Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Vessel capacity restrictions in the fleet deployment problem: an application to the Panama Canal

  • S.I.: LOT
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyses the consequences of the upcoming Panama Canal expansion using a liner fleet deployment model (LFDM) applied to the container shipment routing problem. As the canal capacity will be increased in 2016 from 5000 TEUs to 13,000 TEUs vessels, new options will be offered to container liner shippers. Some earlier work has suggested impact on shipping patterns, transshipment and cost structures. We derive optimal results for a MIP implementation of the LFDM adapted to the Panama Canal problem for demand scenarios on different international container traffic routes corresponding to a range of ±17 % of the actual Canal traffic in 2014. Our results show positive effects on total costs from fleet redeployment of larger vessels to the Canal-crossing routes, leading to lowered vessel costs and higher utilization rates. The expansion is also environmentally advantageous since the fleet composition will induce lower bunker fuel consumption and thereby lower \(\hbox {CO}_2\) emissions. However, the total Canal costs are still predicted to be a minor proportion of the cost basis without incentives for additional or alternative Canal capacity.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The tonnage measurement system currently in use in the Panama Canal is the Panama Canal Universal Measurement System (PC/UMS). To determine the net Canal tonnage, is applied a mathematical formula for the measurement of the total ship volume. A net Panama Canal ton is equivalent to 100 cubic feet of volumetric capacity. One TEU is equivalent to approximately 13.2 net PC/UMS tons.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alderton, P. M. (2004). Reeds sea transport: Operation and economics. London: A&C Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, J. F. (2009). Joint routing and deployment of a fleet of container vessels. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 11(2), 186–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, A. J. (2006). Optimising the container transshipment hub location in northern Europe. Journal of Transport Geography, 14(3), 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendall, H., & Stent, A. (2001). A scheduling model for a high speed containership service: A hub and spoke short-sea application. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 3(3), 262–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boffey, T., Edmond, E., Hinxman, A. & Pursglove, C. (1979). Two approaches to scheduling container ships with an application to the North Atlantic route. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30(5), 413–425.

  • Branch, A., & Stopford, M. (2013). Maritime economics. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouer, B. D., Alvarez, J. F., Plum, C. E. M., Pisinger, D., & Sigurd, M. M. (2014). A Base Integer Programming Model and Benchmark Suite for Liner-Shipping Network Design. Transportation Science, 48(2), 281–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheaitou, A., & Cariou, P. (2012). Liner shipping service optimisation with reefer containers capacity: An application to northern Europe-South America trade. Maritime Policy and Management, 39(6), 589–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, S., & Perakis, A. (1996). Optimal liner fleet routeing strategies. Maritime Policy and Management, 23(3), 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, M., Fagerholt, K., & Ronen, D. (2004). Ship routing and scheduling: Status and perspectives. Transportation science, 38(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, T., Lin, C., Kung, J., & Lin, M. (2010). Planning the route of container ships: A fuzzy genetic approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(4), 2948–2956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, J. J., Wang, H., & Winebrake, J. J. (2009). The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14(8), 593–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daduna, J.R. & Hanisch, M. (2015). Impacts of the locks enlargement on the access to the Panama Canal on maritime container transport in the Central American region. Logistics Management. Springer, pp. 213–226.

  • de Marucci, S. (2012). The expansion of the Panama Canal and its impact on global \(\text{ CO }_2\) emissions from ships. Maritime Policy and Management, 39(6), 603–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, Y., Chen, Q., Quan, X., Long, L., & Fung, R. Y. (2011). Berth allocation considering fuel consumption and vessel emissions. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(6), 1021–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerholt, K. (1999). Optimal fleet design in a ship routing problem. International Transactions in Operational Research, 6(5), 453–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerholt, K. (2004). Designing optimal routes in a liner shipping problem. Maritime Policy and Management, 31(4), 259–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerholt, K., Johnsen, T. A., & Lindstad, H. (2009). Fleet deployment in liner shipping: A case study. Maritime Policy and Management, 36(5), 397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, L., Wilson, W. W., & Dahl, B. (2012a). Congestion, port expansion and spatial competition for US container imports. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(6), 1121–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, L., Wilson, W. W., & Dahl, B. (2012b). Impacts of new routes and ports on spatial competition for containerized imports into the United States. Maritime Policy and Management, 39(5), 479–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, L., Wilson, W. W., & Tolliver, D. (2009). Logistical rivalries and port competition for container flows to US markets: Impacts of changes in Canada’s logistics system and expansion of the Panama Canal. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 11(4), 327–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, L., Wilson, W. W., & Tolliver, D. (2010). Optimal network flows for containerized imports to the United States. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46(5), 735–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelareh, S., & Meng, Q. (2010). A novel modeling approach for the fleet deployment problem within a short-term planning horizon. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46(1), 76–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelareh, S., & Pisinger, D. (2011). Fleet deployment, network design and hub location of liner shipping companies. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(6), 947–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golias, M., Boile, M., Theofanis, S., & Efstathiou, C. (2010). The berth-scheduling problem: Maximizing berth productivity and minimizing fuel consumption and emissions production. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2166, 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoff, A., Andersson, H., Christiansen, M., Hasle, G., & LØKKETANGEN, A. (2010). Industrial aspects and literature survey: Fleet composition and routing. Computers and Operations Research, 37(12), 2041–2061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai, A., Shintani, K., & Papadimitriou, S. (2009). Multi-port vs. Hub-and-Spoke port calls by containerships. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(5), 740–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaramillo, D., & Perakis, A. N. (1991). Fleet deployment optimization for liner shipping Part 2. Implementation and results. Maritime Policy and Management, 18(4), 235–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlaftis, M. G., Kepaptsoglou, K., & Sambracos, E. (2009). Containership routing with time deadlines and simultaneous deliveries and pick-ups. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(1), 210–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontovas, C. A., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2011). The link between economy and environment in the post-crisis era: lessons learned from slow steaming. International Journal of Decision Sciences, Risk and Management, 3(3–4), 311–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D., Heaver, T. D., & Uyeno, D. (1987). Planning and scheduling for efficiency in liner shipping. Maritime Policy and Management, 14(2), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, N., & Veenstra, A. (2010). A quantitative analysis of container vessel arrival planning strategies. OR Spectrum, 32(3), 477–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Ye, H., & Yuan, X. (2011). Tactical planning models for managing container flow and ship deployment. Maritime Policy and Management, 38(5), 487–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, Q., & Wang, S. (2011a). Liner shipping service network design with empty container repositioning. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(5), 695–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, Q., & Wang, S. (2011b). Optimal operating strategy for a long-haul liner service route. European Journal Operational Research, 215(1), 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, Q., & Wang, S. (2012). Liner ship fleet deployment with week-dependent container shipment demand. European Journal Operational Research, 222(2), 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, Q., Wang, S., Andersson, H., & Thun, K. (2014). Containership routing and scheduling in liner shipping: overview and future research directions. Transportation Science, 48(2), 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, Q., Wang, S., & Liu, Z. (2012). Network design for shipping service of large-scale intermodal liners. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2269, 42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, Q., & Wang, T. (2011). A scenario-based dynamic programming model for multi-period liner ship fleet planning. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(4), 401–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, Q., Wang, T., & Wang, S. (2012). Short-term liner ship fleet planning with container transshipment and uncertain container shipment demand. European Journal Operational Research, 223(1), 96–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moura O, M. C., Pato, M. V., & Paixa O, A. C. (2002). Ship assignment with hub and spoke constraints. Maritime Policy and Management, 29(2), 135–150.

  • Notteboom, T. E., & Vernimmen, B. (2009). The effect of high fuel costs on liner service configuration in container shipping. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(5), 325–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panama Canal Authority, Maritime Services-PanCanal.com, 2015. (http://micanaldepanama.com).

  • Perakis, A., & Jaramillo, D. (1991). Fleet deployment optimization for liner shipping Part 1. Background, problem formulation and solution approaches. Maritime Policy and Management, 18(3), 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, B., & Perkins, A. (1997). Fleet deployment optimization for liner shipping: An integer programming model. Maritime Policy and Management, 24(2), 183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rana, K., & Vickson, R. (1988). A model and solution algorithm for optimal routing of a time-chartered containership. Transportation Science, 22(2), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rana, K., & Vickson, R. (1991). Routing container ships using Lagrangean relaxation and decomposition. Transportation Science, 25(3), 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, L. B., & Pisinger, D. (2012). A branch and cut algorithm for the container shipping network design problem. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 24(3), 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue, J. P., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2013). The geography of transport systems (2nd edn.). New York: Routledge.

  • Ronen, D. (1993). Ship scheduling: The last decade. European Journal Operational Research, 71(3), 325–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronen, D. (2011). The effect of oil price on containership speed and fleet size. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(1), 211–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambracos, E., Paravantis, J. A., Tarantilis, C. D., & Kiranoudis, C. T. (2004). Dispatching of small containers via coastal freight liners: The case of the Aegean Sea. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(2), 365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shintani, K., Imai, A., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2007). The container shipping network design problem with empty container repositioning. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 43(1), 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, D., & Panayides, P. M. (2002). A conceptual application of cooperative game theory to liner shipping strategic alliances. Maritime Policy and Management, 29(3), 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran, N. K., & Haasis, H. (2015). Literature survey of network optimization in container liner shipping. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 27(2–3), 139–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD, (2015). Review of maritime transport. Geneva, (UNCTAD/RMT/2015).

  • Wang, S., & Meng, Q. (2011). Schedule design and container routing in liner shipping. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2222, 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., & Meng, Q. (2012a). Liner ship route schedule design with sea contingency time and port time uncertainty. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 46(5), 615–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., & Meng, Q. (2012b). Liner ship fleet deployment with container transshipment operations. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(2), 470–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., & Meng, Q. (2012c). Sailing speed optimization for container ships in a liner shipping network. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(3), 701–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., & Meng, Q. (2012d). Robust schedule design for liner shipping services. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(6), 1093–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., Meng, Q., & Bell, M. G. (2013). Liner ship route capacity utilization estimation with a bounded polyhedral container shipment demand pattern. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 47, 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., Meng, Q., & Liu, Z. (2013). A note on “Berth allocation considering fuel consumption and vessel emissions”. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 49(1), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., Wang, T., & Meng, Q. (2011). A note on liner ship fleet deployment. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 23(4), 422–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), Louvain School of Management, Université catholique de Louvain, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Manuel Herrera & Per J. Agrell

  2. DAEA, TIDES, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain

    Casiano Manrique-de-Lara-Peñate

  3. DAEA, EIT, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain

    Lourdes Trujillo

Authors
  1. Manuel Herrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Per J. Agrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Casiano Manrique-de-Lara-Peñate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lourdes Trujillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Herrera.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

Table 11 Panama Canal tariffs.
figure a
Full size table
Table 12 Lines per route
Full size table
Table 13 Distance between ports (nm)
Full size table
Table 14 Fuel consumption and cost per mile
Full size table
Table 15 Fleet characteristics.
figure b
Full size table
Table 16 Route fixed costs \(c_rv^{fix}\) (kUSD/week) by route, vessel type and speed (kts)
Full size table
Table 17 Fleet deployment changes (number of each type of ship)
Full size table
Table 18 Final demand scenario ds5 (227,808 TEU/week)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herrera, M., Agrell, P.J., Manrique-de-Lara-Peñate, C. et al. Vessel capacity restrictions in the fleet deployment problem: an application to the Panama Canal. Ann Oper Res 253, 845–869 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2262-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2262-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation