Skip to main content
Log in

Cooperative liner shipping network design by means of a combinatorial auction

  • Published:
Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cooperation in the ocean liner shipping industry has always been important to improve liner shipping networks (LSN’s). As tight cooperations like alliances are challenged by antitrust laws, looser forms of cooperation among liner carriers might become a reasonable way to increase efficiency of LSN’s. Our goal is to facilitate a loose form of cooperation among liner carriers. Therefore, we introduce a coordination mechanism for designing a collaborative LSN based on a multi round combinatorial auction. Via the auction, carriers exchange demand triplets, i.e. orders which describe the transport of containers between ports. A standard network design problem which includes ship scheduling and cargo routing decisions is used as isolated network design problem of an individual carrier. A carrier has to solve this isolated problem repeatedly during the auction so that the carrier is able to decide which demand triplets to sell, on which demand triplets to bid, and what prices to charge. To solve these problems we propose a variable neighborhood search based matheuristic. The matheuristic addresses the isolated planning problem in four phases (construct ship cycles, modify cycles, determine container flow, and reallocate ships to cycles). Our computational experiments on a set of 56 synthetic test instances suggest that the introduced combinatorial auction increases profits on average compared to isolated planning significantly by 4%. The more diverse the original assignment of demand triplets and ships to carriers is, the higher the potential for collaboration; for 18 diverse instances, the profits increase on average by 10%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal R, Ergun Ö (2008) Ship scheduling and network design for cargo routing in liner shipping. Transp Sci 42(2):175–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal R, Ergun Ö (2010) Network design and allocation mechanisms for carrier alliances in liner shipping. Oper Res 58(6):1726–1742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez FJ (2009) Joint routing and deployment of a fleet of container vessels. Marit Econ Logist 11(2):186–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouer BD, Alvarez JF, Plum CEM, Pisinger D, Sigurd MM (2014) A base integer programming model and benchmark suite for liner-shipping network design. Transp Sci 48(2):281–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buer T, Pankratz G (2010) Grasp with hybrid path relinking for bi-objective winner determination in combinatorial transportation auctions. Bus Res 3(2):192–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buer T, Homberger J, Gehring H (2013) A collaborative ant colony metaheuristic for distributed multi-level uncapacitated lot-sizing. Int J Prod Res 51(17):5253–5270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen M, Fagerholt K, Nygreen B, Ronen D (2013) Ship routing and scheduling in the new millennium. Eur J Oper Res 228(3):467–483

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chun SY, Kleywegt AJ, Shapiro A (2016) When friends become competitors: the design of resource exchange alliances. Manag Sci. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries S, Vohra RV (2003) Combinatorial auctions: a survey. INFORMS J Comput 15(3):284–309

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerholt K (1999) Optimal fleet design in a ship routing problem. Int Trans Oper Res 6(5):453–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelareh S, Monemi RN, Mahey P, Maculan N, Pisinger D (2013) Single string planning problem arising in liner shipping industries: a heuristic approach. Comput Oper Res 40(10):2357–2373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen P, Mladenovic N, Prez JAM (2008) Variable neighbourhood search: methods and applications. 4OR 6(4):319–360

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Krajewska MA, Kopfer H (2006) Collaborating freight forwarding enterprises. OR Spectr 28(3):301–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei L, Fan C, Boile M, Theofanis S (2008) Collaborative versus non-collaborative container-vessel scheduling. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 44(3):504–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malliappi F, Bennell JA, Potts CN (2011) A variable neighborhood search heuristic for tramp ship scheduling. IN: Proceedings of the second international conference on computational logistics (ICCL’11). Springer, Berlin, pp 273–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng Q, Wang S (2011) Liner shipping service network design with empty container repositioning. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 47(5):695–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder J, Dekker R (2014) Methods for strategic liner shipping network design. Eur J Oper Res 235(2):367–377

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Panayides PM, Wiedmer R (2011) Strategic alliances in container liner shipping. Res Transp Econ 32(1):25–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekeč A, Rothkopf MH (2003) Combinatorial auction design. Manag Sci 49(11):1485–1503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt LB, Pisinger D (2012) A branch and cut algorithm for the container shipping network design problem. Flex Serv Manuf J 24(3):349–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shintani K, Imai A, Nishimura E, Papadimitriou S (2007) The container shipping network design problem with empty container repositioning. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 43(1):39–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadtler H (2009) A framework for collaborative planning and state-of-the-art. OR Spectr 31(1):5–30

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sterzik S, Kopfer H, Yun WY (2015) Reducing hinterland transportation costs through container sharing. Flex Serv Manuf J 27(2):382–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stopford M (2008) Maritime economics. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran NK, Haasis HD (2015) Literature survey of network optimization in container liner shipping. Flex Serv Manuf J 27(2):139–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran NK, Haasis HD, Buer T (2016) Container shipping route design incorporating the costs of shipping, ininland/feed transport and co2 emission. Marit Econ Logist. doi:10.1057/mel.2016.11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S (2013) Essential elements in tactical planning models for container liner shipping. Transp Res Part B Methodol 54:84–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Meng Q (2013) Reversing port rotation directions in a container liner shipping network. Transp Res Part B Methodol 50:61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng J, Gao Z, Yang D, Sun Z (2015a) Network design and capacity exchange for liner alliances with fixed and variable container demands. Transp Sci 49(4):886–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng J, Sun Z, Gao Z (2015b) Empty container exchange among liner carriers. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 83:158–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the anonymous referees for their constructive contributions. The junior research group on Computational Logistics is funded by the University of Bremen in line with the Excellence Initiative of German federal and state governments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Buer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buer, T., Haass, R. Cooperative liner shipping network design by means of a combinatorial auction. Flex Serv Manuf J 30, 686–711 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-017-9284-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-017-9284-8

Keywords

Navigation