Marine Systems & Ocean Technology

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 178–186 | Cite as

Effects of slow steaming strategies on a ship fleet

  • Maricruz A. F. CepedaEmail author
  • Luiz Felipe Assis
  • Lino G. Marujo
  • Jean-David Caprace


Currently, container ships operators have implemented slow steaming (SS) strategies in their fleets to improve the profit margins by reducing operational costs. However, some ship owners are not yet convinced of this practice because the navigation time is increasing that cause a reduction of the number of travel per year of the ship. The use of speed reduction by liner shipping has been widely discussed in the literature. Nevertheless, this effect has not been studied in bulk carriers because they are navigating slower than container ships. This paper proposes a simulation model of a bulk carrier’s fleet composed by 13 ships from a unique ship owner in three conditions: the actual condition of navigation, the SS and the ultra-slow steaming. A discrete-event simulation model has been developed considering historical data of a bulk carrier fleet. The results obtained are the total fuel consumption, emissions and the cargo transported per year. These values are showing that the fleet can be operated with higher efficiency when the SS strategy is used. Indeed, the saving in fuel cost and emissions are balancing the reduction of the cargo transported per year.


Slow steaming Stochastic simulation Shipping Emissions 



For Cepeda support National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES).


  1. 1.
    D.O. Bausch, G.G. Brown, D. Ronen, Scheduling short-term marine transport of bulk products. Marit. Policy Manag. 25(4), 335–348 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Cariou, Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO\(_2\) emissions from container shipping? Transp. Res. Part D 16, 260–264 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2010.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.A.F. Cepeda, Analysis of ship fleet performance using data envelopment analysis and multi criteria decision analysis estimators. Dissertation for the degree of master of science (M.Sc.), UFRJ/COPPE/Programa de Engenharia Oceanica, Rio de Janeiro (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.A.F. Cepeda, J.D. Caprace, Simulating economical impacts of slow & ultra slow steaming strategies on a bulk carrier fleet. in Proceedings of XXVIX Congress ANPET 2015, ed. By ANPET (ANPET, ANPET, Ouro Preto, Brasil, 2015), pp. 1052–1062Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C.C. Chang, C.H. Chang, Energy conservation for international dry bulk carriers via vessel speed reduction. Energy Policy 59, 710–715 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Claudepierre, A. Klanac, B. Allestrom, Ulysses the ultra slow steaming of the future (Paper, The European Commission, 2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Ferrari, A. Tei, F. Parola, Facing the economic crisis by cutting costs: the impact of low-steaming on container shipping networks, in Conference Proceedings of International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Conference (International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME),, Taipei Taiwan, 2012), pp. 1–16Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Flikkema, Design for efficiency. Ship & Offshore 6, 16–18 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IMO: Guidelines for voluntary use of the ship energy efficiency operational indicator EEOI. Tech. Rep. MEPC.1/Circ.684, IMO—International Maritime Organization (2009). Ref. T5/1.01Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IMO, I.M.O.: Interim guidelines for voluntary ship CO\(_2\) emission indexing for use in trials. Mepc/circ.471, International Maritime Organization, London, UK (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P.M.H. Kendall, A theory of optimum ship size. J. Transp. Econ. Policy V I(2), 128–146 (1972)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C.Y. Lee, H.L. Lee, J. Zhang, The impact of slow ocean steaming on delivery reliability and fuel consumption. Transp. Res. Part E 76, 176–190 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2015.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Commission Limited, Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements between ports in the european community (Final report, European Commission, England, 2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Lindstad, B.E. Asbjornslett, A.H. Stromman, Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and cost by shipping at lower speeds. Energy Policy 39(6), 3456–3464 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Maloni, J.A. Paul, D.M. Gligor, Slow steaming impacts on ocean carriers and shippers. J. Marit. Econ. Logist. 15(2), 151–171 (2013). doi: 10.1057/mel.2013.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Notteboom, P. Cariou, Slow steaming in container liner shipping: is there any impact on fuel surcharge practices? Int. J. Logist. Manag. 24(1), 73–86 (2013). doi: 10.1108/IJLM-05-2013-0055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    H.N. Psaraftis, D.V. Lyridis, C.A. Kontovas, The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics, Chap. 19 The Economics of Ships (Wiley-Blackwell, Maiden, 2012), pp. 373–391Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    N.S.F.A. Rahman, Z. Yang, S. Bonsall, J. Wang, A fuzzy rule-based Bayesian reasoning method for analysing the necessity of super slow steaming under uncertainty: containership. Int. J. e-Navig. Marit. Econ. 3, 1–12 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Ronen, The effect of oil price on the optimal speed of ships. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 33(11), 1035–1040 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Stephens, Future operating costs report. Tech. rep., Moore Stephens International Limited, 150 Aldersgate Street, London (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Stopford, Maritime Economics, vol. 3 (Routledge, London, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Sweetser, A comparison of system dynamics and discrete event simulation, in Proceedings of 17th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society (Wellington, New Zealand, 1999) pp. 1–8Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    H.H. Tai, D.Y. Lin, Comparing the unit emissions of daily frequency and slow steaming strategies on trunk route deployment ininternational container shipping. Transp. Res. Part D 21, 26–31 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Tezdogan, A. Incecik, O. Turan, P. Kellett, Assessing the impact of a slow steaming approach on reducing the fuel consumption of a containership advancing in head seas. Transp. Res. Proc. 14, 1659–1668 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    UNCTAD/RMT: Review of maritime transport 2011. Report, United Nations, New York and Geneva (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    UNCTAD/RMT: Review of maritime transport 2016. Report, United Nations, New York and Geneva (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E.Y. Wong, A.H. Tai, H.Y. Lau, M. Raman, An utility-based decision support sustainability model in slow steaming maritime operations. Transp. Res. Part E 78, 57–69 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedade Brasileira de Engenharia Naval 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ocean EngineeringFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Industrial EngineeringFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations