# Optimizing Container Loading and Unloading through Dual-Cycling and Dockyard
Rehandle Reduction Using a Hybrid Genetic Algorithm

Md. Mahfuzur Rahman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Md Abrar Jahin
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Md. Saiful Islam<EMAIL_ADDRESS>M. F.
Mridha<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
###### Abstract

This paper addresses the optimization of container unloading and loading
operations at ports, integrating quay-crane dual-cycling with dockyard
rehandle minimization. We present a unified model encompassing both
operations: ship container unloading and loading by quay crane, and the other
is reducing dockyard rehandles while loading the ship. We recognize that
optimizing one aspect in isolation can lead to suboptimal outcomes due to
interdependencies. Specifically, optimizing unloading sequences for minimal
operation time may inadvertently increase dockyard rehandles during loading
and vice versa. To address this NP-hard problem, we propose a hybrid genetic
algorithm (GA) QCDC-DR-GA comprising one-dimensional and two-dimensional GA
components. Our model, QCDC-DR-GA, consistently outperforms four state-of-the-
art methods in maximizing dual cycles and minimizing dockyard rehandles.
Compared to those methods, it reduced 15-20% of total operation time for large
vessels. Statistical validation through a two-tailed paired t-test confirms
the superiority of QCDC-DR-GA at a 5% significance level. The approach
effectively combines QCDC optimization with dockyard rehandle minimization,
optimizing the total unloading-loading time. Results underscore the
inefficiency of separately optimizing QCDC and dockyard rehandles. Fragmented
approaches, such as QCDC Scheduling Optimized by bi-level GA and GA-ILSRS
(Scenario 2), show limited improvement compared to QCDC-DR-GA. As in GA-ILSRS
(Scenario 1), neglecting dual-cycle optimization leads to inferior performance
than QCDC-DR-GA. This emphasizes the necessity of simultaneously considering
both aspects for optimal resource utilization and overall operational
efficiency.

###### keywords:

Dual Cycling , Quay Crane , Dockyard Rehandles , Genetic Algorithm , 2D
Crossover , 2D Mutation

[inst1]organization=Department of Industrial Engineering and
Management,addressline=Khulna University of Engineering and Technology (KUET),
city=Khulna, addressline=Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate
University (OIST), city=Okinawa, postcode=904-0412, country=Japan
[inst3]organization=Department of Computer Science,addressline=American
International University-Bangladesh (AIUB), city=Dhaka, postcode=1229,
country=Bangladesh

##  1 Introduction

Trade is the essence of the global economy, whereas ports are the economic
lifeline for countries. Today, almost 80% of the world’s goods are carried by
shipping containers. So, ships are crucial in this system. Therefore,
countries are competing to have large fleets. Nowadays, large vessels can
carry over 25,000 containers. The operation to receive these mega-ships needs
preparations. The goal and challenge of every port is now to reduce the
turnaround time of vessels. For example, 15 years ago, the turnover time of a
mega vessel was about 14 to 15 days (about 2 weeks); nowadays, it takes only 3
to 4 days, and they are targeting in the future to reduce the turnover time by
3 to 4 hours. There are so many methods and tricks that the shipping companies
figured out over the years to make the process of loading and unloading the
ship easier and quicker. In this research, we will introduce such a method.

The most expensive single unit of container handling equipment in port
terminals is the Quay Cranes (QCs). As a result, QC availability is one of the
main operational bottlenecks at ports (Chu and Huang,, 2002). Ports can
decrease ship turnaround time, increase productivity, and boost freight
transportation system throughput by increasing QC efficiency (Goodchild and
Daganzo,, 2006). Our research addresses this key bottleneck to port
productivity. The approach is low-cost to increase productivity; neither new
infrastructure nor technologies are needed. Although our strategy would not
fix the capacity issue in the long term, it can be applied more quickly than
other approaches and be used in conjunction with other methods.

The majority of ports use the single cycle approach for QC operations in which
the QC typically performs loading operations after all unloading tasks have
been completed (see Figure 1 (a)).

UnloadcontainerReturnwithoutcontainer(a) Single
CyclingUnloadcontainerLoadcontainer(a) Dual Cycling

Figure 1: (a) Unloading Using Single Cycling; (b) Unloading and Loading with
Double Cycling

Dual cycling strategy is an advanced technique to improve port efficiency of
loading and unloading by eliminating some of the empty crane moves (see Figure
1 (b)). Because it allows the QC to do loading and unloading simultaneously at
the same time (Goodchild and Daganzo,, 2006). Maximizing the number of dual
cycles would ultimately decrease a ship’s turnaround time. Goodchild also
showed that the unloading sequence of a bay-stacks111The definition of Bay is
given in section 3, also see Figure 2. impacts the number of dual cycles. So,
an optimal solution remains for which the number of dual cycles will be
maximum. He also suggested a greedy approach to find a heuristic solution
instantly. After that, numerous researchers suggested several solutions to
improve the dual cycling strategy. The mathematical model of quay crane dual-
cycling scheduling (QCDCS) is considered a two-machine flow shop problem. It
results in an NP-hard problem. Hence, metaheuristic algorithms, like Genetic
algorithm (GA), would give the result much better and faster.

Another big issue while loading and unloading containers in ports is
rehandling them in the dockyard. Rehandling is necessary while retrieving a
container, known as a target container, that is not on the top of the stack.
Moving a blocked container to a different stack can also result in further
rehandles during the retrieval process (Sauri and Martin,, 2011). Depending on
the closest stack, lowest stack, and optimization method, the obstructed
container may be shifted to that stack in the same yard bay. As rehandling is
very time-consuming, ports aim to minimize the number of rehandles as much as
possible. In this case, the mathematical model of minimizing the number of
rehandles at the dockyard also results in an NP-hard problem. So, here, the GA
would also give better results.

In contrast to the previous research, we noticed that the number of dual
cycles may be maximized for a particular unloading sequence. Still, it can
increase the number of dockyards rehandles. Similar issues will arise when we
optimize dockyard rehandles separately without considering the unloading and
loading operations. This work aimed to optimize the process in one model,
providing an unloading sequence and a dockyard container arrangement,
maximizing dual cycles, and minimizing dockyard rehandling. Moreover, we
introduced a method called Maximizing Quay Crane Dual Cycles and Minimizing
Dockyard Rehandles by GA (QCDC-DR-GA) to solve the model. Finally, we verified
the algorithm’s robustness by comparing it with results given by QCDCS Greedy
Upper Bound, GA-QCDCS strategy, GA-ILSRS with single cycling, and GA-ILSRS
with dual cycling separately.

This study presents seven significant contributions to the domain of container
unloading-loading operations at ports:

  1. 1.

This study empirically validates the correlation between the unloading
sequence of stacks within a ship row and the occurrence of dockyard rehandles,
particularly in the context of dual-cycling strategies.

  2. 2.

We develop a comprehensive model that integrates dockyard and Quay Crane-
Double Cycling (QCDC) operations, offering a holistic approach to optimizing
container handling.

  3. 3.

The paper introduces a novel hybrid GA approach to optimize the proposed
model, enhancing efficiency and performance in container operations.

  4. 4.

We propose a specialized GA, combining one-dimensional and two-dimensional GA
techniques that are introduced to address the unique challenges of container
handling optimization.

  5. 5.

We conduct an extensive analysis of computational parameters within the GA
framework to identify and implement the most influential parameters and
methods tailored to the specific requirements of the container handling
problem.

  6. 6.

We provide the rationale behind selecting different strategies and
methodologies at various stages of the GA optimization process, providing
valuable insights into algorithmic decision-making.

  7. 7.

Finally, we conduct a comprehensive benchmarking analysis, comparing the
proposed strategy against four state-of-the-art algorithms. The superiority of
our model is rigorously validated through statistical paired t-tests,
demonstrating its effectiveness and reliability in optimizing container
handling operations.

This article is structured in the following manner: The “Literature Review”
section discusses the relevant literature on dual cycling and reducing
rehandles. In the “Problem Description” section, we outline the problem
statement. The “Methodology” section covers model formulation (objectives and
constraints) and our approach, QCDC-DR-GA, including its workflow, strategies,
and parameters. The “Results” section details scenario generation,
computational experiments, and result analysis. Finally, the “Conclusions”
section summarizes the work, highlights primary contributions, and suggests
future directions.

##  2 Literature Review

A considerable volume of operational research has focused on resolving
challenges in the realm of ports. These studies commonly concentrate on
matters related to strategic design and planning, such as – the optimal number
of berths and crane combinations (Schonfeld and Sharafeldien,, 1985), the
optimal size of storage space (Kim and Kim,, 2002), determination of the
number of AGVs required (Vis et al.,, 2001) and trade-offs between storage
space and handling work (Taleb-Ibrahimi et al.,, 1993). Also, works have been
done in operational scheduling in berth and quay cranes (Park and Kim,, 2003),
dispatching method for yard cranes and AGVs (Kim and Bae,, 1999), and dynamic
deployment and scheduling of yard cranes (Zhang et al.,, 2002) (Chen et al.,,
2007).

Since quay cranes are the main bottleneck in the efficient operation of
container terminals, their operational efficiency determines the turnaround
time of vessels in seaports (Chu and Huang,, 2002). Hence, more work has been
done to improve the efficiency of the quay crane operation. Kim and Park (Kim
and Park,, 2004) formulated a mixed-integer programming model that accounted
for diverse constraints concerning quay crane operations. They introduced a
heuristic search algorithm named ”greedy randomized adaptive search procedure”
to address this issue effectively. Tavakkoli et al. (Tavakkoli-Moghaddam et
al.,, 2009) introduced a novel mixed-integer programming (MIP) model for
solving the quay crane scheduling and assignment problem (QCSAP). Traditional
methods struggle to solve this complex problem efficiently within reasonable
timeframes. To address this, they presented a genetic algorithm (GA) as a
solution for real-world scenarios. Also, Fu, Diabat, and Tsai (Fu et al.,,
2014), along with Diabat and Theodorou (Diabat and Theodorou,, 2014), worked
on combining quay crane assignment and scheduling problem. They also used the
GA to find solutions. Their results showed that the GA was better and faster
than another technique called Lagrangian relaxation.

The effectiveness of quay cranes relies on how well they work together with
other equipment like yard trailers and cranes. Certain researchers
investigated solving the integration scheduling problem to enhance
coordination and overall efficiency at container terminals. For example- Bish
(Bish,, 2003) introduced models and algorithms that brought together various
sub-processes. These included finding suitable storage spots for unloaded
containers, sending vehicles to specific containers, and planning the loading
and unloading activities for quay and yard cranes. Chen et al. (Chen et al.,,
2007) created a comprehensive model to enhance the efficiency of the complete
loading and unloading procedure. Zeng, Yang, and Hu (Zeng et al.,, 2011)
created a model for recovering from disruptions in berth and quay crane
schedules. However, the previously mentioned literature concerning scheduling
primarily centers on the quay crane single cycling (QCSC) method, with
relatively limited advancement in QCDCS scheduling literature.

###  2.1 Dual Cycling

Goodchild and Daganzo first introduced the QCDCS strategy (Goodchild and
Daganzo,, 2006). They formulated the double cycling problem as the 2-machine
flow shop problem and proposed a greedy approach to generate a sequence for
loading and unloading. They also ran a trial at Port of Tacoma, US (2003). In
this trial, the revised meantime for a single cycle was 1 minute and 45
seconds, while for a double cycle, it was 2 minutes and 50 seconds.
Consequently, double cycling resulted in a time saving of 40 seconds for each
pair of containers subjected to the process. Later, in 2007 (Goodchild and
Daganzo,, 2007), they devised a framework for assessing QC performance. They
also formulated a straightforward formula to forecast the effect on turn-
around time. Their findings also revealed that employing a double-cycling
approach could lead to a 10% reduction in operating time and a decrease in the
demand for yard tractors and drivers. Song (Song,, 2007) proposed a formula to
find out the optimal starting point of double cycling that maximizes its
frequency.

The above studies concentrated on implementing QCDCS for single quay cranes
QCs. Their practical experiments revealed that this approach could enhance the
productivity of each QC by around 10 to 20%. Then Zhang et al. (Zhang and
Kim,, 2009) suggested multiple QC double cycling models and solved a mixed
integer programming model. At the same time, the sequence was generated using
a constructive Jonson’s rule with an effective local search method. D Ku and
TS Arthanari (Ku and Arthanari,, 2016) pointed out a flaw with the existing
multiple QCDCS model that lets cycles that are not implementable.

Lee et al. (Lee et al.,, 2015) investigated the computational complexity of
the QCDCS problem. They showed it can be formulated as a flow shop scheduling
problem with series-parallel precedence constraints, solving it polynomially.
For ease of implementation, they presented an optimal algorithm for the
general QCDCS problem, a simplified version of Sidney’s algorithm. Zeng et al.
(Zeng et al.,, 2015) developed a mixed-integer programming model for QCDCS.
The model considered the stowage plan of outbound containers and the
operational sequence of QCs. A heuristic method called bi-level GA was
designed to solve the model. Zhang et al. (Zhang et al.,, 2019) focused on
overall handling efficiency and the system’s stability of container terminals
with double cycling. He et al. (2019) (He et al.,, 2020) solved a mixed
integer programming model, which covers the main operational constraints
(including multiple hatch-covers) in a container terminal. Zheng et al. (Zheng
et al.,, 2020) presented a dynamic programming approach to solve the QCDCS
problem optimally. Ahmed et al. (Ahmed et al.,, 2021) developed two simulation
models and implemented them based on a real-life case study considering
uncertainties in the work task duration.

###  2.2 Reducing Rehandles

The issue of rehandling is typically connected to the arrangement of
containers on ships and in yards. Some studies have addressed the rehandling
problem by examining the containership stowage plan or the yard storage
arrangements. They concentrated on refining the rehandling strategy based on
specific loading sequences without considering how the loading sequence might
impact rehandling. Kim (Kim,, 1997) proposed a methodology to calculate the
expected number of rehandles to pick up a random container and the total
number of rehandles to pick up all the containers in a bay for a given initial
stacking configuration. Imai et al. (Imai et al.,, 2006) formulated the issue
as a multi-objective integer programming challenge. They employed the
weighting method and acquired a collection of non-inferior solutions. Sauri
and Martin (Sauri and Martin,, 2011) suggested three stacking strategies,
which consider the containers’ arrival rates, departure rates, and storage
yard characteristics, then developed a model to determine the number of
rehandles. Lee et al. (Lee et al.,, 2009) proposed a novel approach that
integrated yard truck scheduling and storage allocation and developed a hybrid
insertion algorithm to solve this problem. Gharehgozli et al. (Caserta et
al.,, 2011) presented a yard crane scheduling problem to carry out a set of
container storage and introduced an algorithm based on the corridor method,
designed to address the problem of relocating blocks within block stacking
systems.

Various algorithms are employed to address relocation problems, but the GA is
commonly adopted to conduct the solutions because of its efficiency. For
example, Homayouni et al. (Homayouni et al.,, 2014) integrated the scheduling
of quay cranes, AGVs, and handling platforms and proposed a GA to solve the
problem. Ji et al. (Ji et al.,, 2015) presented an improved GA design to solve
the model. Compared with earlier strategies and heuristics, they demonstrated
the effectiveness of their optimization approach and algorithm.

Previous research tackled parts of optimizing container handling, such as
maximizing dual cycles or minimizing dockyard rehandles, but not both
simultaneously. This work bridges the gap by proposing a unified model that
optimizes both aspects simultaneously. Our QCDC-DR-GA algorithm finds the
ideal unloading sequence and dockyard layout to maximize dual cycles and
minimize rehandles. Proven effective against existing methods, it offers a
holistic solution for efficient container handling at ports.

##  3 Problem Description

The layout of the containers, as shown in Figure 2 on a ship or in the port
yard, can be modeled as a three-dimensional matrix. Generally, the three
dimensions are named rows, bays, and tiers (see Figure 2). Containers are
stacked one above the other and arranged in rows. A row is stretched across
the width of the bay or ship. Nowadays, some vessels can hold up to 30 stacks
in a row and up to 30 rows (40-foot containers) along the length.

QCs usually process unloading and loading across the ship bay. In the QCSC
method, loading operations can only be done after completing the unloading
operations. However, in the QCDC method, a QC performs unloading and loading
operations simultaneously in a particular ship bay.

(a) Side view(b) Front viewBaysTiersRowsTiers Figure 2: Illustration of the
container arrangement at dockyard or ship. The rows, bays, and tiers are the
three axes of the container storing system, where (a) and (b) are the top view
and front view, respectively.

The operating cycle of a QC can be broken down into the following parts:

  1. (i)

Locking and unlocking the trolley with the container.

  2. (ii)

Horizontal movement of the trolley (with container).

  3. (iii)

Vertical movement of the trolley (with container).

###  3.1 Case Consideration

After the arrival of a vessel in port with a set of containers to be unloaded
and a loading plan for a set of containers, Let $U_{c}$ and $L_{c}$ are the
numbers of containers to be unloaded and loaded, where $c$ is the stack
number. Figure 3 illustrates an example used in this work.

Let $S$ be the set of stacks in a row. $|s|=N$ denotes the number of stacks in
the set $S$, and $P$ a permutation of set $S$ telling the ordering of the
stacks. For example, in Figure 3 (a), the set of stacks is $S=\\{A,B,C,D\\}$.
Then $P(1)=A$, $P(2)=B$, $P(3)=C$ and $P(4)=D$. How the order in which the
stacks within each row are handled affects the total number of cycles is
explained by Goodchild (2006) (Goodchild and Daganzo,, 2006). He explained
(graphically) that there is an optimum sequence of the set $S$ for which the
number of cycles $w$ is minimum.

####  3.1.1 Generic Double Cycling Method

  1. (i)

Select any unloading permutation, $P^{\prime}$. Unload all the containers of
the first stack and then the second stack, and proceed in this manner until
all stacks have been unloaded.

  2. (ii)

Select a loading permutation, $P$, and load the stacks according to that
permutation. Loading can be started in any stack when it becomes empty or
contains only containers that would not be unloaded at this port. Once loading
has been initiated on a stack, continue the process until that stack is fully
loaded.

A3A2A1B3B2B1C2C1D2D1ABCDA1D1Container to unloadContainer to be
rehandledContainer to stay on vessel(a) Unloading-plan of a
vesselA1A2A3B1B2B3B4C1D1D2D3ABCDShip Loading SequenceDockyard container’s
status(b) Loading plan of the vesselB1B2B3D1A1A2C1D3D2B4 Figure 3:
Illustration of unloading and loading plan of a ship row.

####  3.1.2 Number of Rehandles in Dockyard

Rehandles occur when the desired container is not on the top of any stacks. As
we’ve said in the assumption [vi], we followed the nearest lowest stack
strategy. It is the integration of the nearest stack strategy and lowest stack
strategy. We’ve integrated them because of the difficulty of applying the
lowest stack strategy in real-life scenarios. Otherwise, the lowest stack
strategy gives better results in reducing rehandles.

The example shown in Figure 3 (b) the number of rehandles for the described
strategy and given loading sequence is 3.

##  4 Methodology

###  4.1 Mathematical Model

The QCDC problem is modeled as a two-machine flow shop problem.

####  4.1.1 Assumptions

In this research, we will assume the following conditions:

  1. (i)

The containers by the dockside are prepared for loading as needed.

  2. (ii)

The unloaded containers are immediately removed from the area and kept in the
right place.

  3. (iii)

Rehandles of the containers on the ship are counted with both unloading and
loading containers.

  4. (iv)

Rehandles on the ship are replaced in the same stack from which they were
removed.

  5. (v)

In this work, we consider that rehandles on the ship are moved between the
vessel and the apron. But in reality, some of the rehandles may only be moved
between stacks on the vessel.

  6. (vi)

The rehandles in the dockyard are done following the nearest stack strategy in
which the rehandled container is put on the nearest lowest stack.

  7. (vii)

The turnaround time of a vessel is a measure of QC efficiency, and the goal of
a QCDC is to reduce the total turnaround time. A proxy for that is the total
number of single cycles ($w_{s}$) and dual cycles ($w_{d}$) required to unload
and load the vessel.

  8. (viii)

We will finish unloading and loading one row before shifting the crane
lengthwise along the ship to the next row. Due to the difficulty with the
lateral movement of the QC along the ship, it is not feasible to perform
double cycling across two rows.

  9. (ix)

No interruptions happen due to inbound vehicles or cranes.

####  4.1.2 Symbols and Decision Variables

The notations are as follows:
$m$: Bay of containers in the yard
$n$: Stack of containers in the yard
$o$: Tier of containers in the yard
$U_{c}$: Number of containers to unload in stack $c\in S$
$L_{c}$: Number of containers to load in stack $c\in S$
$TU_{c}$: Completion time of unloading $c\in S$
$TL_{c}$: Completion time of loading $c\in S$
$T$: Total completion time of unloading loading
$R$: Number of rehandles of a row in the dockyard
$\alpha$: Average completion time of a single cycle
$\beta$: Average completion time of a double cycle
$\gamma$: Average time it takes to tackle a rehandle at the dockyard
$\mu$: Large value
$H_{mn}$: Highest tier of the yard bay $m$ and stack $n$
$h_{mn}$: Height of the yard-bay $m$ and stack $n$

The decision variables are as follows:
$X_{ij}$: binary variable for the sequence of unloading jobs (1 if $j\in S$ is
loaded after $i\in S$ and 0 otherwise)
$Y_{ij}$: binary variable for the sequence of loading jobs (1 if $j\in S$ is
loaded after $i\in S$ and 0 otherwise)
$x_{rmno}$: Equals to 1 if the container $(m,n,o)$ is loaded onto the ship-bay
and 0 otherwise.

####  4.1.3 Model Establishment

The objective of the scheduling problem is to minimize the maximum completion
time of all jobs while adhering to the subject constraints. Here, the
completion time $T$ depends on $w$ and $R$. Hence, $T=\alpha w_{s}+\beta
w_{b}+\gamma R$.

$minimize,\phantom{10}T_{max}$ (1)

subject to,

$TL_{c}-TU_{c}\geq L_{c}\quad\forall c\in S$ (2) $TU_{i}-TU_{j}+\mu X_{ij}\geq
U_{i}\quad\forall j,i\in S$ (3) $TU_{j}-TU_{k}+\mu(1-X_{ij})\geq
U_{j}\quad\forall j,i\in S$ (4) $TL_{i}-TL_{j}+\mu Y_{ij}\geq
L_{i}\quad\forall j,i\in S$ (5) $TL_{j}-TL_{i}+\mu(1-Y_{ij})\geq
L_{j}\quad\forall j,i\in S$ (6) $TU_{c}\geq U_{c}\quad\forall c\in S$ (7)
$h_{mn}\leq H_{mn}$ (8) $X_{ij}\in{1,0}\quad\forall j,i\in S$ (9)
$Y_{ij}\in{1,0}\quad\forall j,i\in S$ (10) $x_{rmno}\in{1,0}$ (11)

These constraints define the model completely. Constraint (2) ensures that a
stack can only be loaded after all the necessary stacks have been unloaded.
Constraints (3), (4), (9) and (10) ensure that in an unloading permutation
$P^{\prime}$ a stack is unloaded after the previous one has been unloaded. For
every pair of stacks $(i,j)$, either stack $i$ is unloaded before stack $j$
(if ($X_{ij}=1$) or the opposite (if ($X_{ij}=0$), and they also ensure that
the time elapsed between the two events is big enough to unload the second of
the two stacks. Constraints (5), (6), (9) and (10) are equivalent to (3), (4),
(9) and (10) but for the loading events. Constraint (7) ensures that a row’s
total unloading completion time allows for enough time to unload that stack at
least. Constraint (8) ensures the restriction on stack height. Constraint (11)
enforces the binary conditions upon the flow variables.

###  4.2 QCDC-DR-GA

Start Input the Dataset Input the Unloading-Loading plan Initialize the first
generation Unloading-Sequence and Dockyard-Container-Arrangement Crossover Use
Two-Point Crossover for 1D Unloading-Sequence Use The Two-Dimensional
Substring Crossover for 2D Dockyard-Plan Mutation Use Swap Mutation for 1D
Unloading-Sequence Use Two-Dimensional Two-Point Swapping Mutation for 2D
Dockyard-Plan Calculate Fitness Rearrange the Unloading-Sequences and
Dockyard-Plan according to cost Selection Roulette Wheel Selection New
Population Reach the number of iteration New population as initial population
NoEndYes Figure 4: Methodological flowchart of the proposed QCDC-DR-GA.

This paper assumes the number of stacks to unload and load from a ship row is
$S$. The unloading sequence of S stacks is diversiform, and the number of
unloading sequences is $S!$. For each certain unloading sequence, we need to
determine the maximum number of dual cycles, which increases the complexity of
the problem. Moreover, $S!$ represents the approximate value of this problem’s
complexity. On the other hand, assuming the number of retrieval containers at
the dockyard is $N$. The number of ways to arrange containers $N$ on the
dockyard is again $N!$. Here, the estimated complexity of the problem also
becomes $N!$. This paper aims to determine an unloading sequence for which
several dual cycles will be maximized and a dockyard container arrangement for
which the number of rehandles will be minimized. Then, the complexity of our
problem will be $(S!\times N!)$.

In computer science and operations research, the genetic algorithm (GA) is a
metaheuristic approach, drawing inspiration from natural selection mechanisms,
which fall into the broader category of evolutionary algorithms (EA). GA can
generate high-quality solutions for optimization problems. We developed a
mixed GA considering a parallel one-dimensional unloading sequence and two-
dimensional dockyard plan while crossover and mutation. The more challenging
part of QCDC-DR-GA is calculating fitness (calculating the cost of each
generation) and integrating the unloading sequence and dockyard arrangement.
The operating flow path of the QCDC-DR-GA is shown in Figure 4.

####  4.2.1 Set Initial Population

The initial population ($P$) comprises chromosomes representing unload
sequences and dockyard plans. Notations include:
$P$ = population of chromosomes
$n$ = the number of chromosomes in $P$
$c_{i}$ = the $i^{th}$ chromosome in $P$, where $1\leq i\leq n$
$c_{i(us)}$ = part of chromosome representing unloading sequence
$c_{i(dp)}$ = part of chromosome representing dockyard plan

$A_{1}=\left[\begin{array}[]{cccccccccc}1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9&10\end{array}\right];$

$A_{2}=\left[\begin{array}[]{cccc}3A&3B&1C&1D\\\ 1A&2B&&\\\ 2A&1E&1B&\\\
3C&2C&3E&3D\\\ 2D&2E&4A&4D\\\ 4B&4C&3C&\\\ 4E&&&\end{array}\right];$

Here, each row in the vector $A_{2}$ denotes a dockyard stack, and each
element of the matrix contains two pieces of information that denote the
position of the ship (stack number and position in the stack) where it would
be loaded. For example, ’3A’ means that the container would be on the third
stack, the first position of the selected ship row. $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ are
nothing more than parts of the chromosome $c_{i(us)}$ and $c_{i(dp)}$.

####  4.2.2 Crossover

We chose two parents from the previous generation and combined their genetic
information to generate new offspring for the next generation. However, we
needed to use two different methods for the two parts of the chromosome. For
the 1D vector, we did 1D-crossover, and for the 2D vector, we did 2D-crossover
operations.

One Dimensional Crossover: From the various crossover techniques, we chose the
Two-Point Crossover method, a special case of N-Point Crossover. At first, we
selected two random points on the individual chromosomes and exchanged the
genetic materials along these points. The common genes were removed from the
offspring, and the dropped genes (if any) were appended at the back of the
chromosomes (see Figure LABEL:1d_cross).

123456789101112Parent 1121110987654321Parent 2123987659101112Offspring
11211104567844321Offspring 2123876591011124Offspring 1121110567843219Offspring
2

Figure 5: 1D Two-Point Crossover technique.

Two Dimensional Crossover: For the 2D vector, we use the 2D Substring
Crossover method. This involves row swap and column swap operations, which is
a modified version of the 2D crossover introduced in the aircraft scheduling
problem (Tsai et al.,, 2015).

Row-wise operation: Two random points are selected, and the entire row of the
parents between these points is swapped.

Column-wise operation: The column-wise operation is performed on the selected
rows using the Two-Point Crossover method previously used for 1D vector
crossover.

Repeated items are removed, and any dropped-out items are appended to the
offspring (see Figure 6).

Parent 1Parent 24C2B2C4A3A1A1B1C2A4B2D3B3A4B3B1A2D4C2B4A1B2A2C1COffspring 1
(row-swap)Offspring 2 (row-swap)Offspring 1 (column-swap)Offspring 2 (column-
swap)2C2D4C2B1B1C1C4A3A1B4AOffspring 1 (repaired)Offspring 2
(repaired)4C2B3A2C2D4C1B1C4A1A2D4C2B Figure 6: 2D Two-Point Substring
Crossover technique.

####  4.2.3 Mutation

The mutation is a genetic operation that maintains the genetic diversity of
the chromosomes between generations. It is similar to biological mutation.
Again, we use two different methods for two parts of the chromosome.
Notation:
$P_{m}$ = the probability of mutation.
The mutation operation will not occur after every cross. The mutation method
is described in algorithm 1.

Input: Two 1D vectors after newly crossed child

Output: Two 2D vectors as mutated child

1

2Generate a random number $R$.

3if  _$R >P_{m}$_ then

4 Do not do the mutation operation.

5else

6 Do mutation operation.

Algorithm 1 Mutation Algorithm

One Dimensional Mutation: We utilize the Swap Mutation method for the 1D
chromosome part, interchanging two selected genes after crossover (see Figure
7).

123456789101112123115678910412 Figure 7: Swap mutation for 1D vector.

Two Dimensional Mutation: Here, we chose the 2D Two-Point Swapping Mutation
method for the 2D part of our chromosome. This is also the modified version of
the mutation method introduced by Tsai et al. (Tsai et al.,, 2015). The method
is described in algorithm 2 (also see Figure 8).
Notations:
$R$: the number of rows in the 2D chromosome part.
$C_{R_{i}}$: the number of columns in the $i^{th}$ row.

4C2B2C4A3A1A1B1C2A4B2D3B2C4A3A1A1B1C1B4A3A1A2C1C Figure 8: 2D two-point
swapping mutation.

Input: A 2D vector from newly crossed children

Output: A 2D vector as a mutated child

1

2Randomly generate $r1$ and $r2$ to select two rows from the 2D vector, where
$1\leq r1,r2\leq R$

3 Generate random integers $c1$ and $c2$ to select two points from the
selected rows, where $1\leq c1\leq Cr1$ and $1\leq c2\leq Cr2$

Interchange the genes between the selected points of the 2D vector

Algorithm 2 2D Mutation Algorithm

####  4.2.4 Calculate Fitness

The fittest chromosomes are selected from every generation according to their
cost. The cost here is the total completion time, which is nothing but our
objective function. Every time a new generation is produced, the cost is
calculated and stored against every chromosome. Then, the population is sorted
in ascending order according to their cost. The population is now ready for
the selection stage. The calculation method of the cost of each chromosome is
explained in details in algorithm 3 and 4.

Input: Loading plan, unloading plan, dockyard container arrangement, maximum
dockyard container stack height

Output: No. of single cycles, no. of double cycles, no. of dockyard rehandles

1

2Function  _unload_first_stack(_unloading plan, unloading sequence_)_:

3 for  _container $\in$ the dockyard stack of unloadingSequence_ do

4 if  _the container will not stay on the vessel_ then

5 unload the container

6 no_of_single_cycles += 1

7

8

9

10Function  _calculate_rehandles(_target container_)_:

11 Let, no_of_rehandles $\leftarrow 0$

12 Let, found_the_container $\leftarrow false$

13 for  _$i$ $\in$ stacks of dockyard_ do

14 for  _$j$ $\in$ containers of current stack_ do

15 if  _$j=$ target container_ then

16 found_the_container $\leftarrow true$

17 while  _until containers are shifted from the top of the target container
one by one_ do

18 no_of_rehandles $+=1$

19 Shift the container nearest lowest stack

20 return _no_of_rehandles_

21

22

23 if  _found_the_container $=false$_ then

24 Warning! container not found

25 return _0_

26

27Function  _loading_operation(_unloading plan, loading plan, unloading
sequence_)_:

28 if  _the current loading stack is empty_ then

29 if  _the current unloading stack is empty_ then

30 go to the next loading stack

31 else

32 return _false, 0_

33

34 Load the current container from dockyard

35 return _true, calculate_rehandles(_current container to be loaded at
dockyard_)_

36Let, no_of_single_cycles $\leftarrow 0$

37 Let, no_of_double_cycles $\leftarrow 0$

38 Let, no_of_rehandles $\leftarrow 0$

39 unload_first_stack(_unloading plan, unloading sequence_)

Algorithm 3 Cost function

32

33while  _until all the stacks are unloaded from ship_ do

34 for  _container $\in$ current stack_ do

35 if  _the container will not stay on the vessel_ then

36 unload the container

37 if  _there is any container to load and any stack of the ship is free for
loading_ then

38 flag, rehandles $\leftarrow$ loading_operation(_unloadig plan, loading
plan, unloading sequence_)

39 no_of_rehandles += rehandles

40 no_of_dual_cycles += 1

41

42

43

44

45while  _complete loading the remaining stacks_ do

46 flag, rehandles $\leftarrow$ loading_operation(_unloadig plan, loading
plan, unloading sequence_)

47 no_of_rehandles += rehandles

48 no_of_single_cycles += 1

49

Algorithm 4 Cost function (continued)

####  4.2.5 Selection

We adopted the Roulette Wheel selection method. Roulette selection is a
probabilistic method for choosing individuals based on their fitness, with the
probability of selection directly proportional to their fitness. The method is
inspired by real-world roulette, but this has distinct differences from
traditional roulette mechanisms. Instead of having all slots with the same
probability of being selected, we implemented a weighted version of roulette
(Figure 9). The likelihood of selection increases with an individual’s higher
fitness (or lower cost).
Notations:
$P_{E}$ = the percentage of elite class chromosomes of a generation.
$E_{rw}$ = End value of the roulette wheel. Elite class is a portion of a
generation who are the fittest. The elite class will be automatically selected
for the next generation every generation. The $P_{E}$ of our model was 20%.

8.3%2.7%14%5.5%8.3%5%8%13%11%7.8%4%11% Figure 9: Weighted roulette wheel.

The roulette wheel selection steps are shown in algorithm 5.

Input: Probability against the fitness value of each chromosome

Output: A selected chromosome

1

2Define a 1D vector $RW$ of size $n$ for storing the fitness value of each
chromosome. The fitness value is stored as a cumulative sum order where
$E_{rw}$ is the total sum of all fitness.

3for  _$i\leftarrow 1$ to $n$_ do

4 Generate a random number $r$, where $0\leq r\leq E_{rw}$.

5 Select a chromosome as a parent for crossover.

Algorithm 5 Roulette Wheel Selection Algorithm

####  4.2.6 Termination

The termination condition of the GA determines when the run ends. Initially,
the GA progresses quickly, yielding better solutions every few iterations.
However, this progress tends to slow down later, with minimal improvements. To
guarantee that our solution approaches optimality, we establish a termination
condition as follows: $g_{i}$ denotes the $i^{th}$ generation, $G$ represents
the maximum number of generations, and $N_{s}$ stands for the number of
successive generations where the fittest chromosome incurs the same cost. The
genetic algorithm (GA) execution concludes according to the criteria specified
in Algorithm 6.

Input: Number of successive generations in which the cost of the fittest
chromosome is the same and iteration number

Output: Boolean value to take termination decision

1

2$N_{s}\leftarrow$ Number of successive generations in which the fittest
chromosome costs the same.

3if  _$g_{i}=G$ or $N_{s}=100$_ then

4 Terminate the GA run.

5else

6 Continue

Algorithm 6 GA termination algorithm

####  4.2.7 Parameters

The GA control parameters are shown in table 1. The parameters best fit our
model, such as population size, crossover technique, elite percentage,
mutation probability, selection method, etc. As the solution to our problem is
a smooth landscape type and the complexity of our problem is medium, we
selected these parameters to fit the situation.

Table 1: GA control parameters Parameter |  Value
---|---
Population size |  200
1D crossover strategy |  Two-Point Crossover
2D crossover strategy |  2D Substring Crossover
Crossover rate |  0.80
1D mutation strategy |  Swap Mutation
2D mutation strategy |  2D Two-Point Swapping Mutation
Mutation rate |  0.30
Selection strategy |  Roulette wheel
Elite class |  0.20
Consecutive iterations |  100

##  5 Results and Discussion

This section addresses the magnitude of QCDC-DR-GA. We offer tools to
translate cycle-based benefits into time equivalents and validate those
estimates against real-world double-cycling data. With an eye on the present
and future, we analyze the financial impact of double cycling, estimating
potential rewards for both existing vessels and those gracing the waves in the
years ahead. The results of the experiments were obtained using a computer
with 8 gigabytes of RAM, an Ubuntu 22.04 operating system, and an Intel Core
i5 8th Gen. The algorithm was implemented using Python libraries- Pandas and
NumPy.

###  5.1 Performance Comparisons of the Algorithms

To validate the effectiveness of our proposed QCDC-DR-GA algorithm, we
conducted a comprehensive comparison with three established optimization
methods:

  1. (a)

Dual-Cycling Greedy Upper Bound Approach: It represents a greedy approach in
which the unloading sequence is generated by sorting the stacks of containers
of the ship row in descending order (Goodchild and Daganzo,, 2006). This
heuristic method focuses solely on implementing dual-cycle loading/unloading,
neglecting dockside rehandles. It’s a baseline approach to gauge the potential
improvement offered by more complex methods.

  2. (b)

Mixed-Integer Programming Model for QCDCS (bi-level GA): This approach
represents an improvement over the greedy upper bound by incorporating QCDCS
optimization within a bi-level genetic algorithm framework (Zeng et al.,,
2015). It came with a significant advancement over the greedy approach by
incorporating QCDCS optimization.

  3. (c)

GA-ILSRS: This method, explored in two scenarios, optimizes dockyard rehandles
using a genetic algorithm combined with Iterated Local Search (Ji et al.,,
2015). However, it falls short by neglecting the loading/unloading process. We
assumed two scenarios of selecting two methods of loading-unloading.

    1. (i)

Scenario 1: Considers dual cycling for loading/unloading while neglecting
dockyard rehandles.

    2. (ii)

Scenario 2: Focuses solely on dockyard rehandling with single-cycle
loading/unloading.

The greedy upper bound approach is a heuristic approach for implementing dual
cycling only, but they did not consider any dockside rehandle. The QCDCS-
bilevel GA overcame this heuristic approach but did not consider the time
consumed by the dockyard rehandles. On the other hand, the GA-ILSRS only
optimized the dockyard rehandles without considering the loading-unloading
system. As for QCDC-DR-GA, we considered both loading-unloading with dual
cycling and dockyard rehandles in one model and optimized the model using a
sophisticated GA approach.

###  5.2 Datasets

Six scenarios were designed according to the number of stacks and the maximum
stack height of containers in each row. Considering the characteristics of
commonly used container ships, we assume that the number of stacks is 5 to 30
and the maximum stack height is 4 to 10. The program generated a row’s loading
and unloading plan and the dockyard container arrangements. Table 2 shows the
configurations of six datasets of unloading and loading plans. Table 3 shows a
sample unloading plan of a small ship, and Table 4 shows a sample loading plan
of that ship.

Table 2: Loading-unloading plan configuration Scenario | No. of stacks | Maximum stack height
---|---|---
1 | 30 | 10
2 | 25 | 10
3 | 20 | 10
4 | 15 | 8
5 | 10 | 5
6 | 5 | 4

Each cell tells the container location information in Table 3. For example,
$1B$ means that the container is at the 1st stack, 2nd tier of the row, and
$F$ means the container would remain on the ship. The information in Table 4
is alike.

Table 3: Unloading plan of a ship’s row Stack No. Tier No. |  1 |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5
---|---|---|---|---|---
1 |  1A |  1B |  1C |  1D |  1E
2 |  2A |  2B |  2C |  |
3 |  F |  3A |  3B |  3C |  3D
4 |  4A |  4B |  |  |
5 |  5A |  5B |  5C |  5D |  5E
6 |  F |  6A |  6B |  6C |  6D
7 |  F |  7A |  7B |  7C |  7D
8 |  F |  8A |  8B |  8C |  8D
9 |  F |  9A |  9B |  9C |  9D
10 |  F |  10A |  10B |  10C |  10D
Table 4: Loading plan of a ship’s row Stack No. Tier No. |  1 |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5
---|---|---|---|---|---
1 |  1A |  1B |  1C |  1D |  1E
2 |  2A |  2B |  2C |  1D |  2E
3 |  3A |  3B |  |  |
4 |  4A |  4B |  4C |  4D |  4E
5 |  5A |  5B |  5C |  5D |  5E
6 |  6A |  6B |  |  |
7 |  7A |  7B |  7C |  7D |
8 |  8A |  |  |  |
9 |  9A |  9B |  9C |  9D |
10 |  10A |  10B |  10C |  10D |

The program also generated the dockyard plan according to the loading plan.
Here, we assumed that the highest dockyard container stack height is 6. The
sample of the dockyard plan is elaborated in 4.2.1 as $A_{2}$.

Tables 3 and 4 provide container location information. For instance, $1B$
indicates a container located in the 1st stack, the 2nd tier of the row, with
$F$ indicating the container remaining on the ship. Assuming a maximum stack
height of 6, the dockyard plan is discussed further in Section 4.2.1 as
$A_{2}$.

Table 5: Two-tailed paired t-test results of the proposed QCDC-DR-GA against
the other strategies

Scenarios |  No. of stacks |  Maximum stack height |  Strategies |  Operation time (min) |  $t_{19}(0.05)$ = 2.093 |  Improvement of QCDC-DR-GA (%)
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Min |  Max |  Mean |  Standard deviation |  Pearson correlation coefficient $(r)$ |  T-statistic |  P-value |  Significance
1 | 30 | 10 | Proposed QCDC-DR-GA | 615.25 | 704.92 | 667.62 | 25.29 | - | - | - | - | -
Greedy Upper Bound | 718.58 | 825.92 | 780.33 | 35.04 | -0.16317 | 10.58051 | 2.10E-09 | Yes | 14.44%
QCDC-bi-level-GA | 714.92 | 813.25 | 763.00 | 31.26 | -0.24243 | 9.298231 | 1.68E-08 | Yes | 12.50%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-1 | 669.25 | 764.25 | 708.95 | 28.18 | 0.077286 | 4.952353 | 8.84E-05 | Yes | 5.83%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-2 | 820.75 | 851.25 | 835.09 | 9.59 | -0.25862 | 24.9385 | 5.57E-16 | Yes | 20.05%
2 | 25 | 10 | Proposed QCDC-DR-GA | 522.42 | 604.75 | 559.02 | 27.24 | - | - | - | - | -
Greedy Upper Bound | 645.33 | 710.75 | 674.20 | 20.93 | -0.00945 | 14.5489 | 9.41E-12 | Yes | 17.08%
QCDC-bi-level-GA | 652.17 | 722.75 | 672.10 | 22.52 | 0.450328 | 18.67514 | 1.10E-13 | Yes | 16.82%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-1 | 535.42 | 631.08 | 579.37 | 28.28 | 0.075218 | 2.349253 | 0.029778 | Yes | 3.51%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-2 | 666.00 | 691.00 | 680.79 | 8.11 | -0.26691 | 17.44741 | 3.75E-13 | Yes | 17.89%
3 | 20 | 10 | Proposed QCDC-DR-GA | 381.42 | 452.08 | 417.35 | 22.51 | - | - | - | - | -
Greedy Upper Bound | 491.08 | 563.08 | 523.60 | 19.66 | -0.37587 | 13.22962 | 4.90E-11 | Yes | 20.29%
QCDC-bi-level-GA | 484.08 | 563.08 | 519.85 | 25.76 | -0.33001 | 11.33876 | 6.71E-10 | Yes | 19.72%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-1 | 397.42 | 465.75 | 425.77 | 19.96 | 0.259185 | 1.415272 | 0.173171 | Yes | 1.98%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-2 | 492.25 | 511.50 | 502.76 | 4.98 | -0.13529 | 15.71027 | 2.43E-12 | Yes | 16.99%
4 | 15 | 8 | Proposed QCDC-DR-GA | 201.67 | 259.00 | 229.01 | 18.85 | - | - | - | - | -
Greedy Upper Bound | 295.33 | 358.67 | 327.83 | 18.90 | -0.29172 | 14.19992 | 1.44E-11 | Yes | 30.14%
QCDC-bi-level-GA | 295.50 | 349.33 | 323.00 | 17.54 | 0.013371 | 16.01655 | 1.73E-12 | Yes | 29.10%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-1 | 211.33 | 277.67 | 248.65 | 17.79 | 0.510959 | 4.719124 | 0.000149 | Yes | 7.90%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-2 | 279.00 | 295.00 | 286.56 | 5.52 | -0.12894 | 12.34932 | 1.59E-10 | Yes | 20.08%
5 | 10 | 5 | Proposed QCDC-DR-GA | 89.50 | 138.67 | 119.40 | 16.39 | - | - | - | - | -
Greedy Upper Bound | 138.50 | 186.67 | 164.44 | 14.66 | -0.09791 | 8.523389 | 6.46E-08 | Yes | 27.39%
QCDC-bi-level-GA | 147.00 | 183.67 | 162.13 | 12.50 | -0.51102 | 7.397294 | 5.26E-07 | Yes | 26.36%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-1 | 97.00 | 147.67 | 123.13 | 15.56 | -0.06245 | 0.69881 | 0.493137 | Yes | 3.03%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-2 | 137.00 | 152.00 | 145.76 | 4.52 | 0.294877 | 7.337783 | 5.90E-07 | Yes | 18.09%
6 | 5 | 4 | Proposed QCDC-DR-GA | 37.67 | 70.42 | 55.43 | 10.75 | - | - | - | - | -
Greedy Upper Bound | 48.67 | 81.42 | 63.82 | 12.87 | 0.061497 | 2.250737 | 0.036439 | Yes | 13.15%
QCDC-bi-level-GA | 47.67 | 80.42 | 65.60 | 10.75 | 0.064153 | 3.015466 | 0.007114 | Yes | 15.51%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-1 | 37.67 | 70.42 | 54.48 | 10.78 | -0.25326 | -0.24295 | 0.810645 | No | -1.74%
GA-ILSRS-Scenario-2 | 55.50 | 66.00 | 60.05 | 3.05 | 0.352321 | 1.998582 | 0.060167 | Yes | 7.70%

###  5.3 Numerical Tests

The six scenarios described in subsection 5.2, Table 2 are used for numerical
tests. The processing time of QCs for single and dual cycling are taken from
the trial run done by Goodchild (Goodchild and Daganzo,, 2006), mentioned in
subsection 2.1 are 90 seconds and 170 seconds. The rehandling time of a
container for a gantry crane at the dockyard is generated from a uniform
distribution of 60 seconds.

####  5.3.1 Test Results

We comprehensively evaluate the proposed QCDC-DR-GA algorithm, comparing its
performance against four established methods for optimizing container handling
at ports. The evaluation utilizes six datasets described in Table 2,
representing different scenarios with varying container numbers and ship
configurations. Table 5 presents the simulation results obtained by each
method on these datasets. Additionally, Figure 10 visually compares the
performance of QCDC-DR-GA with the other approaches.

$5$$10$$15$$20$$25$$30$$0$$1$$2$$3$$4$$5$$\cdot 10^{4}$No. of StacksOperation
Time (s)QCDC-DR-GAUpper boundQCDCP-GAGA-ILSRS(sc-1)GA-ILSRS(sc-2) Figure 10:
Comparative performance of QCDC-DR-GA against the state-of-the-art algorithms.

####  5.3.2 Key Findings

The key findings and remarks of the simulation are as follows:

  * •

The proposed QCDC-DR-GA model consistently outperforms all other methods in
terms of maximizing dual-cycles and minimizing the number of container
handling. This demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach, which combines
QCDC optimization with dockyard rehandle minimization and optimizes the total
unloading-loading time of the entire process.

  * •

The results support the hypothesis that separately optimizing QCDC and
dockyard rehandles leads to suboptimal outcomes. Compared to QCDC-DR-GA,
methods like QCDC Scheduling Optimized by bi-level GA and GA-ILSRS (Scenario
2) show limited improvement due to their fragmented approach.

  * •

Similarly, neglecting the dual-cycling in QC operation optimization, as in GA-
ILSRS (Scenario 1), leads to inferior performance compared to QCDC-DR-GA. This
highlights the importance of considering both aspects simultaneously for
optimal resource utilization.

By integrating QCDC optimization and dockyard rehandle minimization into a
single model, QCDC-DR-GA demonstrates significant performance advantages over
existing methods. This unified approach offers a powerful tool for port
operators seeking to minimize container handling times and maximize
operational efficiency.

###  5.4 Significance Test

This section presents the performance evaluation results of various port
optimization strategies in a stacking environment. The experiments were
carried out in different scenarios to cover the various vessel sizes. The
operation time (in minutes) was measured for each strategy in each scenario.
The statistical analysis was performed using the two-tailed paired t-test
method to assess the significance of differences in operation time between the
proposed QCDC-DR-GA strategy and other strategies.

The experiments were conducted across six scenarios, each representing a
specific configuration of the stacking environment. The stacks ranged from 5
to 30, with varying maximum stack heights. For each scenario, operation time
measurements were recorded 20 times for the proposed QCDC-DR-GA strategy and
four other strategies, namely Greedy Upper Bound, QCDC-bi-level-GA, GA-ILSRS-
Scenario-1, and GA-ILSRS-Scenario-2.

The paired t-test was used to analyze the differences in operation time
between the proposed QCDC-DR-GA strategy and the other strategies under
investigation. The paired t-test compares the means of two related groups to
determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between
them. The formulation of hypotheses for this test is as follows:

  * •

Null hypothesis ($H_{0}$): There is no significant difference in operation
time between the proposed QCDC-DR-GA strategy and the compared strategy.

  * •

Alternative hypothesis ($H_{1}$): There is a significant difference in
operation time between the proposed QCDC-DR-GA strategy and the compared
strategy.

The paired t-test used a significance level $(\alpha)$ of 0.05. The
t-statistic and p-value were calculated for each pair of strategies. The
significance level $(\alpha)$ and the critical t value ($t_{19}(0.05)$ =
2.093) were used to determine the significance of the observed differences.

The paired t-test results are presented in Table 5, which provides the
minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation of the operation time for each
strategy in different scenarios. The Pearson correlation coefficient $(r)$,
the t-statistic, the p-value, and the significance of the observed differences
are reported.

##  6 Discussion

Port operations often face a trade-off between fast unloading/loading times
and minimizing container rehandles within the dockyard. This research presents
a groundbreaking model that tackles this dilemma head-on. Unlike past
approaches that address each aspect separately, this model integrates them
into a unified system. It leverages a mixed genetic algorithm, incorporating
1D and 2D approaches, to identify the optimal unloading sequence that
minimizes the combined operation time for both unloading and loading and
slashes unnecessary container movements within the yard. This holistic
approach unlocks a cascade of benefits: operational costs plummet due to
reduced fuel consumption and labor requirements, logistics efficiency soars
with optimized container flow, and port capacity has the potential to expand
as turnaround times shrink. While computationally demanding, this model holds
immense potential to revolutionize port operations, ushering in an era of
enhanced efficiency, productivity, and cost-effectiveness.

###  6.1 Practical Implications

Imagine a port buzzing with activity, containers arriving and departing in a
seemingly chaotic dance. But beneath the surface, a revolution is brewing. We
developed QCDC-DR-GA, transforming port operations from a juggling act to a
well-rehearsed symphony. Simultaneously optimizing both unloading/loading
speed and minimizing dockyard rehandles unlocks a treasure trove of practical
benefits. Imagine ships unloading and loading at record speeds, thanks to the
meticulously chosen sequence identified by QCDC-DR-GA. Picture yard workers
gracefully navigate the containers, eliminating unnecessary relocations that
waste time and fuel. The ripple effects are undeniable: operational costs
plummet, logistics flow like a well-oiled machine, and the very capacity of
the port expands as turnaround times dwindle. QCDC-DR-GA isn’t just
theoretical; it’s a game-changer, poised to transform ports into beacons of
efficiency and productivity. While its computational demands require careful
consideration, the potential rewards are undeniable: a future where ports
operate with newfound agility, cost-effectiveness, and a level of efficiency
never before seen. This is more than just a model; it’s a blueprint for a
smarter, faster, and more sustainable future for port operations.

###  6.2 Managerial Implications

For port managers seeking to optimize operational efficiency, this research
offers a groundbreaking model that simultaneously addresses the critical
objectives of minimizing container unloading/loading times and dockyard
rehandles. Unlike traditional approaches that consider these factors
separately, our unified model integrates them into a single framework,
yielding significant managerial implications.

The model translates to demonstrably reduced operational costs through
optimized unloading/loading sequences and minimized relocations, resulting in
lower fuel consumption, optimized labor requirements, and reduced equipment
wear and tear. Furthermore, it facilitates smoother logistics by
choreographing efficient container movement within the yard, eliminating
unnecessary relocations and leading to improved predictability, faster
turnaround times, and enhanced client satisfaction. Additionally, the model
unlocks the potential for increased port capacity without requiring costly
infrastructure expansion, as every saved second in unloading/loading
translates to the ability to serve more ships. Finally, by providing valuable
data-driven insights into operations, the model empowers managers to make
informed decisions regarding resource allocation, scheduling, and yard layout,
fostering continuous improvement and adaptation to evolving demands.

Implementing this model necessitates careful consideration of its
computational demands and integration challenges, and the potential benefits
are undeniable. Imagine a future where your port operates with unprecedented
efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and agility. This transformative model is more
than just a tool; it represents a paradigm shift for port management, paving
the way for a future symphony of success.

###  6.3 Unique Theoretical Contributions

This subsection delves into the three key theoretical contributions that
underpin our proposed model:

  1. (i)

Introducing a Hybrid Approach: We present a novel genetic algorithm (GA) that
seamlessly blends the strengths of 1D and 2D GAs. This hybrid approach
leverages the power of 1D GAs in exploring the solution space effectively
while incorporating the 2D representation’s ability to capture spatial
relationships within the dockyard layout. This unique fusion empowers our
model to achieve superior results compared to traditional GAs, paving the way
for more efficient port operations.

  2. (ii)

Optimizing GA Parameters: Recognizing the critical role of parameter selection
in GA performance, we meticulously analyze various computational parameters.
Through rigorous testing and evaluation, we identify the optimal combination
of parameters and methods specifically tailored to our model. This meticulous
optimization ensures that our GA operates at peak efficiency, maximizing its
ability to find the optimal unloading sequence.

  3. (iii)

Justifying Strategic Choices: We understand the value of transparency and
provide detailed reasoning and justifications for selecting various strategies
and methods implemented throughout our GA. This includes explaining the
rationale behind crossover and mutation operators, selection mechanisms, and
population sizes.

These three theoretical contributions - the hybrid GA, optimized parameters,
and transparent justifications - form the bedrock of our model’s
effectiveness. They represent a significant advancement in GA strategies,
offering a powerful tool for solving heuristic problems to achieve greater
efficiency.

##  7 Conclusions

In this work, the model QCDC-DR-GA is developed to optimize the total ship
unloading and loading process, improving the QC efficiency and reducing the
dockyard rehandles. A heuristic method, a mixed GA (mixed with two-dimensional
and one-dimensional GA), is designed to solve the model. A specially designed
program prepares six dataset scenarios. Numerical experiments indicate that
combining the two scenarios, unloading-loading and dockyard rehandle
optimization, can reduce the ship’s turnaround time. They also prove that the
model is suitable for vessels of any size. The model gives a constant better
result for numerous datasets, small and big. Moreover, large ships perform
remarkably well. In addition, our model has been compared with four of the
latest methods on QCDC and dockyard rehandle minimization. QCDC-DR-GA showed
superior improvements than the other models with a 95% confidence level, shown
using the two-tailed paired t-test.

While this study provides valuable insights into optimizing container handling
at ports, certain limitations deserve acknowledgment. Firstly, the model
assumes immediate loading container availability at the dockside, potentially
overlooking pre-staging requirements. Secondly, the model focuses on
rehandling between the ship and the apron, neglecting potential relocations
within ship stacks. Finally, interruptions due to inbound vehicles or cranes
are not considered, potentially underestimating operational variability.
Future research could address these limitations by incorporating pre-staging
requirements, investigating intra-ship rehandle optimization, and
incorporating dynamic disruptions, which could further refine the model’s
practical applicability. By acknowledging and addressing these limitations,
future studies can build upon the present work and contribute to even more
efficient and realistic port operations.

## Data Availability

The datasets used in this research consist of the configuration of container
ships’ loading and unloading plans generated under six distinct scenarios.
These scenarios are based on varying numbers of stacks and maximum stack
heights of containers in each row, reflecting typical container ship
characteristics. The scenarios encompass stack numbers ranging from 5 to 30
and maximum stack heights from 4 to 10. The dataset includes loading and
unloading plans for dockyard containers, with sample plans provided for small
ships. Each dataset comprises 20 instances representing different container
loading and unloading scenarios. Each instance is characterized by a specific
strategy detailing the number of single cycles, dual cycles, rehandles, and
operation time required. Researchers interested in exploring the efficiency
and performance of various strategies in handling container logistics within a
dockyard setting can access the detailed generated data at
https://dx.doi.org/10.21227/cj08-qn62.

## Conflicts of Interest

The authors whose names are listed immediately below certify that they have no
affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any
financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials
discussed in this manuscript.

## CRediT Author Statement

Md Mahfuzur Rahman: Writing – Original draft preparation, Conceptualization,
Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, and Visualization. Md Abrar Jahin:
Writing – Original draft preparation, Conceptualization, Methodology,
Software, Formal analysis, and Visualization. Md. Saiful Islam: Supervision,
Writing – Review & Editing. M. F. Mridha: Supervision, Writing – Review &
Editing.

## References

  * Ahmed et al., (2021) Ahmed, E., El-Abbasy, M. S., Zayed, T., Alfalah, G., and Alkass, S. (2021).  Synchronized scheduling model for container terminals using simulated double-cycling strategy.  Computers & Industrial Engineering, 154:107118.
  * Bish, (2003) Bish, E. K. (2003).  A multiple-crane-constrained scheduling problem in a container terminal.  European Journal of Operational Research, 144(1):83–107.
  * Caserta et al., (2011) Caserta, M., Voß, S., and Sniedovich, M. (2011).  Applying the corridor method to a blocks relocation problem.  OR spectrum, 33:915–929.
  * Chen et al., (2007) Chen, L., Bostel, N., Dejax, P., Cai, J., and Xi, L. (2007).  A tabu search algorithm for the integrated scheduling problem of container handling systems in a maritime terminal.  European Journal of Operational Research, 181(1):40–58.
  * Chu and Huang, (2002) Chu, C.-Y. and Huang, W.-C. (2002).  Aggregates cranes handling capacity of container terminals: the port of kaohsiung.  Maritime Policy & Management, 29(4):341–350.
  * Diabat and Theodorou, (2014) Diabat, A. and Theodorou, E. (2014).  An integrated quay crane assignment and scheduling problem.  Computers & Industrial Engineering, 73:115–123.
  * Fu et al., (2014) Fu, Y.-M., Diabat, A., and Tsai, I.-T. (2014).  A multi-vessel quay crane assignment and scheduling problem: Formulation and heuristic solution approach.  Expert Systems with Applications, 41(15):6959–6965.
  * Goodchild and Daganzo, (2007) Goodchild, A. V. and Daganzo, C. (2007).  Crane double cycling in container ports: Planning methods and evaluation.  Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 41(8):875–891.
  * Goodchild and Daganzo, (2006) Goodchild, A. V. and Daganzo, C. F. (2006).  Double-cycling strategies for container ships and their effect on ship loading and unloading operations.  Transportation science, 40(4):473–483.
  * He et al., (2020) He, J., Yu, H., Tan, C., Yan, W., and Jiang, C. (2020).  Quay crane scheduling for multiple hatches vessel considering double-cycling strategy.  Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(2):253–264.
  * Homayouni et al., (2014) Homayouni, S. M., Tang, S. H., and Motlagh, O. (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.
  * Imai et al., (2006) Imai, A., Sasaki, K., Nishimura, E., and Papadimitriou, S. (2006).  Multi-objective simultaneous stowage and load planning for a container ship with container rehandle in yard stacks.  European Journal of Operational Research, 171(2):373–389.
  * Ji et al., (2015) Ji, M., Guo, W., Zhu, H., and Yang, Y. (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.
  * Kim, (1997) Kim, K. H. (1997).  Evaluation of the number of rehandles in container yards.  Computers & Industrial Engineering, 32(4):701–711.
  * Kim and Bae, (1999) Kim, K. H. and Bae, J. W. (1999).  A dispatching method for automated guided vehicles to minimize delays of containership operations.  Management Science and Financial Engineering, 5(1):1–25.
  * Kim and Kim, (2002) Kim, K. H. and Kim, H. B. (2002).  The optimal sizing of the storage space and handling facilities for import containers.  Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 36(9):821–835.
  * Kim and Park, (2004) Kim, K. H. and Park, Y.-M. (2004).  A crane scheduling method for port container terminals.  European Journal of operational research, 156(3):752–768.
  * Ku and Arthanari, (2016) Ku, D. and Arthanari, T. S. (2016).  On double cycling for container port productivity improvement.  Annals of Operations Research, 243:55–70.
  * Lee et al., (2015) Lee, C.-Y., Liu, M., and Chu, C. (2015).  Optimal algorithm for the general quay crane double-cycling problem.  Transportation science, 49(4):957–967.
  * Lee et al., (2009) Lee, D.-H., Cao, J. X., Shi, Q., and Chen, J. H. (2009).  A heuristic algorithm for yard truck scheduling and storage allocation problems.  Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(5):810–820.
  * Park and Kim, (2003) Park, Y.-M. and Kim, K. H. (2003).  A scheduling method for berth and quay cranes.  OR spectrum, 25(1):1–23.
  * Sauri and Martin, (2011) Sauri, S. and Martin, E. (2011).  Space allocating strategies for improving import yard performance at marine terminals.  Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(6):1038–1057.
  * Schonfeld and Sharafeldien, (1985) Schonfeld, P. and Sharafeldien, O. (1985).  Optimal berth and crane combinations in containerports.  Journal of waterway, port, coastal, and ocean engineering, 111(6):1060–1072.
  * Song, (2007) Song, J. (2007).  A study for optimization of double cycling in container ports.  Port Technology International, 36:50–52.
  * Taleb-Ibrahimi et al., (1993) Taleb-Ibrahimi, M., de Castilho, B., and Daganzo, C. F. (1993).  Storage space vs handling work in container terminals.  Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 27(1):13–32.
  * Tavakkoli-Moghaddam et al., (2009) Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Makui, A., Salahi, S., Bazzazi, M., and Taheri, F. (2009).  An efficient algorithm for solving a new mathematical model for a quay crane scheduling problem in container ports.  Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56(1):241–248.
  * Tsai et al., (2015) Tsai, M.-W., Hong, T.-P., Lin, W.-T., et al. (2015).  A two-dimensional genetic algorithm and its application to aircraft scheduling problem.  mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015.
  * Vis et al., (2001) Vis, I. F., De Koster, R., Roodbergen, K. J., and Peeters, L. W. (2001).  Determination of the number of automated guided vehicles required at a semi-automated container terminal.  Journal of the Operational research Society, 52(4):409–417.
  * Zeng et al., (2015) Zeng, Q., Diabat, A., and Zhang, Q. (2015).  A simulation optimization approach for solving the dual-cycling problem in container terminals.  Maritime Policy & Management, 42(8):806–826.
  * Zeng et al., (2011) Zeng, Q., Yang, Z., and Hu, X. (2011).  Disruption recovery model for berth and quay crane scheduling in container terminals.  Engineering Optimization, 43(9):967–983.
  * Zhang et al., (2002) Zhang, C., Wan, Y.-w., Liu, J., and Linn, R. J. (2002).  Dynamic crane deployment in container storage yards.  Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 36(6):537–555.
  * Zhang and Kim, (2009) Zhang, H. and Kim, K. H. (2009).  Maximizing the number of dual-cycle operations of quay cranes in container terminals.  Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56(3):979–992.
  * Zhang et al., (2019) Zhang, X., Zeng, Q., and Sheu, J.-B. (2019).  Modeling the productivity and stability of a terminal operation system with quay crane double cycling.  Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 122:181–197.
  * Zheng et al., (2020) Zheng, F., Pang, Y., Liu, M., and Xu, Y. (2020).  Dynamic programming algorithms for the general quay crane double-cycling problem with internal-reshuffles.  Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 39:708–724.