-R.
Sislioglu, M., M. Celik, and S. Ozkaynak. 2019. A simulation model proposal to improve the productivity
of container terminal operations through investment alternatives. Maritime Policy and Manage-
ment 46 (2): 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1481544.
Stahlbock, Robert, and Stefan Voß. 2007. Operations research at container terminals: A literature update.
Or Spectrum 30 (1): 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-007-0100-9.
Steenken, Dirk, Stefan Voß, and Robert Stahlbock. 2004. Container terminal operation and operations
research—a classication and literature review. Or Spectrum 26 (1): 3–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00291-003-0157-z.
Sun, D., L. Tang, R. Baldacci, and A. Lim. 2021. An exact algorithm for the unidirectional quay crane
scheduling problem with vessel stability. European Journal of Operational Research 291 (1): 271–
283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.09.033.
Tan, C., W. Yan, and J. Yue. 2021. Quay crane scheduling in automated container terminal for the trade-
o between operation eciency and energy consumption. Advanced Engineering Informatics.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101285.
Tan, Z., Q. Zhang, Y. Yuan, and Y. Jin. 2022. A decision method on yard cranes transformation and
deployment in green ports. International Transactions in Operational Research 29 (1): 323–346.
https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13027.
Tierney, K., S. Voß, and R. Stahlbock. 2014. A mathematical model of inter-terminal transportation.
European Journal of Operational Research 235 (2): 448–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.
07.007.
Ting, S.-C., J.-S. Wang, S.-L. Kao, and F.M. Pitty. 2010. Categorized stacking models for import contain-
ers in port container terminals. Maritime Economics and Logistics 12 (2): 162–177. https://doi.org/
10.1057/mel.2010.4.
Torkjazi, M., N. Huynh, and S. Shiri. 2018. Truck appointment systems considering impact to drayage
truck tours. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 116: 208–228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.06.003.
340 B. A. Weerasinghe et al.

Uesugi, M., T. Irohara, and K. Yoshimoto. 2001. A study on vehicle routing scheduling problem
under limited number of berths. Nihon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu, C Hen/Transactions of the
Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Part C 67 (662): 3345–3350. https://doi.org/10.1299/
kikaic.67.3345.
UNCTAD. 2021. Review of Maritime Report. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2015_en.
pdf.
Unsal, O., and C. Oguz. 2013. Constraint programming approach to quay crane scheduling problem.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 59: 108–122. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tre.2013.08.006.
Ursavas, Evrim. 2014. A decision support system for quayside operations in a container terminal. Deci-
sion Support Systems 59 (1): 312–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.01.003.
Ursavas, E. 2017. Crane allocation with stability considerations. Maritime Economics and Logistics 19
(2): 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2015.35.
Vahdani, B., F. Mansour, M. Soltani, and D. Veysmoradi. 2019. Bi-objective optimization for integrating
quay crane and internal truck assignment with challenges of trucks sharing. Knowledge-Based Sys-
tems 163: 675–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.09.025.
van Hee, K.M., and R.J. Wijbrands. 1988. Decision support system for container terminal planning. Euro-
pean Journal of Operational Research 34 (3): 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(88)
90147-6.
van-Eck, Nees Jan, and Ludo Waltman. 2014. Measuring scholarly impact. Measuring Scholarly Impact.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8.
Vis, I.F.A., and H.J. Carlo. 2010. Sequencing two cooperating automated stacking cranes in a container
terminal. Transportation Science 44 (2): 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1090.0298.
Wan, Y.-W., J. Liu, and P.-C. Tsai. 2009. The assignment of storage locations to containers for a container
stack. Naval Research Logistics 56 (8): 699–713. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.20373.
Wasesa, M., F.I. Ramadhan, A. Nita, P.F. Belgiawan, and L. Mayangsari. 2021. Impact of overbooking
reservation mechanism on container terminal’s operational performance and greenhouse gas emis-
sions. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 37 (2): 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2021.
01.002.
Weerasinghe, B., and H. Niles Perera. 2021. Maritime Logistics Research in South Asia: A Systematic
Review. Research for Transport and Logistics Industry (R4TLI). https://dl.lib.uom.lk/handle/123/
18301
Weerasinghe, Buddhi A., H. Niles Perera, and Phillip Kießner. 2022. Planning decision altera-
tions and container terminal eciency. Maritime Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/
MABR-04-2021-0035.
Wilson, I.D., and P.A. Roach. 1999. Principles of combinatorial optimization applied to container-ship
stowage planning. Journal of Heuristics 5 (4): 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009680305
670.
Xiang, X., and C. Liu. 2021. An almost robust optimization model for integrated berth allocation and
quay crane assignment problem. Omega (United Kingdom). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2021.
102455.
Xin, J., R.R. Negenborn, and G. Lodewijks. 2014. Energy-aware control for automated container termi-
nals using integrated ow shop scheduling and optimal control. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies 44: 214–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.03.014.
Xu, B., D. Jie, J. Li, Y. Yang, F. Wen, and H. Song. 2021. Integrated scheduling optimization of U-shaped
automated container terminal under loading and unloading mode. Computers and Industrial Engi-
neering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107695.
Xu, B., X. Liu, Y. Yang, J. Li, and O. Postolache. 2021b. Optimization for a multi-constraint truck
appointment system considering morning and evening peak congestion. Sustainability (switzer-
land) 13 (3): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031181.
Yang, C.H., Y.S. Choi, and T.Y. Ha. 2004. Simulation-based performance evaluation of transport vehi-
cles at automated container terminals. Or Spectrum 26 (2): 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00291-003-0151-5.
Yu, Hang, Ying En Ge, Jihong Chen, Lihua Luo, Caimao Tan, and Ding Liu. 2017. CO2 emission evalua-
tion of yard tractors during loading at container terminals. Transportation Research Part D: Trans-
port and Environment 53 (June): 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2017.03.014.
Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review… 341

Yu, J., S. Voß, and X. Song. 2022. Multi-objective optimization of daily use of shore side electricity
integrated with quayside operation. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep
ro.2022.131406.
Zeng, Q., Y. Feng, and Z. Chen. 2017. optimizing berth allocation and storage space in direct transship-
ment operations at container terminals Oa. Maritime Economics and Logistics 19 (3): 474–503.
https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2016.2.
Zeng, Q., and Z. Yang. 2009. integrating simulation and optimization to schedule loading operations in
container terminals. Computers and Operations Research 36 (6): 1935–1944. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cor.2008.06.010.
Zhang, C., L. Zheng, Z. Zhang, L. Shi, and A.J. Armstrong. 2010. The allocation of berths and quay
cranes by using a sub-gradient optimization technique. Computers and Industrial Engineering 58
(1): 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2009.08.002.
Zhang, Y., Z. Rong, and Z.-X. Liu. 2014. The integrated scheduling problem in container terminal with
dual-cycle operation. International Journal of Simulation Modelling 13 (3): 335–347. https://doi.
org/10.2507/IJSIMM13(3)CO12.
Zhao, W., and A.V. Goodchild. 2013. Using the truck appointment system to improve yard eciency in
container terminals. Maritime Economics and Logistics 15 (1): 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1057/
mel.2012.23.
Zhen, L., Q. Sun, W. Zhang, K. Wang, and W. Yi. 2021. Column generation for low carbon berth alloca-
tion under uncertainty. Journal of the Operational Research Society 72 (10): 2225–2240. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2020.1776168.
Zhen, Lu., Xu. Zhou, Kai Wang, and Yi. Ding. 2016. Multi-period yard template planning in container
terminals. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 93: 700–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trb.2015.12.006.
Zheng, F., J. Huang, M. Liu, and F. Chu. 2016. Port truck scheduling on a dedicated transportation route
at a container terminal. In Glorious Sun School of Business and Management. Shanghai: Dong-
hua University, Computers and Industrial Engineering. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?
eid=2-s2.0-85013845809&partnerID=40&md5=78f5644e2f0fb72710425d8edfdd1f.
Zhou, C., B.K. Lee, and H. Li. 2020. Integrated optimization on yard crane scheduling and vehicle posi-
tioning at container yards. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101966.
Zhou, C., Q. Zhao, and H. Li. 2021. Simulation optimization iteration approach on trac integrated yard
allocation problem in transshipment terminals. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 33
(3): 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-020-09393-5.
Zhuang, Z., Z. Zhang, H. Teng, W. Qin, and H. Fang. 2022. Optimization for integrated scheduling of
intelligent handling equipment with bidirectional ows and limited buers at automated container
terminals. Computers and Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2022.105863.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional aliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.