The impact of job assignment rules for straddle carriers on the throughput of container terminals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Straddle carriers represent a critical resource in the handling of containers within a container terminal. It is essential that they are deployed in an as efficient manner as possible. The research presented in this paper is motivated by the need to critically evaluate job assignment rules for straddle carriers that operate in a multiple straddle environment. This is achieved by developing a discrete event simulation model using industrial simulation software to model a container terminal located in Melbourne, Australia. The model accounts for variables such as the number of straddle carriers needed, the speed of straddle carriers, the arrival rate of trucks, and the job assignment rule. A principal finding of the study is that increasing the number of straddles in the present set‐up from 6 to 7 has a negligible effect on daily throughput. However, an increase in the number of straddles to 7 is expected to have a profound effect on reducing the average waiting time of trucks within the terminal from over 16 minutes to under 9 minutes, a decrease of 46.5%. However, a further increase in the number of straddles results in no further increase in daily throughput. It was observed that the throughput of the terminal is very sensitive to the speeds at which straddles travel. The management of the terminal has proposed a new heuristic job assignment rule for straddles, because the present rule does not assign the jobs to straddles closest to the truck requesting to load or unload a container. As a result a new heuristic job assignment rule was tested. The simulation results revealed that both the old and new rules performed equally well using performance indicators such as average container flow time, daily throughput, average waiting time of jobs, number of jobs in the queue, and straddle utilisation. Therefore, the new rule will not improve these performance measures if implemented
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".