Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 2923–2936 | Cite as

Scheduling ships movements within a canal harbor

  • Paola Pellegrini
  • Giacomo di Tollo
  • Raffaele PesentiEmail author
Focus

Abstract

In this paper we propose a model for the in-port ship scheduling problem that consists in scheduling the movement of ships inside a canal harbor. Our model, which we name RECIP-MILP, is inspired by a model for scheduling trains, to exploit the analogies between a canal harbor and a single track railway network. Moreover, we show how to translate spatial safety constraints into time ones. We apply our model to instances representing ship movements in the Port of Venice. We test the performance of both the exact RECIP-MILP model and a heuristic solution algorithm based on it. We show that we can exactly solve most instances in few minutes.

Keywords

In-port ship scheduling problem Ship scheduling Mixed-integer linear programming Venice 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thanks the North Adriatic Sea Port Authority for its support and suggestion. In particular, Eng. P. Menegazzo and Capt. A. Revedin. This study was partially funded by the “Smart PORt Terminals - SPORT” MIUR-PRIN project (Grant No. 2015XAPRKF) financed by the Italian state and by the “CPER ELSAT2020” project co-financed by the European Union with the European Regional Development Fund, the French state and the Hauts-de-France Region Council. The study was partially developed within the Centro Studi su Economia e Management della Portualità of Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author R. Pesenti has received research funds from the North Adriatic Sea Port Authority and declares that the Centro Studi su Economia e Management della Portualità is partially funded by the North Adriatic Sea Port Authority. G. di Tollo and P. Pellegrini declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Bierwirth C, Meisel F (2015) A follow-up survey of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling problems in container terminals. Eur J Oper Res 244(3):675–689MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bugarski V, Backalic T, Kuzmanov U (2013) Fuzzy decision support system for ship lock control. Expert Syst Appl 40:3953–3960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cacchiani V, Huisman D, Kidd M, Kroon L, Toth P, Veelenturf L, Wagenaar J (2014) An overview of recovery models and algorithms for real-time railway rescheduling. Transp Res Part B Methodol 63:15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Canestrelli E, Corazza M, De Nadai G, Pesenti R (2017) Managing the ship movements in the port of venice. Netw Spat Econ 17(3):861–887MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlo HJ, Vis IFA, Roodbergen KJ (2015) Seaside operations in container terminals: literature overview, trends, and research directions. Flex Serv Manuf J 27(2):224–262 ISSN 1936-6590CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Casagrande M (2015) The progressive regulation of the passage of large cruise ships in Venice: the decision-making. In: Proceedings between law and stakeholder pressure. Springer, Cham, pp 185–195. ISBN 978-3-319-11385-2Google Scholar
  7. Chang YT, Song Y, Roh Y (2013) Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from port vessel operations at the Port of Incheon. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 25:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christiansen M, Fagerholt K, Nygreen B, Ronen D (2013) Ship routing and scheduling in the new millennium. Eur J Oper Res 228:467–483MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Christofides N (1976) Worst-case analysis of a new heuristic for the travelling salesman problem. Technical Report 388, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. Du Y, Chen Q, Lam JSL, Xu Y, Cao JX (2015) Modeling the impacts of tides and the virtual arrival policy in berth allocation. Transp Sci 49:939–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franzese LAG, Abdenur LO, Botter RC, Starks D, Cano AR (2011) Simulating the panama canal: present and future. In: Proceedings of the 2004 winter simulation conference, vol 2, pp 1835–1838Google Scholar
  12. Gharehgozli AH, Roy D, de Koster R (2016) Sea container terminals: new technologies and OR models. Marit Econ Logist 18(2):103–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Golias M, Portal I, Konur D, Kaisar E, Kolomvos G (2014) Robust berth scheduling at marine container terminals via hierarchical optimization. Comput Oper Res 41:412–422MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Gregoris E, Barbaro E, Morabito E, Toscano G, Donateo A, Cesari D, Contini D, Gambaro A (2016) Impact of maritime traffic on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals and particulate matter in venice air. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(7):6951–6959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kontovas C, Psaraftis H (2011) Reduction of emissions along the maritime intermodal container chain: operational models and policies. Marit Policy Manag 38(4):451469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lalla-Ruiz E, Shi X, Voß S (2018) The waterway ship scheduling problem. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 60:191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lübbecke E (2016) On- and offline scheduling of bidirectional traffic. In: Fink A et al (ed) Operations research proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  18. Lusby RM, Larsen J, Ehrgott M, Ryan D (2011) Railway track allocation: models and methods. OR Spectr 33(4):843–883MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Mavrakis D, Kontinakis N (2008) A queueing model of maritime traffic in Bosporus Straits. Simul Model Pract Theory 16:315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nauss RM (2008) Optimal sequencing in the presence of setup times for tow/barge traffic through a river lock. Eur J Oper Res 187:1268–1281CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Nogueira TH, de Carvalho CRV, Santos GPA, de Camargo LC (2015) Mathematical model applied to single-track line scheduling problem in Brazilian railways. 4OR 13(4):403–441MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Parnell KE, Soomere T, Zaggia L, Rodin A, Lorenzetti G, Rapaglia J, Scarpa GM (2015) Ship-induced solitary Riemann waves of depression in Venice lagoon. Phys Lett A 379(6):555–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Passchyn W, Coene S, Briskorn D, Hurink JL, Spieksma FCR, Vanden Berghe G (2016) The lockmaster’s problem. Eur J Oper Res 251(2):432–441MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Pellegrini P, Marliere G, Pesenti R, Rodriguez J (2015) RECIFE-MILP: an effective MILP-based heuristic for the real-time railway traffic management problem. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 16(5):2609–2619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petersen ER, Taylor AJ (1988) An optimal scheduling system for the Welland Canal. Transp Sci 22:173–185CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Quaglietta E, Pellegrini P, Goverde RMP, Albrecht T, Jaekel B, Marlière G, Rodriguez J, Dollevoet T, Ambrogio B, Carcasole D, Giaroli M, Nicholson G (2016) The ON-TIME real-time railway traffic management framework: a proof-of-concept using a scalable standardised data communication architecture. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 63:23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Styhre L, Winnes H, Black J, Lee J, Le-Griffin H (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions from ships in ports: case studies in four continents. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 54:212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ulusçu ÖS, Altıok T (2009) Waiting time approximation in single-class queueing systems with multiple types of interruptions: modeling congestion at waterways entrances. Ann Oper Res 172:291–313CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Ulusçu ÖS, Öbaş B, Altıok T, Or I, Yılmaz T (2009) Transit vessel scheduling in the Strait of Istanbul. J Navig 62:59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verstichel J, De Causmaecker P, Spieksma F, Berghe GV (2014) The generalized lock scheduling problem: an exact approach. Transp Res Part E Log Transp Rev 65:16–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Verstichel J, De Causmaecker P, Spieksma FCR, Vanden Berghe G (2014) Exact and heuristic methods for placing ships in locks. Eur J Oper Res 235:387–398MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang X, Arnesen MJ, Fagerholt K, Gjestvang M, Thun K (2018) A two-phase heuristic for an in-port ship routing problem with tank allocation. Comput Oper Res 91:37–47MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang Z, Shi H, Chen K, Bao H (2014) Optimization of container liner network on the Yangtze River. Marit Policy Manag 41(1):79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang X, Lin J, Guo Z, Liu T (2016) Vessel transportation scheduling optimization based on channel–berth coordination. Ocean Eng 112:145–152Google Scholar
  35. Zhen L, Liang Z, Zhuge D, Lee LH, Chew EP (2017) Daily berth planning in a tidal port with channel flow control. Transp Res Part B Methodol 106:193–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ. Lille Nord de France, IFSTTAR, COSYS, LEOSTVilleneuve d’AscqFrance
  2. 2.Department of ManagementCa’ Foscari University of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations