Abstract
Purpose
Since the first automated container terminal (ACT) was introduced at Europe Container Terminals Delta Terminal in Port Rotterdam back in the year 1992, a lot of research had been done to improve the management of ACT. However, up until recently, the number of literature available still appeared scarce. Hence, this paper aims to review the collection of literature about ACT to generate an exhaustive summary to answer the formulated review question in this study.
Design/methodology/approach
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses to narrow down the search parameters of literature retrieved so that only relevant articles were only selected. The systematic literature reviews were applied to analyse the content of the articles retrieved to determine its journal ranking, research findings and timeline of publications.
Findings
The adoption of ACT technology by container terminal operators could increase the terminal efficiency in productivity, cost reduction and environmental sustainability. Owing to global environmental awareness, the research trend of container terminal field and container terminal operator in the terminal design is much more environmentally friendly oriented.
Research limitations/implications
The limited numbers of experts in the management of ACT are causing challenges in data collections.
Practical implications
The analysis of the global ACT trend could help academicians and industrial investors to review the revolution timeline of maritime technology in port and shipping that is happening rapidly.
Originality/value
The analysis of timeline and collective literature leads to the propose of the conceptual framework to determine the relationship between increased productivity, cost reduction and environmentally sustainable.
Keywords
Citation
Kon, W.K., Abdul Rahman, N.S.F., Md Hanafiah, R. and Abdul Hamid, S. (2021), "The global trends of automated container terminal: a systematic literature review", Maritime Business Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 206-233. https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-03-2020-0016
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2020, Pacific Star Group Education Foundation.
1. Introduction
The rapid economic growth due to global trade is causing the container terminal operator to increase the handling capacity of the terminal; the importance of automated container terminal (ACT) is becoming increasingly prominent due to the fact (Zhao et al., 2019). The dynamicity of the global trade market required the modern-day container terminal to increase their strength in handling the large volume of containers, currently ACT implementation is in the favourite list of Port and shipping Stakeholders (Wang et al., 2019b). The development of ACT speared the new direction of the port industry in the future, it could be considered as the major revolution in port construction; as the first ACT was built at the Port of Rotterdam in Netherland, other countries such as Singapore, German, UK and Japan had successively emulated the strategy of port automation and the commissioning of ACT (Wang et al., 2019b). Figure 1 shows the numbers of the ACT being built every year. Since the year 2012, the development of ACT had been gaining popularity. Until 2017, 30 ACT was built during the time duration, this number makes up 60% of the ACT available worldwide (PEMA, 2016; UNCTAD, 2018).
The construction of ACT requires large capital investment and it would have generated a lot of impacts on the surrounding area. The container terminal operator would have to take a lot of aspects into consideration before decided to build one. Hence, the question to be answered within this study was formulated as follows:
Why would conventional container terminal adopt the technology of ACT?
In this study, large amounts of literature will be reviewed in an attempt to find the answer to the formulated question. It would enable the understanding of the trending phenomenon that causing the popularity of ACT development. The literature collections will provide the scholar views on the trending phenomenon that will generate the outcome for a contribution towards the future study.
2. Review methodology
2.1 Systematic literature review
Systematic literature review (SLR) was used to review existing literature of scientific topic in a far more objective and organised way; it could be considered as a less biased evidence-based conclusions review methodology that would lead to the gradual adoption and acceptance of theoretical framework (Munn et al., 2018). Conducting SLR is recommended before began research to study the previous research studies and briefly understand the advances made so far in global regarding a particular research topic; SLR could provide answers in more scientific secure conclusions based on large collections of literature (Schünemann et al., 2017). By using SLR, existing literature could have been review more rigorously and transparently through the investigation of studies from various scientific sources; this type of review method is reliable and organised as it could reduce the risk of getting inaccurate conclusions that are too subjective or incomplete (Maynard et al., 2018). One of the notable strength of SLR is that it could provide a summary of massive current literature that noted in detail and ready to be updated and amended based on current research needs; when combined with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) proposed by Moher et al. (2010), it could assist researchers to report the analyse outcome of reviews systematically through the steps of scoping, planning, identification, screening, eligibility assessment and interpretation of the result. After formulating a review question, SLR is required to seek for the answer through a series of actions such as identification, selections and critical appraisal where it would follow a clearly defined protocol before the review began; the searches of literature would be done comprehensively throughout multiple databases to identify all literature replicated or reproduced to generate a result that could specifically answer the formulated review question (Dewey and Drahota, 2016).
2.2 Setting review criteria
To perform SLR on collected literature, it is necessary to formulate a review question. The formulated question was available in Section 1 based on the problem statement that exists in the current trend of the maritime industry. However, merely the word of mouth and journal articles (UNCTAD, 2018; Wang et al., 2019a; Zhao et al., 2019) were genuinely insufficient to justify the necessity to carry out the study. Hence, it was decided then to identify the criteria that would function as a beacon to perform the review. In this study, the criteria would be originated from a scholar who is well experienced in the research field of maritime studies. After reading a series of literature, it was found that the publication in 2017 titled The Future of Port Logistics: Meeting the Challenges of Supply Chain Integration by Professor Theo Notteboom and Kris Neyens critically mentioned several criteria that would contribute to the answer of formulated review questions. Table 1 below shows the detail of the identified criteria within the publication.
2.3 Systematic literature review framework design
Figure 2 shows the process steps of SLR with PRISMA integration to review the articles searched in this study. The framework contained the integration of the SLR review process (Dewey and Drahota, 2016; Maynard et al., 2018; Munn et al., 2018; Schünemann et al., 2017) and the PRISMA framework proposed by Moher et al. (2010). The designed framework would provide a graphical view of how the review process was carried out towards the findings of results.
Based on Figure 2, the review started with the formulation of the review questions that serve as a primary focus within this study. A formulated question defined protocol or plan where the criteria are clearly stated before the review will be conducted (Dewey and Drahota, 2016). In this study, the question formulated attempts to find out why Conventional Container Terminal would adopt the technology of ACT.
The next process of the review methodology was begun by setting the review criteria for the upcoming articles searching process. The setting of selected search criteria will determine the inclusion and rejection of searched studies in literature searching to answer the formulated review question by minimizing selection bias as minimum as possible (Piper, 2013). In this study, the search criteria were based on the content retrieved from The Future of Port Logistics: Meeting the Challenges of Supply Chain Integration by Theo Notteboom and Kris Neyens that was published in 2017.
Upon the complete set of review criteria, the search of the literature was begun. The upcoming four stages will be regarded as the process of PRISMA that was mentioned in Section 2.1. PRISMA was regarded as an evidence-based minimum set of items to assist the researcher in reporting the systematic review and meta-analyses that had evaluated collected research studies and literature (Moher et al., 2010).
The first stage of PRISMA was the identification of articles journals. At this stage, articles from various journals will be retrieved from the search database such as Science Direct, Springer Link, Taylor and Francis Online, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Emerald Insight. There were 1,819 articles journals in total that were retrieved from the mentioned databases.
The second stage of PRISMA was the screening of articles journals. The articles identified in stage one was examined thoroughly to exclude the duplicated articles of the same titles that were available in multiple search databases. Upon the finish exclusion of duplicate articles, the articles that were unrelated to the ACT research scope were removed as well. At the end of this stage, there were 1,303 articles in total were excluded and 516 articles in total were screened and remain.
The third stage of PRISMA would be the process of articles reviewing. In this stage, the article review would be reviewed in an attempt to retain those articles were eligible for further review later. The articles that were retained at this stage would be those which were discussed about the outcome of ACT technology adoption in container terminal such as productivity, cost and environmental. This stage would use the criteria that were mentioned in Section 2.2. The stage concluded with the exclusion of 293 articles and only 223 articles remained.
The fourth stage of PRISMA would the identification of findings. This stage would identify the articles that mentioned the findings of AC adoption in the container terminal. The articles that achieved the findings associated with the adoption of productivity, cost and environment would be valuable for further review later on. Like the previous, stage criteria of Section 2.2 were also used in this stage to narrow down the review. Towards the end of the PRISMA, there were 46 articles in total were removed and 177 articles in total were retained.
Finally, the 177 articles that were retained after the stage of PRISMA would be reviewed comprehensively in an attempt to identify the findings within the articles. The accumulated findings in the articles would be recorded in statistical form to find out the trend that would provide answers for formulated review questions in Section 1. Also, the results would contribute to the formulation of the theoretical framework for future study.
3. Systematic literature review descriptive analysis
The first ACT that started the operation was the Europe Container Terminals (ECT) Delta Terminal in Port of Rotterdam in the year 1993 (Evers and Koppers, 1996). Due to this, it was decided that the literature timeline search began from the year 1993 onwards. The search was made through databases such as Science Direct, Springer Link, Taylor and Francis Online, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Emerald insight. The retrieved articles from these databases were 1,819 in total at the beginning during the PRISMA Stage One (Section 2.3). At the end of the process, only 177 articles remained after the extensive review process.
Figure 3 shows the number of articles published from 1992 until 2019 that were reviewed in this study. It appears that the papers that discussed the potential of ACT were quite low in numbers before the year 2010, there only less than 10 articles published globally during the time. Probably the ACT technology at the time was still at the infancy stage, a lot of technical problems persist; stakeholders and investors were still lack of confident to implement in such an advanced technology due to engineers were still experiencing with trial and error design in the technology (Hoshino et al., 2007). However, starting 2010 saw a notable increment in the articles published regarding the ACT; more than 10 articles were published every year until recently, except for 2012 which only 7 articles were published. The trend of increase in publishing could be because of the increase of ACT construction that happened at the same time that accompanies by the increment in research demand to improve the productivity of the container terminal (PEMA, 2016; Sauri Marchán et al., 2014; UNCTAD, 2018). By the year 2019, 177 articles discuss ACT were published in total
It is very essential to identify the source of articles in terms of the journals where it was published; the identification of journal sources would determine the impact factor of the articles where it was published based on their relevant disciplines (Garcia et al., 2011). Furthermore, the reputation of journals would also determine the quality of the research produced to ensure the reliability of the findings discussed (González-Pereira et al., 2010). In Table 2, the journals that published articles regarding ACT were shown to determine the favourable journal towards the title. The journal of OR Spectrum had the highest frequency of articles published that discussed ACT; it published 23 articles in total from the year 1992 until 2019. The next journal that favours ACT articles publication is the European Journal of Operational Research which published 13 articles in the same period. Also, the journal of Computers and Operations Research already published 12 articles that discussed ACT in the findings from the same time frame as well. The rest of the articles were published in small numbers across the various journals in different disciplines. The journals which have a high frequency of publishing the ACT related articles would enable the researcher to consider the subscription for the latest research issues to get the latest update for the contribution in the future research of the same discipline.
4. Findings and discussions
4.1 Automated container terminal improved productivity of the port
The adoption of ACT technology in container terminal would minimise the inefficiency problem that caused the delay in container handling processes by reducing the total travel time of vehicles within the container terminal to increase productivity; ACT could improve the efficiency of the port through the integration of vehicle scheduling and container yard storage plan to minimise the turnover time of vessel that also contributed to the productivity of container terminal (Luo et al., 2016). The adoption of ACT technology in a container terminal is increasing due to the rapid development of global trade that requires the terminal operator to seek technology that could offer higher productivity (Yang et al., 2018). Furthermore, the introduction of automated container operations had proven the solution to be effective and efficient in addressing the problem of space limitation within the container yard (Abdul Rahman et al., 2016).
Figure 4 shows the numbers of articles that supported ACT have higher productivity compare to the conventional container terminal. Before the year 2010, the research about ACT remains very low in numbers; hence, the articles with the related findings that ACT improved productivity of port also very limited. However, there is a significant increase in publishing starting from the year 2010 and beyond. As of 2019, the number of articles with the related findings that ACT improved productivity of port reached 18 articles in the same year. The trend of increase in article publishing was also in line with the trend of increase in ACT construction that happened since 2010 as shown in Figure 1. Hence, it is sufficed to say that the adoption of ACT technology by conventional container terminal is necessary to increase their productivity to remain competitive within the port industry; the container terminal that reluctant to do so would face the grave challenges in competing with other advanced port around the globe to survive.
4.2 Automated container terminal lowered the operation cost
The terminal operators constantly improve the technology to reduce the operating cost that would generate considerable profits; ACT greatly reduces the labour dependency and labour cost that resulted from the epoch effect of automation technology development in container terminal (Li and Lu, 2019). The increasing trend of adoption of ACT technology also resulted from the rapid development of global trade that requires terminal operators to constantly seeking for technology that could generate more profit by reducing cost (Yang et al., 2018). ACT is necessary to provide cost-effective cargo handling services; cargo transporter, terminal operators shipping companies and port authorities are willing to adopt the cutting edge technology to achieve maximum cost savings (Gharehgozli et al., 2019). Furthermore, ACT could reduce the overhead cost for ports and terminals by using the energy at a more efficient level; energy efficiency utilisation in ACT means the same quality of services still can be retained by using less energy at a lower cost (Iris and Lam, 2019).
The articles that supported that ACT lowered the operation cost that was published yearly were presented in Figure 5. The numbers of research regarding ACT remain low before the year 2010; this is also the reason why the articles with the findings of ACT lowering the operation cost were limited as well. Starting from 2010, the numbers of articles publishing in related topics were increased significantly. By 2019, the number of articles with the findings of ACT lowered the operation cost reached 23 publications in the same year. The increasing trend of publication could be highly associated with the trend of increase in ACT construction that started in 2010 that could be referring to Figure 1. Hence, it was sufficient to claim that the adoption of ACT technology by conventional container terminal is essential to lower the operation cost of the terminal so that the competitiveness can be sustained in the long term.
4.3 Automated container terminal is environmentally sustainable
The rapid development of global trade and continuous construction of the green port is spearheading the direction of existing container terminal towards the adoption ACT technology; considering the high pollution carbon emission from the diesel engine, the replacement of diesel engine vehicles with electric-powered equipment could realise the minimise the effect of climate change and environmental sustainability of green port (Wang et al., 2019a). The adoption of ACT applied the usage of advanced automated and environmentally friendly technologies had demonstrated the effectiveness of ecologically friendly container terminal such as ACT; the success of the first ACT in Port of Rotterdam had proven that ACT is a highly efficient and ecologically friendly container terminal that was recognised and widely accepted in the maritime industry and global port community (Shi et al., 2019).
Figure 6 shows the numbers of research that were done with the findings of ACT are environmentally sustainable. Before the year 2013, the number of articles that were published remains very low with only one publication once in a few years. Beginning from the year 2013, there was a noticeable increase in articles published in relevant subjects but the numbers remained low with less than 10 publications within every year. The year 2019 saw a significant increase in the publication in the discussed matter as much as 14 publications. The trend of publication could be associated with the increasing environmental concerns of global warming due to carbon emission from diesel vehicles that were mentioned by Wang et al. (2019b) that received lots of attention from scholars and industrial players. Thus, the collections of reviewed literature show that the ACT technology application in a container terminal is necessary to sustain environmental and the practice of green port; the sustainable green container terminal is necessary to reduce the negative impact of industrial waste into the natural environment that sustains the living of the human.
4.4 Overall journal articles distributions
Figure 7 shows the distribution of journal articles that were based on different findings that supported the adoption of ACT technology. There were 177 articles retrieved in total. However, each article may contain more than one finding. Hence, the number of articles distribution will base on the findings that were identified in each article.
Amongst the 177 articles reviewed, 141 articles mentioned about ACT technology could increase the productivity of the container terminal as shown in Figure 7. As the container vessel becoming bigger, the handling volume of the container also increased, the containers have to be processed as fast as possible; the demand for such kind of service quality requires the enormous productivity level of container terminals and only ACT could offer services at such velocity (Briskorn et al., 2019). Hence, it is no surprise that the majority of container terminal stakeholders agreed that ACT could provide higher productivity levels compared to conventional container terminal that was still largely in practice at present.
In terms of articles that mentioned the findings that ACT technology lowered the operation cost, there were 156 articles in total were identified during the review as shown in Figure 7. Bjerkan and Seter (2019) found that ACT could reduce the waiting time for the incoming and outgoing ship at Shanghai Port and Port of Gothenburg; by using the simulation model, they also confirmed that the ACT technology indeed improved the operational cost of the port. Hence, it is sufficient to say that the investor of the container terminal will always favour the new technologies that are more cost saving in the exchange for a higher profit margin.
The research of environmental concerns at the port surrounding area also received attention in recent years; this is proven by 45 publications of articles that found ACT is environmentally sustainable as presented in Figure 7. The increasing concern of the environmental impact of port activities and expansion due to climate change and energy conservation is becoming critical in recent year; the adoption of ACT technology based on the concept of Green Port is receiving a lot of acceptance amongst the port industrial players to ensure the environmental sustainability around the container terminal (Lam and Li, 2019).
4.5 The trend of findings in automated container terminal research
The research about the ACT saw its dusk begun in the year of 1992. Some of the noticeable pioneer researchers are Wan et al. (1992), Vepsalainen (1994) and Evers and Koppers (1996). These researchers open the path in the field of research about ACT; their research studies are still cited and benefitted the present researchers. The roles of these trailblazers in ACT research marks the beginning era of technology innovation in the port automation; as then, various institutions around the globe started to look deeper into the more specific findings in ACT research.
Figure 8 summarises the trend of ACT research remains low in the early 1990s until the early 2000s. Starting from the year 2003 and beyond, the ACT research started to show some promising trend and reach the highest peak in the year between 2004 until 2006. The noticeable researchers that active in ACT research studies during the year 2000s are IFA Vis, Koo PH, Gunther, Grunow and Lau HY. These researchers focus on different aspects of ACT according to their research area. For example, IFA Vis done the research of ACT that focusses on operational management, Koo PH focusses on AGV fleet sizing, Gunther focusses on container terminal cargo handling, Grunow focusses on AGV despatching and Lau HY focusses on the scheduling of container handling equipment in the ACT. The publication’s information on these research studies is available in the Appendix section.
4.6 The trend of focusses on automated container terminal research
The research of ACT reaches another threshold between 2014 and 2017 with more focusses on AGV as shown in Figure 9. The trigger of the research trends could be associated with the constructions of ACT around the globe that were so frequent at during the time, there was more than 20 ACT were built between 2014 and 2017, the numbers make up 30% of available of global ACT in total as of present. Overall the trend of research about ACT is gaining a lot of attention after the year 2017. There was a slight decrease in research studies in the year 2018; the numbers quickly increased in the year 2019 with more than 20 publications. The most obvious increase in the ACT research trend is the environmental sustainable focussed research papers, the possible reasons are that environmental concern and natural resources depletion is becoming a serious issue in recent years (Lam and Li, 2019). This research trend is also in line with the Sustainable Goals Development Policy that was proposed by the United Nations that was signed in 2015; this initiative aims to protect and restores the environment through continuous advancing economic and social development (Alexander and Delabre, 2019).
4.7 The trend of innovations breakthrough in automated container terminal research
As the trade volumes expand, the demand for technologies with greater efficiency and productivity would be required. Such a demand spark light the motivation of the researcher to keep on improvises the current technologies with unique innovations every year. Figure 10 shows the innovations that were achieved by some scholars from the year 2016 until the year 2019. The Intelligent Autonomous Vehicles Cooperative Model that was developed by Bahnes et al. (2016) aimed to enhance the operational efficiency of the container terminal. In the same year, Chandrakumar et al. (2016) successfully incorporated LEAN and Green Concepts in transshipment terminal operations that ended up with productivity enhancement; a model based on this innovation was also developed. As the container vessels become bigger, the industrial players need to assess the necessity for technological upgrades; hence, Meng et al. (2017) developed the Mega Vessels Impact Analysis Model that specifically tailored for container terminal operations. Gattuso and Cassone (2018) were trying to develop a model that could reduce the operation costs of Automated Guided Wagon in container yard; their research outcome manages to introduce the AGW Efficient Transport Model that could level up the efficiency of freight transport in the container yard. As electric-powered vehicles become the norm in the industry, the battery life of the vehicles becomes one of the benchmark performances in the ACT; to improve the battery utilisation of electric-powered vehicles, Zhan et al. (2019) developed the model that could improvise the battery charging in the ACT. These mentioned innovations above are just tips of the iceberg that were being developed in recent years, more innovations reviewed results are available in the Appendix section in this article (Table 3).
4.8 The trend of methodologies application in automated container terminal research
Various research methodologies were observed in articles published in the period from 1992 to 2019. The popularity of methodologies applied also correlates with the research focus of the researcher. Figure 11 shows the trend of methodologies that were applied in the research in the past until recently. In Figure 9 of Section 4.6, it was shown that the maritime operation remains one of the most popular topics for the research. The nature of the research that focusses on maritime operation requires the researcher to keep on looking for innovation to improve the productivity of the container terminal (Chandrakumar et al., 2016). Using the data that were extracted from the real-world terminal operation, scholars such as Meng et al. (2017) would attempt to run the data in the virtual simulation to predict the different scenarios that were developed. This method of simulation analysis remains the popular technique until today due to its infinite possibility and opportunities for technological improvement. The simulation analysis methodology could be applied to the research that focusses on container terminal operations such as AGV Operation (Zhan et al., 2019), Quay crane operation (Zhan et al., 2019) and container yard operation (He et al., 2019). Research method such as studies review that was applied in this paper may not seem popular amongst the researcher in the field of ACT, but it is still outstanding compare to other methods that were applied in the same field, a scholar such as Heilig et al. (2019) reviewed the IT application in the terminal management, while Doumbia-Henry (2016) reviewed the sustainability of the port terminal.
4.9 The trend of contributions in automated container terminal research
From 1992 until 2019, a lot of research studies had been completed with successful innovations and their contributions. Throughout the years, various simulation models had been developed to assist the terminal in the productivity improvement such as Strategic Battery Charging (Zhan et al., 2019), AGV Efficient Transportation (Gattuso and Cassone, 2018) and Productivity Enhancement Through Incorporate LEAN And Green Concepts by Chandrakumar et al. (2016). Besides simulation models, many researchers also developed the assessment instruments for container terminal; scholars such as Meng et al. (2017) developed Impact Analysis For Mega Vessel, Gil Ropero et al. (2019) developed BootStrap Application for Port Efficiency and Jun et al. (2018) developed Input-Output Analysis for Smart Port. Besides innovations, some researchers perform studies reviews such as this article to identify the research gaps amongst the existing studies; scholars such as Heilig et al. (2017) identified the gap of IT application in the seaport, Doumbia-Henry (2016) identified the gap of sustainability in port development and Iris and Lam (2019) who identified the gap of operation strategy in the container port. Figure 12 shows the total distributed numbers of innovations and output of the research studies in the ACT field from the year 1992 until 2019. For detail innovations produced by every scholar can refer to the Appendix section within this article.
5. Conceptual framework for future study
There was various research that was done before that attempt to find out the main reasons behind the adoption of automation technology by the maritime industry such as Bjerkan and Seter (2019), Iris and Lam (2019), Li and Fung (2019) and Zhang et al. (2019). The current SLR research paper found out that the adoption of ACT technology would increase the productivity of the container terminal, this is supported by the cumulative findings of 141 research articles that were reviewed systematically in this paper. Secondly, the adoption of ACT technology would lower the cost of the container terminal, cumulative findings of 156 systematically reviewed articles supported this. Finally, SLR analysis within this paper shows that the adoption of ACT technology would render the container terminal environmentally sustainable; there were 45 articles in total that supported this idea.
Future research will require a framework or model for describing, explaining and predicting the acceptance, adoption and use of ACT technologies in the container terminal industry. The conceptual framework will be based on constructs that were developed using the results that were obtained in this SLR study. As the target of ACT will be technology users, the conceptual framework will adapt UTAUT (Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology) variables from Venkatesh et al. (2016). Performance expectancy refers to the degree of using technology to help users in performing chosen activities. Effort expectancy refers to the degree of freedom to use technologies. Social Influence refers to perceptions that support the use of technologies. The conceptual framework will have constructs that suit the context and users of the container terminal industry. Finally, the purpose of identifying the drivers for adoption, adaption and use of ACT technologies will be investigated in detail. Figure 12 shows the developed conceptual framework formulated based on the results of the current SLR study and the adaption of the UTAUT model.
6. Conclusion
The volume of shipments will keep on increasing because of the convenience of global trade in recent years. Hence, the need for ACT in the port sector is inevitable. The ECT Delta Terminal at Rotterdam Port marks the new era of automation in the port industry. As time goes by, the ACT technologies will become more matured and reliable. Hence, the mass ACT technology adoption by the major container terminals around the world is just a matter of time. However, finding out the real factors ACT technology adoption is more relevant at the moment because it could assist the current container terminals that were not automated yet in deciding on the investment in automated technology.
The main purpose of this research is to verify the factors of ACT technology adoption by container terminal operators. The methodology used in this paper was SLR that systematically reviewed the existing literature. The collectively reviewed literature was analysed that generated statistical results after that. These results were significant in developing the conceptual framework that would benefit the future study of ACT research. Given the fact that ACT technology is not widely used around the world yet, this research would serve as a part of the contribution in collective literature for future researchers.
The literature reviewed in this paper mainly focusses on research about ACT and the outcome of its application in the maritime industry. The statistical results show that the research publications were rather slow at the beginning era of ACT introduction in the industry, probably due to limited locations of available ACT during the time. However, as time goes by, ACT numbers were increasing significantly and provide opportunities for scholars to initiate the study more conveniently. Additionally, the findings of the reviewed literature showed that the factors for container terminal operators to invest in the ACT were limited to production increment and cost reduction during the early days; however, the environmental concerns factor were taken into accounts at present.
Many works of the literature suggested that container terminal operators would benefit from the adoption of ACT technology in long term. The analysis results also show that quantitative methods were common in the literature with empirical statistics and only limited research studies that used qualitative methods in their studies previously. The used literature analysis technique in this study allowed the researcher to find out the pattern and trends of research findings that will generate clearer insights for future study. The ACT research topic could be considered a relatively fresh topic in the maritime industry because there are only limited numbers of ACT available around the world.
The research in the ACT could apply various methodologies ranging from operational research, case studies, economics modelling, simulation and software engineering due to the freshness of the topic. However, this literature review only assesses the trends of ACT research outcomes throughout the timeline. A broader review in the future probably could allow the expansion of a more detailed research area under the same topic. The conceptual framework that was generated at the end of the research aims to provide future research opportunities to conduct the study in the way of empirical.
Figures
Identified criteria to answer the review question
| Content identified as criteria | Page |
|---|---|
| … Companies will have no choice but to perform in the most environmentally sustainable way possible; one because the political and legislative will is inexorably driven that way; two because the consumers want it and three because reducing waste and fuel reduces cost … | 26 |
| … Differentiation and cost optimisation can be achieved through improved online customer experience and automation … | 38 |
| … To this extent companies must further invest and focus on tackling the most pressing challenges of port infrastructure such as spatial constraints and the pressure on productivity … | 78 |
Source: Notteboom and Neyens (2017)
Quantity of articles included in the review
| Journal title | Quantity | Quartile ranking |
|---|---|---|
| Advanced Engineering Informatics | 3 | Q1 |
| Advanced Robotics | 1 | Q1 |
| Annals of Operations Research | 1 | Q1 |
| Applied Mathematical Modelling | 2 | Q1 |
| Applied Soft Computing | 2 | Q1 |
| Automation in Construction | 1 | Q1 |
| Computational Management Science | 1 | Q1 |
| Computers and Industrial Engineering | 12 | Q1 |
| Computers and Operations Research | 1 | Q1 |
| Control Engineering Practice | 1 | Q1 |
| Engineering Optimisation | 1 | Q1 |
| European journal of operational research | 13 | Q1 |
| Expert Systems with Applications | 4 | Q1 |
| Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal | 9 | Q1 |
| Industrial Management and Data System | 1 | Q1 |
| International Journal of Control | 1 | Q1 |
| International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems | 1 | Q1 |
| International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management | 1 | Q1 |
| International Journal of Production Economics | 9 | Q1 |
| ISA Transactions | 1 | Q1 |
| Journal of Cleaner Production | 2 | Q1 |
| Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems | 1 | Q1 |
| Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing | 3 | Q1 |
| Journal of Optimisation Theory and Applications | 1 | Q1 |
| Journal of the Operational research Society | 3 | Q1 |
| Journal of Zhejiang University-Science | 2 | Q1 |
| Maritime Economics and Logistic | 5 | Q1 |
| Maritime Policy and Management | 2 | Q1 |
| Ocean Engineering | 1 | Q1 |
| OR Spectrum | 23 | Q1 |
| Research in Engineering Design | 1 | Q1 |
| Research in Transportation Business and Management | 2 | Q1 |
| Research in Transportation Economic | 2 | Q1 |
| Robotics and Autonomous System | 2 | Q1 |
| Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory | 1 | Q1 |
| Transport Policy | 3 | Q1 |
| Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice | 2 | Q1 |
| Transportation Research Part B: Methodological | 1 | Q1 |
| Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies | 7 | Q1 |
| Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review | 5 | Q1 |
| World Development | 1 | Q1 |
| Information Technology and Management | 1 | Q2 |
| Journal of mechanical science and technology | 1 | Q2 |
| Journal of Simulation | 1 | Q2 |
| Mathematical Problems in Engineering | 4 | Q2 |
| Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering | 1 | Q2 |
| Polish Maritime Research | 1 | Q2 |
| Procedia Manufacturing | 1 | Q2 |
| Sustainability | 1 | Q2 |
| WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs | 2 | Q2 |
| IFAC Proceedings Volumes | 8 | Q3 |
| IFAC-Papers On-Line | 1 | Q3 |
| Natural Computing | 1 | Q3 |
| NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking | 1 | Q3 |
| The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology | 1 | Q3 |
| Open Automation and Control Systems Journal | 1 | Q4 |
| Journal of Innovation in Digital Ecosystems | 1 | Unranked |
| Procedia CIRP | 2 | Unranked |
| Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences | 1 | Unranked |
| Transportation Research Procedia | 4 | Unranked |
| Total Journal reviewed | 177 |
Source: Developed based on systematically reviewed literature
Research innovations of articles published
| Articles published | Innovations |
|---|---|
| Bahnes, N., Kechar, B., and Haffaf, H. (2016). Cooperation Between Intelligent Autonomous Vehicles To Enhance Container Terminal Operations. Journal Of Innovation In Digital Ecosystems, 3(1), 22–29 | Intelligent autonomous vehicles cooperative model |
| Chandrakumar, C., Gowrynathan, J., Kulatunga, A. K., and Sanjeevan, N. (2016). Incorporate LEAN And Green Concepts To Enhance The Productivity Of Transhipment Terminal Operations. Procedia CIRP, 40, 301–306 | Productivity enhancement model through incorporate LEAN and green concepts |
| Meng, Q., Weng, J., and Suyi, L. (2017). Impact Analysis Of Mega Vessels On Container Terminal Operations. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 187-204 | Mega vessels impact analysis model |
| Gattuso, D., and Cassone, G. C. (2018). AGW For Efficient Freight Transport In Container Yard: Models And Costs. Transportation Research Procedia, 31, 108–120 | AGW efficient transport model |
| Zhan, X., Xu, L., Zhang, J., and Li, A. (2019). Study On AGV Battery Charging Strategy For Improving Utilisation. Procedia CIRP, 81, 558–563 | Battery charging utilisation model |
Source: Developed based on systematically reviewed literature
References
Abdul Rahman, N.S.F., Ismail, A. and Lun, V.Y.H. (2016), “Preliminary study on new container stacking/storage system due to space limitations in the container yard”, Maritime Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 1.
Acciaro, M. and Serra, P. (2014), “Strategic determinants of terminal operating system choice: an empirical approach using multinomial analysis”, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 3, pp. 592-601.
Alessandri, A., Cervellera, C., Cuneo, M., Gaggero, M. and Soncin, G. (2009), “Management of logistics operations in intermodal terminals by using dynamic modelling and nonlinear programming”, Maritime Economics and Logistics, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 58-76.
Alexander, A. and Delabre, I. (2019), Linking Sustainable Supply Chain Management with the Sustainable Development Goals: Indicators, Scales, and Substantive Impacts, Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-15066-2_6.
Angeloudis, P. and Bell, M.G. (2010), “An uncertainty-aware AGV assignment algorithm for automated container terminals”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 354-366.
Anghinolfi, D., Caballini, C. and Sacone, S. (2014), “Optimizing train loading operations in innovative and automated container terminals”, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 9581-9586.
Bae, H.Y., Choe, R., Park, T. and Ryu, K.R. (2011), “Comparison of operations of AGVs and ALVs in an automated container terminal”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 413-426.
Bahnes, N., Kechar, B. and Haaf, H. (2016), “Cooperation between intelligent autonomous vehicles to enhance container terminal operations”, Journal of Innovation in Digital Ecosystems, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 22-29.
Bechtsis, D., Tsolakis, N., Vlachos, D. and Iakovou, E. (2017), “Sustainable supply chain management in the digitalisation era: the impact of automated guided vehicles”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, pp. 3970-3984.
Bichou, K. (2013), “An empirical study of the impacts of operating and market conditions on container-port efficiency and benchmarking”, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 28-37.
Bish, E.K. (2003), “A multiple-crane-constrained scheduling problem in a container terminal”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 144 No. 1, pp. 83-107.
Bjerkan, K.Y. and Seter, H. (2019), “Reviewing tools and technologies for sustainable ports: does research enable decision making in ports?”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 72, pp. 243-260.
Borgman, B., van Asperen, E. and Dekker, R. (2010), “Online rules for container stacking”, OR Spectrum, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 687-716.
Briskorn, D., Drexl, A. and Hartmann, S. (2007), “Inventory-based dispatching of automated guided vehicles on container terminals”, OR Spectrum, Vol. 28, pp. 611-630.
Briskorn, D., Jaehn, F. and Wiehl, A. (2019), “A generator for test instances of scheduling problems concerning cranes in transshipment terminals”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 45-69.
Cai, B., Huang, S., Liu, D. and Dissanayake, G. (2014), “Rescheduling policies for large-scale task allocation of autonomous straddle carriers under uncertainty at automated container terminals”, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 506-514.
Cao, Z., Lee, D.H. and Meng, Q. (2008), “Deployment strategies of double-rail-mounted gantry crane systems for loading outbound containers in container terminals”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 221-228.
Carlo, H.J. and Martínez-Acevedo, F.L. (2015), “Priority rules for twin automated stacking cranes that collaborate”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 89, pp. 23-33.
Carlo, H.J., Vis, I.F. and Roodbergen, K.J. (2014), “Transport operations in container terminals: literature overview, trends, research directions and classification scheme”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 236 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Castelein, R.B., Geerlings, H. and Van Duin, J.H.R. (2019), “The ostensible tension between competition and cooperation in ports: a case study on intra-port competition and inter-organizational relations in the Rotterdam container handling sector”, Journal of Shipping and Trade, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 7.
Chandrakumar, C., Gowrynathan, J., Kulatunga, A.K. and Sanjeevan, N. (2016), “Incorporate LEAN and green concepts to enhance the productivity of transshipment terminal operations”, Procedia Cirp, Vol. 40, pp. 301-306.
Chang, D., Jiang, Z., Yan, W. and He, J. (2011), “Developing a dynamic rolling-horizon decision strategy for yard crane scheduling”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 485-494.
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, Vol. 181 No. 1, pp. 40-58.
Chen, L., Langevin, A. and Lu, Z. (2013), “Integrated scheduling of crane handling and truck transportation in a maritime container terminal”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 225 No. 1, pp. 142-152.
Chen, L., Xi, L.F., Cai, J.G., Bostel, N. and Dejax, P. (2006), “An integrated approach for modeling and solving the scheduling problem of container handling systems”, Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 234-239.
Chew, E.P., Günther, H.O., Kim, K.H. and Kopfer, H. (2010), “IT-based planning and control of seaport container terminals and freight transportation systems”, OR Spectrum, Vol. 32 No. 3, p. 423.
Choe, R., Cho, H., Park, T. and Ryu, K.R. (2012), “Queue-based local scheduling and global coordination for real-time operation control in a container terminal”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 2179-2192.
Choe, R., Kim, J. and Ryu, K.R. (2016), “Online preference learning for adaptive dispatching of AGVs in an automated container terminal”, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 38, pp. 647-660.
Choe, R., Kim, T.S., Kim, T. and Ryu, K.R. (2015), “Crane scheduling for opportunistic remarshaling of containers in an automated stacking yard”, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 27 Nos 2/3, pp. 331-349.
Choe, R., Park, T., Oh, M.S., Kang, J. and Ryu, K.R. (2011), “Generating a rehandling-free intra-block remarshaling plan for an automated container yard”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 201-217.
Corman, F., Xin, J., Negenborn, R.R., D’Ariano, A., Samà, M., Toli, A. and Lodewijks, G. (2016), “Optimal scheduling and routing of free-range AGVs at large scale automated container terminals”, Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 145-154.
Danyluk, M. (2019), “Fungible space: competition and volatility in the global logistics network”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 94-111.
Dekker, R., Voogd, P. and van Asperen, E. (2007), “Advanced methods for container stacking”, Container Terminals and Cargo Systems, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 131-154.
Dekker, R., van der Heide, S., van Asperen, E. and Ypsilantis, P. (2013), “A chassis exchange terminal to reduce truck congestion at container terminals”, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 528-542.
Dewey, A. and Drahota, A. (2016), “Introduction to systematic reviews: online learning module Cochrane training”, available at: https://training.cochrane.org/interactivelearning/module-1-introduction-conducting-systematic-reviews (accessed 15 January 2019).
Dhingra, V., Roy, D. and de Koster, R.B. (2017), “A cooperative quay crane-based stochastic model to estimate vessel handling time”, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 97-124.
Dhingra, V., Kumawat, G.L., Roy, D. and de Koster, R. (2018), “Solving semi-open queuing networks with time-varying arrivals: an application in container terminal landside operations”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 267 No. 3, pp. 855-876.
Dkhil, H., Yassine, A. and Chabchoub, H. (2018), “Multi-objective optimization of the integrated problem of location assignment and straddle carrier scheduling in maritime container terminal at import”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 247-269.
Dorndorf, U. and Schneider, F. (2010), “Scheduling automated triple cross-over stacking cranes in a container yard”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 617-632.
Doumbia-Henry, C. (2016), “Maritime, oceans and sustainability-a way forward”, WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Duinkerken, M.B., Dekker, R., Kurstjens, S.T., Ottjes, J.A. and Dellaert, N.P. (2007), “Comparing transportation systems for inter-terminal transport at the maasvlakte container terminals”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 469-493.
Dulebenets, M.A., Golias, M.M., Mishra, S. and Heaslet, W.C. (2015), “Evaluation of the floaterm concept at marine container terminals via simulation”, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, Vol. 54, pp. 19-35.
Espinouse, M.L., Pawlak, G. and Sterna, M. (2017), “Complexity of scheduling problem in single-machine flexible manufacturing system with cyclic transportation and unlimited buffers”, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 173 No. 3, pp. 1042-1054.
Evers, J.J.M. and Koppers, S.A.J. (1996), “Automated guided vehicle traffic control at a container terminal”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 21-34.
Fazlollahtabar, H. and Saidi-Mehrabad, M. (2015), “Methodologies to optimize automated guided vehicle scheduling and routing problems: a review study”, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, Vol. 77 Nos 3/4, pp. 525-545.
Fumarola, M. and Poelman, R. (2011), “Generating virtual environments of real world facilities: discussing four different approaches”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 263-269.
Garcia, J.A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., Fdez-Valdivia, J. and Martinez-Baena, J. (2011), “On first quartile journals which are not of highest impact”, Scientometrics, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 925-943.
Gattuso, D. and Cassone, G.C. (2018), “AGW for efficient freight transport in container yard: models and costs”, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 31, pp. 108-120.
Geerlings, H. and Van Duin, R. (2011), “A new method for assessing CO2-emissions from container terminals: a promising approach applied in Rotterdam”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 Nos 6/7, pp. 657-666.
Gelareh, S., Merzouki, R., McGinley, K. and Murray, R. (2013), “Scheduling of intelligent and autonomous vehicles under pairing/unpairing collaboration strategy in container terminals”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vo. Vol. 33, pp. 1-21.
Gharehgozli, A.H., Roy, D. and de Koster, R. (2016), “Sea container terminals: new technologies and or models”, Maritime Economics and Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 103-140.
Gharehgozli, A.H., Vernooij, F.G. and Zaerpour, N. (2017a), “A simulation study of the performance of twin automated stacking cranes at a seaport container terminal”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 261 No. 1, pp. 108-128.
Gharehgozli, A., Mileski, J.P. and Duru, O. (2017b), “Heuristic estimation of container stacking and reshuffling operations under the containership delay factor and mega-ship challenge”, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 373-391.
Gharehgozli, A. Zaerpour, N. and de Koster, R. (2019), “Container terminal layout design: transition and future”, Maritime Economics and Logistics, pp. 1-30, doi: 10.1057/s41278-019-00131-9.
Gil Ropero, A., Turias Dominguez, I. and Cerbán Jiménez, M.D.M. (2019), “Bootstrapped operating efficiency in container ports: a case study in Spain and Portugal”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 119 No. 4, pp. 924-948.
González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V.P. and Moya-Anegón, F. (2010), “A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR indicator”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 379-391.
Grunow, M., Günther, H.O., and Lehmann, M. (2005), “Dispatching multi-load AGVs in highly automated seaport container terminals”, Container Terminals and Automated Transport Systems, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 231-255.
Grunow, M., Günther, H.O., and Lehmann, M. (2007), “Strategies for dispatching AGVs at automated seaport container terminals”, Container Terminals and Cargo Systems, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 155-178.
Günther, H.O. and Kim, K.H. (2006), “Container terminals and terminal operations”, Container Terminals and Cargo Systems, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 3-12.
Güven, C. and Eliiyi, D.T. (2014), “Trip allocation and stacking policies at a container terminal”, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 3, pp. 565-573.
Hamdi, S.E., Mabrouk, A. and Thomas, B.H. (2012), “A heuristic for the container stacking problem in automated maritime ports”, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 357-363.
Han, X., Wang, Q. and Huang, J. (2019), “Scheduling cooperative twin automated stacking cranes in automated container terminals”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 128, pp. 553-558.
He, J., Tan, C. and Zhang, Y. (2019), “Yard crane scheduling problem in a container terminal considering risk caused by uncertainty”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 39, pp. 14-24.
He, J., Huang, Y., Yan, W. and Wang, S. (2015), “Integrated internal truck, yard crane and quay crane scheduling in a container terminal considering energy consumption”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 2464-2487.
Heilig, L. and Voß, S. (2017a), “Information systems in seaports: a categorization and overview”, Information Technology and Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 179-201.
Heilig, L. and Voß, S. (2017b), “Inter-terminal transportation: an annotated bibliography and research agenda”, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-63.
Heilig, L., Lalla-Ruiz, E. and Voß, S. (2017), “Digital transformation in maritime ports: analysis and a game theoretic framework”, NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking, Vol. 18 Nos 2/3, pp. 227-254.
Homayouni, S.M. and Tang, S.H. (2016), “Optimization of integrated scheduling of handling and storage operations at automated container terminals”, WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-39.
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, Vol. 270, pp. 545-556.
Hoshino, S., Ota, J., Shinozaki, A. and Hashimoto, H. (2007), “Improved design methodology for an existing automated transportation system with automated guided vehicles in a seaport container terminal”, Advanced Robotics, Vol. 21 Nos 3/4, pp. 371-394.
Hu, Y.H., Zhu, Z.D. and Hsu, W.J. (2008), “As/RS based yard and yard planning”, Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 1083-1089.
Hu, Z.H., Sheu, J.B. and Luo, J.X. (2016), “Sequencing twin automated stacking cranes in a block at automated container terminal”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 69, pp. 208-227.
Hu, H., Chen, X., Wang, T. and Zhang, Y. (2019), “A three-stage decomposition method for the joint vehicle dispatching and storage allocation problem in automated container terminals”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 129, pp. 90-101.
Hu, H., Lee, B.K., Huang, Y., Lee, L.H. and Chew, E.P. (2013), “Performance analysis on transfer platforms in based automated container terminals”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2013 No. 593847, pp. 1-8.
Hu, H., Huang, Y., Zhen, L., Lee, B.K., Lee, L.H. and Chew, E.P. (2014), “A decomposition method to analyze the performance of frame bridge based automated container terminal”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 357-365.
Huang, S.Y. and Li, Y. (2017), “Yard crane scheduling to minimize total weighted vessel loading time in container terminals”, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 29 Nos 3/4, pp. 689-720.
Huang, Y., Liang, C. and Yang, Y. (2009), “The optimum route problem by genetic algorithm for loading/unloading of yard crane”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 993-1001.
Irawan, C.A., Song, X., Jones, D. and Akbari, N. (2017), “Layout optimisation for an installation port of an offshore wind farm”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 259 No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Iris, Ç. and Lam, J.S.L. (2019), “A review of energy efficiency in ports: operational strategies, technologies, and energy management systems”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 112, pp. 170-182.
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, Vol. 80, pp. 1-19.
Jun, W.K., Lee, M.K. and Choi, J.Y. (2018), “Impact of the smart port industry on the Korean national economy using input-output analysis”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 118, pp. 480-493.
Kavakeb, S., Nguyen, T.T., McGinley, K., Yang, Z., Jenkinson, I. and Murray, R. (2015), “Green vehicle technology to enhance the performance of a European port: a simulation model with a cost-benefit approach”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 60, pp. 169-188.
Kaveshgar, N. and Huynh, N. (2015), “Integrated quay crane and yard truck scheduling for unloading inbound containers”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 159, pp. 168-177.
Kemme, N. (2012), “Effects of storage block layout and automated yard crane systems on the performance of seaport container terminals”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 563-591.
Kim, Y.S. and Hong, K.S. (2005), “A tracking algorithm for autonomous navigation of AGVs in an automated container terminal”, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 72-86.
Kim, K.H., Lee, K.M. and Hwang, H. (2003), “Sequencing delivery and receiving operations for yard cranes in port container terminals”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 283-292.
Kim, K.H., Jeon, S.M. and Ryu, K.R. (2007), “Deadlock prevention for automated guided vehicles in automated container terminals”, Container Terminals and Cargo Systems, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 243-263
Klerides, E. and Hadjiconstantinou, E. (2011), “Modelling and solution approaches to the multi-load AGV dispatching problem in container terminals”, Maritime Economics and Logistics, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 371-386.
Knatz, G. (2018), “Port mergers: why not Los Angeles and Long Beach?”, Research in Transportation Business and Management, Vol. 26, pp. 26-33.
Koo, P.H., Jang, J. and Suh, J. (2004), “Estimation of part waiting time and fleet sizing in AGV systems”, International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 211-228.
Koo, P.H., Lee, W.S. and Jang, D.W. (2004), “Fleet sizing and vehicle routing for container transportation in a static environment”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 193-209.
Ku, L.P., Chew, E.P., Lee, L.H. and Tan, K.C. (2012), “A novel approach to yard planning under vessel arrival uncertainty”, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 274-293.
Ku, L.P., Lee, L.H., Chew, E.P. and Tan, K.C. (2010), “An optimisation framework for yard planning in a container terminal: case with automated rail-mounted gantry cranes”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 519-541.
Kulak, O., Polat, O., Gujjula, R. and Günther, H.O. (2013), “Strategies for improving a long-established terminal’s performance: a simulation study of a Turkish container terminal”, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 503-527.
Laine, J.T. and Vepsäläinen, A.P. (1994), “Economies of speed in sea transportation”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 33-41.
Lam, J.S.L. and Li, K.X. (2019), “Green port marketing for sustainable growth and development”, Transport Policy. Elsevier, Vol. 84, pp. 73-81.
Lau, H.Y. and Lee, N.M. (2008a), “Traffic control of internal tractors in port container terminal using simulation”, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 16045-16050.
Lau, H.Y. and Zhao, Y. (2008b), “Integrated scheduling of handling equipment at automated container terminals”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 665-682.
Le, H.M., Yassine, A. and Moussi, R. (2012), “DCA for solving the scheduling of lifting vehicle in an automated port container terminal”, Computational Management Science, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 273-286.
Le-Anh, T. and De Koster, M.B.M. (2006), “A review of design and control of automated guided vehicle systems”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 171 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Lee, B.K. and Kim, K.H. (2010), “Comparison and evaluation of various cycle-time models for yard cranes in container terminals”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 126 No. 2, pp. 350-360.
Lee, B.K. and Kim, K.H. (2013), “Optimizing the yard layout in container terminals”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 363-398.
Lee, L.H., Chew, E.P., Tan, K.C. and Wang, Y. (2010), “Vehicle dispatching algorithms for container transshipment hubs”, OR Spectrum, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 663-685.
Lee, T.W., Park, N.K., Joint, J.F. and Kim, W.G. (2000), “A new efficient EDI system for container cargo logistics”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 133-144.
Li, S. and Fung, K.S. (2019), “Maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS): implementation and legal issues”, Maritime Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 330-339.
Li, H. and Lu, Y. (2019), “Container terminal handling technology and its development”, Academic Journal of Engineering and Technology Science, Vol. 2, pp. 144-152, doi: 10.25236/AJETS.020026.
Li, J., Xu, B., Yang, Y. and Wu, H. (2018a), “Quantum ant colony optimization algorithm for AGVs path planning based on bloch coordinates of pheromones”, Natural Computing, Vol. 2018, pp. 1-10.
Li, J.J., Xu, B.W., Postolache, O., Yang, Y.S. and Wu, H.F. (2018b), “Impact analysis of travel time uncertainty on AGV catch-up conflict and the associated dynamic adjustment”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2018 No. 4037695, pp. 1-11.
Li, Q., Adriaansen, A.C., Udding, J.T. and Pogromsky, A.Y. (2011), “Design and control of automated guided vehicle systems: a case study”, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 13852-13857.
Liu, W., Deng, T. and Li, J. (2019), “Product packing and stacking under uncertainty: a robust approach”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 277 No. 3, pp. 903-917.
Liu, C.I., Jula, H., Vukadinovic, K. and Ioannou, P. (2004), “Automated guided vehicle system for two container yard layouts”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 349-368.
Longo, F. (2010), “Design and integration of the containers inspection activities in the container terminal operations”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 272-283.
Lu, H. and Wang, S. (2019), “A study on multi-ASC scheduling method of automated container terminals based on graph theory”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 129, pp. 404-416.
Lu, Z.Q. and Xi, L.F. (2010), “A proactive approach for simultaneous berth and quay crane scheduling problem with stochastic arrival and handling time”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 207 No. 3, pp. 1327-1340.
Luo, J. and Wu, Y. (2015), “Modelling of dual-cycle strategy for container storage and vehicle scheduling problems at automated container terminals”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 79, pp. 49-64.
Luo, J., Wu, Y. and Mendes, A.B. (2016), “Modeling of integrated vehicle scheduling and container storage problems in the unloading process at an automated container terminal”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 94, pp. 32-44.
Małopolski, W. (2018), “A sustainable and conflict-free operation of AGVs in a square topology”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 126, pp. 472-481.
Maynard, B.R., Littell, J.H. and Shlonsky, A. (2018), Introduction to the Special Issue on Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews, SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles, CA.
Meng, Q., Weng, J. and Suyi, L. (2017), “Impact analysis of mega vessels on container terminal operations”, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 25, pp. 187-204.
Mengjue, X., Ning, Z. and Weijian, M. (2016), “Storage allocation in automated container terminals: the upper level”, Polish Maritime Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 160-174.
Mohammadi, E.K. and Shirazi, B. (2019), “Toward high degree flexible routing in collision-free FMSs through automated guided vehicles’ dynamic strategy: a simulation metamodel”, ISA Transactions, Vol. 96, pp. 228-244.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. and Group, P. (2010), “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, PLoS Medicine, Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. 1-6.
Moorthy, R.L., Hock-Guan, W., Wing-Cheong, N. and Chung-Piaw, T. (2003), “Cyclic deadlock prediction and avoidance for zone-controlled AGV system”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 309-324.
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C. and Jordan, Z. (2018), “What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences”, BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 5.
Nguyen, V.D. and Kim, K.H. (2009), “A dispatching method for automated lifting vehicles in automated port container terminals”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 1002-1020.
Notteboom, T. and Neyens, K. (2017), “The future of port logistics: meeting the challenges of supply chain integration”, available at: www.ing.be/Assets/Documents/Marketing/ING-the-future-of-port-logistics.pdf (accessed 19 January 2019).
Park, T., Choe, R., Kim, Y.H. and Ryu, K.R. (2011), “Dynamic adjustment of container stacking policy in an automated container terminal”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 385-392.
Park, T., Choe, R., Ok, S.M. and Ryu, K.R. (2010), “Real-time scheduling for twin RMGs in an automated container yard”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 593-615.
PEMA (2016), “Container Terminal Automation”, PEMA Information Paper, Port Equipment Manufacturers Association, London.
Petering, M.E. (2010), “Development and simulation analysis of real-time, dual-load yard truck control systems for seaport container transshipment terminals”, OR Spectrum, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 633-661.
Petering, M.E. (2015), “Real-time container storage location assignment at an RTG-based seaport container transshipment terminal: problem description, control system, simulation model, and penalty scheme experimentation”, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 27 Nos 2/3, pp. 351-381.
Piper, A.R.J. (2013), “How to write a systematic literature review: a guide for medical students”, National AMR, Fostering Medical Research, pp. 1-8.
Pjevcevic, D., Nikolic, M., Vidic, N. and Vukadinovic, K. (2017), “Data envelopment analysis of AGV fleet sizing at a port container terminal”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 14, pp. 4021-4034.
Pjevčević, D., Vladisavljević, I., Vukadinović, K. and Teodorović, D. (2011), “Application of DEA to the analysis of AGV fleet operations in a port container terminal”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 20, pp. 816-825.
Rashidi, H. and Tsang, E.P. (2013), “Novel constraints satisfaction models for optimization problems in container terminals”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 3601-3634.
Rekik, I., Elkosantini, S. and Chabchoub, H. (2015), “Real-time stacking system for dangerous containers in seaport terminals”, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 141-148.
Ribino, P., Cossentino, M., Lodato, C. and Lopes, S. (2018), “Agent-based simulation study for improving logistic warehouse performance”, Journal of Simulation, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 23-41.
Rizaldi, A., Wasesa, M. and Rahman, M.N. (2015), “Yard cranes coordination schemes for automated container terminals: an agent-based approach”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 4, pp. 124-132.
Rodriguez-Molins, M., Salido, M.A. and Barber, F. (2012), “Intelligent planning for allocating containers in maritime terminals”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 978-989.
Saini, S., Roy, D. and de Koster, R. (2017), “A stochastic model for the throughput analysis of passing dual yard cranes”, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 87, pp. 40-51.
Salido, M.A., Rodriguez-Molins, M. and Barber, F. (2011), “Integrated intelligent techniques for remarshaling and berthing in maritime terminals”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 435-451.
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, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1038-1057.
Sauri Marchán, S., Morales Fusco, P., Martin Alcalde, E. and Benitez, P. (2014), “Comparing manned and automated horizontal handling equipment at container terminals: a productivity and economic analysis”, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2409 No. 1, pp. 40-48, doi: 10.3141/2409-06.
Schünemann, H.J., Oxman, A.D., Higgins, J.P.T., Vist, G.E., Glasziou, P., Akl, E. and Guyatt, G.H. (2017), “Chapter 11: completing ‘summary of findings’ tables and grading the confidence in or quality of the evidence”, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version, Cochrane, p. 520.
Shen, Y., Zhao, N., Mi, W., Mi, C., Zhang, X. and Xia, M. (2014), “Study on shuttle scheduling problem in automated container terminal”, The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1810-1816.
Shi, X., Jiang, H., Li, H. and Wang, Y. (2019), “Upgrading port-originated maritime clusters: insights from Shanghai’s experience”, Transport Policy, Vol. 87, pp. 19-32, ISSN 0967-070X, doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.11.002.
Skinner, B., Yuan, S., Huang, S., Liu, D., Cai, B., Dissanayake, G., Lau, H., Bott, A. and Pagac, D. (2013), “Optimisation for job scheduling at automated container terminals using genetic algorithm”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 511-523.
Stahlbock, R. and Voß, S. (2008), “Operations research at container terminals: a literature update”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-52.
Steenken, D., Voß, S. and Stahlbock, R. (2004), “Container terminal operation and operations research-a classification and literature review”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 3-49.
Taner, M.E., Kulak, O. and Koyuncuoğlu, M.U. (2014), “Layout analysis affecting strategic decisions in artificial container terminals”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 75, pp. 1-12.
Tang, L., Zhao, J. and Liu, J. (2014), “Modeling and solution of the joint quay crane and truck scheduling problem”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 236 No. 3, pp. 978-990.
Tao, J. and Qiu, Y. (2015), “A simulation optimization method for vehicles dispatching among multiple container terminals”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 3742-3750.
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 and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 241-248.
Thanos, E., Wauters, T. and Vanden Berghe, G. (2019), “Dispatch and conflict-free routing of capacitated vehicles with storage stack allocation”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 2019, pp. 1-14.
Umar, U.A., Ariffin, M.K.A., Ismail, N. and Tang, S.H. (2015), “Hybrid multiobjective genetic algorithms for integrated dynamic scheduling and routing of jobs and automated-guided vehicle (AGV) in flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) environment”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 81 Nos 9/12, pp. 2123-2141.
UNCTAD (2018), “Review of maritime transport 2018”, New York, NY, October.
van Asperen, E., Borgman, B. and Dekker, R. (2013), “Evaluating impact of truck announcements on container stacking efficiency”, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 543-556.
Veeke, H.P.M., Lodewijks, G. and Ottjes, J.A. (2006), “Conceptual design of industrial systems: an approach to support collaboration”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 85-101.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. and Xu, X. (2016), “Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a synthesis and the road ahead”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 328-376.
Vepsalainen, A.P.J. (1994), “Economies of speed in sea transportation”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 33-41, doi: 10.1108/09600039410071280.
Vis, I.F. (2006a), “A comparative analysis of storage and retrieval equipment at a container terminal”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 680-693.
Vis, I.F. (2006b), “Survey of research in the design and control of automated guided vehicle systems”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 170 No. 3, pp. 677-709.
Vis, I.F., D. and Koster, R. (2003), “Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: an overview”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 147 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Vis, I.F. and Harika, I. (2004), “Comparison of vehicle types at an automated container terminal”, OR Spectrum, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-143.
Vis, I.F., De Koster, R.M.B.M., 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, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 409-417.
Wan, T.B., Wah, E.L.C. and Meng, L.C. (1992), “The use of information technology by the port of Singapore authority”, World Development, Vol. 20 No. 12, pp. 1785-1795, doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(92)90091-9.
Wang, N., Chang, D., Shi, X., Yuan, J. and Gao, Y. (2019a), “Analysis and design of typical automated container terminals layout considering carbon emissions”, Sustainability (Sustainability), Vol. 11 No. 10, pp. 1-40, doi: 10.3390/su11102957.
Wang, P., Mileski, J.P. and Zeng, Q. (2019b), “Alignments between strategic content and process structure: the case of container terminal service process automation”, Maritime Economics and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 543-558, doi: 10.1057/s41278-017-0070-z.
Wang, W., Peng, Y., Tian, Q. and Song, X. (2017), “Key influencing factors on improving the waterway through capacity of coastal ports”, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 137, pp. 382-393.
Wiese, J., Suhl, L. and Kliewer, N. (2010), “Mathematical models and solution methods for optimal container terminal yard layouts”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 427-452.
Wu, Y., Luo, J., Zhang, D. and Dong, M. (2013), “An integrated programming model for storage management and vehicle scheduling at container terminals”, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 13-27.
Xin, J., Negenborn, R.R. and Lodewijks, G. (2014a), “Rescheduling of interacting machines in automated container terminals”, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 1698-1704.
Xin, J., Negenborn, R.R. and Lodewijks, G. (2014b), “Trajectory planning for AGVs in automated container terminals using avoidance constraints: a case study”, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 9828-9833.
Xin, J., Negenborn, R.R. and Lodewijks, G. (2015a), “Energy-efficient container handling using hybrid model predictive control”, International Journal of Control, Vol. 88 No. 11, pp. 2327-2346.
Xin, J., Negenborn, R.R. and Lodewijks, G. (2015b), “Event-driven receding horizon control for energy-efficient container handling”, Control Engineering Practice, Vol. 39, pp. 45-55.
Xin, J., Negenborn, R.R., Corman, F. and Lodewijks, G. (2015c), “Control of interacting machines in automated container terminals using a sequential planning approach for collision avoidance”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 60, pp. 377-396.
Yang, Y.C. and Chang, W.M. (2013), “Impacts of electric rubber-tired gantries on green port performance”, Research in Transportation Business and Management, Vol. 8, pp. 67-76.
Yang, Y.C. and Chen, S.L. (2016), “Determinants of global logistics hub ports: comparison of the port development policies of Taiwan”, Transport Policy, Vol. 45, pp. 179-189.
Yang, C.H., Choi, Y.S. and Ha, T.Y. (2004), “Simulation-based performance evaluation of transport vehicles at automated container terminals”, Or Spectrum, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 149-170.
Yang, Y., Zhong, M., Dessouky, Y. and Postolache, O. (2018), “An integrated scheduling method for AGV routing in automated container terminals”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 126, pp. 482-493.
Zaghdoud, R., Mesghouni, K., Dutilleul, S.C., Zidi, K. and Ghedira, K. (2012), “Optimization problem of assignment containers to AIVs in a container terminal”, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 45 No. 24, pp. 274-279.
Zeng, J. and Hsu, W.J. (2008), “Conflict-free container routing in mesh yard layouts”, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 451-460.
Zhan, X., Xu, L., Zhang, J. and Li, A. (2019), “Study on AGVs battery charging strategy for improving utilization”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 81, pp. 558-563.
Zhang, H., Collart-Dutilleul, S. and Mesghouni, K. (2013), “Parameters’ optimization of resources in a container terminal”, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 46 No. 13, pp. 395-400.
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, Vol. 122, doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2018.12.003.
Zhao, N., Xia, M., Mi, C., Bian, Z. and Jin, J. (2015), “Simulation-based optimization for storage allocation problem of outbound containers in automated container terminals”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2015 No. 548762.
Zhao, Q., Ji, S., Guo, D., Du, X. and Wang, H. (2019), “Research on cooperative scheduling of automated quayside cranes and automatic guided vehicles in automated container terminal”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2019, Article ID 6574582, pp. 1-15.
Zhen, L. (2014), “Storage allocation in transshipment hubs under uncertainties”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 72-88.
Zhen, L. (2016), “Modeling of yard congestion and optimization of yard template in container ports”, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 90, pp. 83-104.
Zheng, H., Negenborn, R.R. and Lodewijks, G. (2016), “Predictive path following with arrival time awareness for waterborne AGVs”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 70, pp. 214-237.
Zhu, H., Ji, M. and Guo, W. (2019), “Two-stage search algorithm for the inbound container unloading and stacking problem”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 1000-1024.
Further reading
Li, C., Lu, Z., Han, X., Zhang, Y. and Wang, L. (2016), “Integrated scheduling of a container handling system with simultaneous loading and discharging operations”, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 397-414.
Rahman, H.F. and Nielsen, I. (2019), “Scheduling automated transport vehicles for material distribution systems”, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 82 No. 105552.
Zhen, L., Yu, S., Wang, S. and Sun, Z. (2019), “Scheduling quay cranes and yard trucks for unloading operations in container ports”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 273 Nos 1/2, pp. 455-478.
Zhen, L., Hu, H., Wang, W., Shi, X. and Ma, C. (2018), “Cranes scheduling in frame bridges based automated container terminals”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 97, pp. 369-384.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers who have made constructive and valuable comments to improve the quality of this manuscript.