Advertisement

Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 559–575 | Cite as

Practical approaches to chemical tanker scheduling in ports: a case study on the Port of Houston

  • Burak Cankaya
  • Ezra Wari
  • Berna Eren TokgozEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop practical scheduling solutions for chemical tankers visiting the Port of Houston (PoH). Chemical tanker movements represent approximately 42% of the Houston Ship Channel traffic. Historically, chemical tanker scheduling has been problematic and has resulted in long waiting times for tankers. Scheduling is difficult because chemical tankers carry several liquid cargoes and must visit multiple terminals for loading and unloading. Physical constraints (layout of the port and draft) and commercial constrains (such as terminal and personnel readiness for cargo handling operations, tank cleaning processes, and inspection requirements) create a complex scheduling problem, long waiting times, and unnecessary tanker movements in the port. These problems cause an increase in the business costs for shipowners, risk of collisions and allisions, production of additional air emissions, and decreases in the operating capacity of terminals. The recent expansion decisions for chemical and petrochemical plants in Houston, Texas, will exacerbate the problem. Significant benefits could thus be gained even for small scheduling improvements. Currently, the scheduling practice of loading/unloading activities in the PoH involves primarily the manual and de-centralized use of the “first come, first served” (FCFS) rule, which results in inefficiencies such as long waiting times and poor resource utilization. We propose two mathematical methods to address the tanker scheduling problem in the port: a mixed-integer programming (MIP) method, and a constraint programming (CP) method. The two methods are formulated as open-shop scheduling problems with sequence-dependent post-setup times. MIP yields optimum results that minimize makespan. However, computation time increases significantly as the number of tankers, or the number of terminals, increases. CP achieves better makespan results in a shorter run time, compared to MIP, for medium to large-scale problems including the problem considered in this case study. Overall, the results show that MIP is more suitable for real-time scheduling tools (hourly and daily), whereas CP is the better option for longer-horizon scheduling problems (weekly or monthly). Our models gave good alternative schedules under short optimization run times. Hence, they can afford decision makers sufficient time to complete multiple optimization scenarios and implementation setups.

Keywords

Berth allocation problem CP MIP Sequence-dependent setup Ship scheduling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was partially funded by the Center for Advances in Port Management, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA. Authors greatly appreciate port agent J. J. Plunkett of the Houston Pilot Association for providing the data for this study and for reviewing the paper. Authors would also like to thank shipping agent Darren Shelton for reviewing and making comments on chemical tanker operations. Finally, the authors are grateful to the anonymous MEL reviewers and editor-in-chief for their constructive comments and careful attention to the paper which enhanced its quality.

References

  1. Arnesen, M.J., M. Gjestvang, X. Wang, K. Fagerholt, K. Thun, and J.G. Rakke. 2017. A traveling salesman problem with pickups and deliveries, time windows and draft limits: Case study from chemical shipping. Computers & Operations Research 77: 20–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bai, D., Z.-H. Zhang, and Q. Zhang. 2016. Flexible open shop scheduling problem to minimize makespan. Computers & Operations Research 67: 207–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2015.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Błażewicz, J., E. Pesch, M. Sterna, and F. Werner. 2004. Open shop scheduling problems with late work criteria. Discrete Applied Mathematics 134 (1–3): 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-218X(03)00339-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blum, C. 2005. Beam-ACO: Hybridizing ant colony optimization with beam search: An application to open shop scheduling. Computers & Operations Research 32 (6): 1565–1591.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2003.11.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, G.G., S. Lawphongpanich, and K.P. Thurman. 1994. Optimizing ship berthing. Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 41 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brucker, P., J. Hurink, B. Jurisch, and B. Wöstmann. 1997. A branch and bound algorithm for the open-shop problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics 76 (1–3): 43–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-218X(96)00116-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chernykh, I., A. Kononov, and S. Sevastyanov. 2013. Efficient approximation algorithms for the routing open shop problem. Computers & Operations Research 40 (3): 841–847.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2012.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho, S.Y., Y.H. Lee, D.W. Cho, and M. Gen. 2016. Logistics network optimization considering balanced allocation and vehicle routing. Maritime Economics and Logistics 18 (1): 41–60.  https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2015.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doulabi, S.H.H., M. Avazbeigi, S. Arab, and H. Davoudpour. 2012. An effective hybrid simulated annealing and two mixed integer linear formulations for just-in-time open shop scheduling problem. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 59 (9–12): 1143–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3546-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Golias, M., I. Portal, D. Konur, E. Kaisar, and G. Kolomvos. 2014. Robust berth scheduling at marine container terminals via hierarchical optimization. Computers & Operations Research 41: 412–422.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2013.07.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang, Y.M., and J.C. Lin. 2011. A new bee colony optimization algorithm with idle-time-based filtering scheme for open shop-scheduling problems. Expert Systems with Applications 38 (5): 5438–5447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IHS Global Insight, Inc. 2009. An evaluation of maritime policy in meeting the commercial and security needs of the United States. Washington, DC: IHS Global Insight.Google Scholar
  13. International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2012. International shipping facts and figures: Information resources on trade safety, security and environment. London: International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
  14. Kis, T., D. de Werra, and W. Kubiak. 2010. A projective algorithm for preemptive open shop scheduling with two multiprocessor groups. Operations Research Letters 38 (2): 129–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2009.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kruse, C.J. 2015. Analysis of chemical tanker transits on the houston ship channel. College Station: Texas A&M Transportaion Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Ku, W.-Y., and J.C. Beck. 2016. Mixed integer programming models for job shop scheduling: A computational analysis. Computers & Operations Research 73: 165–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lai, K.K., and K. Shih. 1992. A study of container berth allocation. Journal of Advanced Transportation 26 (1): 45–60.  https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.5670260105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu, C.Y., and R.L. Bulfin. 1988. Scheduling open shops with unit execution times to minimize functions of due dates. Operations Research 36 (4): 553–559.  https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.36.4.553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Min, H., Seung-Bum Ahn, H. Lee, and H. Park. 2017. An integrated terminal operating system for enhancing the efficiency of seaport terminal operators. Maritime Economics and Logistics 19 (3): 428–450.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0069-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Naderi, B., S.M.T. Fatemi Ghomi, M. Aminnayeri, and M. Zandieh. 2011. Scheduling open shops with parallel machines to minimize total completion time. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 235 (5): 1275–1287.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2010.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Panneerselvam, R. 1999. Heuristic for moderated job shop scheduling problem to minimize makespan. Industrial Engineering Journal 28 (3): 26–29.Google Scholar
  22. Roshanaei, V., M.M. Seyyed Esfehani, and M. Zandieh. 2010. Integrating non-preemptive open shops scheduling with sequence-dependent setup times using advanced metaheuristics. Expert Systems with Applications 37 (1): 259–266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scully, S. 2015. Study cites growth in chemical tanker delays at Ship Channel. Houst. Chron. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Study-cites-growth-in-chemical-tankers-delays-at-6504304.php. Accessed 16 Feb 2018.
  24. Seeba, P. 2016. Coordinating chemical tanker movements on the houston ship channel. Gt. Houst, Port Bur.Google Scholar
  25. Seraj, O., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., and Jolai, F. 2009. A fuzzy multi-objective tabu-search method for a new bi-objective open shop scheduling problem. In 2009 International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering (pp. 164–169). IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIE.2009.5223549.
  26. Shakhlevich, N., Y. Sotskov, and F. Werner. 2000. Complexity of mixed shop scheduling problems: A survey. European Journal of Operational Research 120 (2): 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Song, L., T. Cherrett, and W. Guan. 2012. Study on berth planning problem in a container seaport: Using an integrated programming approach. Computers and Industrial Engineers 62 (1): 119–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2011.08.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ursavas, E. 2017. Crane allocation with stability considerations. Maritime Economics and Logistics 19 (2): 379–401.  https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2015.35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang, S., A. Alharbi, and P. Davy. 2014. Liner ship route schedule design with port time windows. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 41: 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technology ManagementEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical University WorldwideDaytona BeachUSA
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering, College of EngineeringLamar UniversityBeaumontUSA

Personalised recommendations