Skip to main content

The Vessel Scheduling Problem in a Liner Shipping Route with Heterogeneous Fleet

Abstract

Increasing volumes of the international seaborne trade force liner shipping companies to improve efficiency of their operations to remain competitive. Many of liner shipping companies continue increasing size of their vessels, as larger vessels provide lower voyage costs per container due to their economies of scale. Larger vessels also allow liner shipping companies more efficiently share the demand with the alliance partners. Nowadays, many of liner shipping routes are served by vessels of different types (e.g., small, medium, large). However, the key assumption of studies on vessel scheduling, conducted to date, is homogeneous nature of the vessel fleet (i.e., all vessels in the fleet, serving a given liner shipping route, have the same technical characteristics). This study proposes a novel mathematical model for the vessel scheduling problem with heterogeneous fleet. The objective of a mixed integer non-linear model is to minimize the total vessel turnaround cost. Due to high non-linearity of the proposed mathematical model a non-linear optimization solver is used to solve it. Numerical experiments are performed to evaluate efficiency of the proposed solution approach and the novel methodology. Results demonstrate a computational efficiency of the adopted solution approach. Furthermore, vessel schedules are found to be more sensitive to introduction of larger vessels in the fleet as compared to increase in the unit bunker cost.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.searates.com.

References

  1. 1.

    World Shipping Council (2015) Some Observations on Port Congestion, Vessel Size and Vessel Sharing Agreements. http://www.worldshipping.org. Accessed 10 January 2016

  2. 2.

    Drewry (2013) Why size matters. http://ciw.drewry.co.uk/features/why-size-matters/#.VfnZTN_tmko. Accessed 10 January 2016

  3. 3.

    Green Car Congress (2011) New Mærsk Triple-E ships world’s largest and most efficient; waste heat recovery and ultra long stroke engines contribute to up to 50% reduction in CO2/container moved. http://www.greencarcongress.com. Accessed 10 January 2016

  4. 4.

    JOC (2014) Global ports grapple with congestion generated by larger ships and alliances. http://www.joc.com. Accessed 10 January 2016

  5. 5.

    Cargo Business (2015) Fitch ratings: advent of large ships may leave smaller ports behind. http://www.cargobusinessnews.com. Accessed 10 January 2016

  6. 6.

    Dulebenets MA, Pujats K, Golias MM, Mishra S (2016) Megaships in marine transportation: a critical literature review and extensions. In: Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting (No. 16-4014)

  7. 7.

    JOC (2015) Largest container ships on order to rise 13 percent by 2020. http://www.joc.com. Accessed 10 January 2016

  8. 8.

    CMA CGM (2016a) French Asia Line 1. http://www.cma-cgm.com/products-services/lineservices/flyer/FAL. Accessed 10 January 2016

  9. 9.

    CMA CGM (2016b) French Asia Line 8. http://www.cma-cgm.com/products-services/lineservices/flyer/FAL8. Accessed 10 January 2016

  10. 10.

    CMA CGM (2016c) Transport Solutions from Asia to Europe. https://www.cma-cgm.com/products-services/line-services/solution?ZoneFrom=ASIE&ZoneTo=WEUR. Accessed 10 January 2016

  11. 11.

    Psaraftis H, Kontovas C (2013) Speed models for energy-efficient maritime transportation: a taxonomy and survey. Transp Res Part C 26:331–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Psaraftis H, Kontovas C (2014) Ship speed optimization: concepts, models and combined speed-routing scenarios. Transp Res Part C 44:52–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wang S, Meng Q (2012) Sailing speed optimization for container ships in a liner shipping network. Transp Res Part E 48:701–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Meng Q, Wang S, Andersson H, Thun K (2014) Containership routing and scheduling in liner shipping: overview and future research directions. Transp Sci 48:265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Fagerholt K (2001) Ship scheduling with soft time windows: an optimization based approach. Eur J Oper Res 131:559–571

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Wang H, Wang S, Meng Q (2014) Simultaneous optimization of schedule coordination and cargo allocation for liner container shipping networks. Transp Res Part E 70:261–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wang S (2015) Optimal sequence of containerships in a string. Eur J Oper Res 246:850–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Chuang T, Lin C, Kung J, Lin M (2010) Planning the route of container ships: a fuzzy genetic approach. Expert Syst Appl 37:2948–2956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Qi X, Song D (2012) Minimizing fuel emissions by optimizing vessel schedules in liner shipping with uncertain port times. Transp Res Part E 48:863–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wang S, Meng Q (2012) Liner ship route schedule design with sea contingency time and port time uncertainty. Transp Res Part B 46:615–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wang S, Meng Q (2012) Robust schedule design for liner shipping services. Transp Res Part E 48:1093–1106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Song D, Li D, Drake P (2015) Multi-objective optimization for planning liner shipping service with uncertain port times. Transp Res Part E 84:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Dulebenets MA (2015) Bunker consumption optimization in liner shipping: a metaheuristic approach. Int J Recent Innov Trends Comput Commun 3:3766–3776

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Alhrabi A, Wang S, Davy P (2015) Schedule design for sustainable container supply chain networks with port time windows. Adv Eng Inform 29:322–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Wang S, Alharbi A, Davy P (2014) Liner ship route schedule design with port time windows. Transp Res Part C 41:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Wang S, Liu Z, Qu X (2015) Collaborative mechanisms for berth allocation. Adv Eng Inform 29(3):332–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Dulebenets MA (2015) Models and solution algorithms for improving operations in marine transportation. Dissertation, the University of Memphis

  28. 28.

    Dulebenets MA, Golias MM, Mishra S (2015) The green vessel schedule design problem: consideration of emissions constraints. Energy Syst:1–23

  29. 29.

    Du Y, Chen Q, Quan X, Long L, Fung R (2011) Berth allocation considering fuel consumption and vessel emissions. Transp Res Part E 47:1021–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Yao Z, Ng S, Lee L (2012) A study on bunker fuel management for the shipping liner services. Comput Oper Res 39:1160–1172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Wang S, Meng Q, Liu Z (2013) Bunker consumption optimization methods in shipping: a critical review and extensions. Transp Res Part C 53:49–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Sahinidis N (2015) BARON user manual v. 16.4.7. http://www.minlp.com/downloads/docs/baron%20manual.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2016

  33. 33.

    OOCL (2016) e-Services, Sailing Schedule, Schedule by Service Loops, Asia-Europe (AET). http://www.oocl.com. Accessed 10 January 2016

  34. 34.

    Dulebenets MA (2016) A new simulation model for a comprehensive evaluation of yard truck deployment strategies at marine container terminals. Open Sci J 1:1-28

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Dulebenets MA, Golias M, Mishra S, Heaslet W (2015) Evaluation of the floaterm concept at marine container terminals via simulation. Simul Model Pract Theory 54:19–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Trade Fact of the Week (2014) Cost to export one container of goods, New York to London. http://progressive-economy.org. Accessed 10 January 2016

  37. 37.

    TRP (2014) TRP 2013 General Schedule of Rates and Services. http://www.trp.com.ar. Accessed 10 January 2016

  38. 38.

    World Shipping Council (2016) Top 50 World Container Ports. http://www.worldshipping.org. Accessed 10 January 2016

  39. 39.

    Zampelli S, Vergados Y, Schaeren R, Dullaert W, Raa B (2013) The berth allocation and quay crane assignment problem using a CP approach. Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 880–896

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Mathworks (2016) Release 2014a. http://www.mathworks.com/. Accessed 10 January 2016

  41. 41.

    GAMS (2016) GAMS home page. https://www.gams.com/. Accessed 22 July 2016

  42. 42.

    NEOS Server (2016) State-of-the-Art Solvers for Numerical Optimization. http://www.neosserverorg/neos/. Accessed 10 January 2016

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was partially supported by the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Memphis (Memphis, TN) and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Florida A&M University - Florida State University (Tallahassee, FL). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the aforementioned organizations.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. A. Dulebenets.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dulebenets, M.A. The Vessel Scheduling Problem in a Liner Shipping Route with Heterogeneous Fleet. Int J Civ Eng 16, 19–32 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-016-0060-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Marine transportation
  • Liner shipping
  • Vessel scheduling
  • Heterogeneous vessel fleet
  • Total vessel turnaround cost
  • Non-linear optimization